eos_nyxia

More and more of our public libraries, especially the large and central ones, have universal gender-neutral washrooms now. Also, many of the larger public pools have men's, women's, and universal gender change rooms. The men's and women's changerooms are open, but the universal change room has all closed stalls. I can't think of anywhere else that I've seen them, though. I have no idea what my alma mater is doing, and I haven't been on a major university campus for a while.

Just anecdotally (and not from personal experience or the experience of people I know), quite a few men either hide their conservative political status or list themselves as "moderate" when they are not. Sort of like how people (allegedly) hide the fact that they have children and then try to get with childfree people (no children, never want them). I assume it's a matter of trying to nab people via deception and the "sunk cost" fallacy.

As a woman, I don't have the luxury to not care about forced birth. Which to be honest, that luxury sounds nice. (Though let's be real, I'm sure the well-offs in the States will find a way to get it done safely.) If it doesn't affect me personally, it potentially affects people I know, and I just generally care too? Let's just say I have to choose between severely limiting my consumption and the state attempting to force me to bring a life I don't want to bring into this world? It's a no-brainer. Abject poverty it is!

There are number of issues that could be focused on, including the purely economic. But let me guess, there aren't that many Canadian women who are signing up to get their reproductive rights taken away. For that alone, even if just for the principle of it, I would give up A LOT materially and economically. I'm sure we have our conservative women who are either super brainwashed or believe that they would somehow benefit enough from aligning with the current US administration. The joke's on them though, those women are gonna get Serena Joy'ed at best (Handmaid's Tale).

There is the human desire to be seen along with the desire to do the seeing. You could say that there is a very feminine, primal desire that centres strongly around being seen though, which is a deep and contentious issue for many, many women, to the point that it fragments us at a core level, alienating us from our own bodies, depriving us of the belief in our own agency, and robbing us of the potential to be unfettered in our personal expression and sense of feminine power. The way in which we are looked at forms a part of this sort of toxic but affirming feedback loop. It's like a quick sugar rush with an injection of poison and violent nausea. IMO the more of this there is ("cheap, dehumanizing, low-quality male attention"), the more the poison effect becomes impossible to ignore. The younger and more inexperienced you are, the more this desire is superficial and limited in scope for both sexes. As you get older and more experienced, your needs tend to get more extensive and complex (though some people stay where they are as if stuck in a loop for decades, if not their whole lives). Do you know what this is usually called when people stay the same? Stunted. Immature. But when you've not had the opportunity to feel truly seen or do the seeing, then you start fetishizing every last scrap of attention, even the idea of it. I'm saying this as an observation, not a judgment. This is at the core of the issue, isn't it? All the men who feel like sex is a way of truly being "seen" and having your being affirmed in a fundamental way, if not the ONLY way. It was never just about getting off or getting physically serviced, or else so many men wouldn't have a problem with paying for it (because this is often viewed as "illegitimate" or pathetic by some) or the women who sell sexual services. You feel like you NEED THIS to be whole, to be a man, to be empowered, to truly experience life, etc. If this is how you feel, no wonder you feel like women-at-large are holding you hostage. Conflicting drives, we all tend to have them until some combination of time or effort sorts it out. For many, it never gets truly sorted out. But many women learn to embrace invisibility, even as they might have some deeply lingering, conflicting feelings about it. It's just that.... you're not looking at all those other women, are you? (Wouldn't it be nice, to have a world where we feel free to be truly seen, and to see others truly?)

This is especially a late-stage capitalism issue, isn't it? At least one person has already brought it up in this thread. I mean.... how many corporations and company owners truly care about their consumers? Is every waitress who works at Applebee's a shitty and immoral person because they serve junk food there? A woman's gotta eat somehow. Unmigitated greed is a separate issue. You're right, it's better to get it from women who are likely getting a raw deal... For what it's worth, I respect women who are called to the "sacred prostitute" role, which is an extremely ancient archetype that is older than the Abrahamic religions (e.g. Cult of Isis adjacent prostitution). In this incarnation, it deserves to be treated respectfully as a social service profession, like being a therapist or counsellor, or perhaps a massage therapist. By default, this eliminates many exploitative behaviours on the part of providers. At the very least, someone who is serving others in this way deserves respect for what they do for others, both from their clients and society at large.

I mean.... if you take away both the appreciation for male attention and liking and needing the money, what is there left for many women, especially when it comes to casual sex? Statistically speaking, it's certainly not orgasms, lol. What is the payoff beyond satiating your initial curiosity, if you're not getting pleasured like a man while also dealing with the risks you deal with as a woman? Besides, if you enjoy sex like the stereotypical man, you typically get shamed for that (in mainstream society, not talking about niche social circles). Being promiscuous and not being socially maneuvering (like "manipulative", or obfuscating what you do) is not often a winning combination. So you give freely as a woman (but like, not to too many others!), and you don't even get a basic, human level of respect where you get seen and treated as an actual person? What is the point? It's a sucker's deal. At least sex workers (who are not being trafficked and have some level of economic choice when it comes to their profession) are getting something concrete in return. Sex is literally a transaction, as in, the transaction of physical, emotional, and subtle energies. This doesn't just have to be under a capitalistic framework (though modern casual sex very much is). Even at its most "spiritually elevated" and mutually beneficial state, things of value must be exchanged for it to be valuable. This includes actual, mutual pleasure and emotional affirmation. Typically, the men are not offering enough value for what they are asking for in the way they are asking for it, so that is where the money comes in.

I think it is unlikely as well (physical war). If they're interested in propaganda, they'd best use a different technique rather than overt attempts at causing diversion/ exhaustion combined with disrespect. If they're even mentally capable of it, that is. Again, treating us as America 2.0 which is going to continue to go along with whatever whims they have is a mistake that enough Canadians will not overlook anymore, looming tariff or no tariff. I've said before -- this is a breaking point. The overt lack of "respect" thing is huge. At least make SOME attempt to slide the disrespect under the rug ("plausible deniability") and present some kind of cohesive narrative about what you actually want. (I mean, please don't. Please keep making it easier for us to turn against you so we can be kicked into gear and sort ourselves out already. As someone mentioned before, we very much have our own issues as a country.) He does not represent our zeitgeist, especially right now.

Non-Canadians gravely underestimate how hard Canadians will fight back when pushed into a corner, whether in a trade war or an actual, real arms war. They should, at the very least, be prepared to bleed in ways that are highly, deeply inconvenient and painful for them. At this point, the more we are pushed unjustifiably and the more disrespect there is, the more we will push back. Like... my grandfather did not lose his leg fighting Nazis and fascists for no reason. It was a long time ago, but men THREW THEMSELVES into enlisting in that war. Unfortunately, it often takes conflict and a universal threat to have this level of solidarity. When was the last time we had this level of solidarity in Canada anyway?

As for fentanyl coming in from Canada because of the so-called drug war; do you know how little of it is Canadian? From your own media sources, it's about: 0.2% https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/world/canada/canada-fentanyl-trump.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/03/politics/us-canada-trade-fentanyl-fact-check/index.html We know that he's making up reasons for whatever it is that he has in mind.

FYI, that money was already going to be put into border security. Canada already agreed to it... https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2024/12/the-government-of-canadas-border-plan-significant-investments-to-strengthen-border-security-and-our-immigration-system.html The time stamp is at the bottom of that webpage (December 2024). It's being reframed as some kind of brand-new win in media, and it is not. It's our PM patting DT on the back and saying "yep, you won!". This is literally what DT does -- spread misinformation. This video was from last month.

It's a 30-day pause on tariffs, after which it will be dangling over our heads again. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trump-speak-trade-war-1.7448805?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar And he's still on about this, acting like an abusive partner. Either he's spouting complete nonsense, he's distracting from other things he's doing on purpose, or it really is an overt threat. Which one is it primarily? https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5123538-trump-canada-51st-state/ Either way, I'm STILL not going back to supporting American megacorps and businesses, and I suspect that many other Canadians feel the same way.

Currently: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-ripping-up-province-contract-with-starlink-1.7448763 Meanwhile, yesterday in BC: Wow, gaslighting. Who would have expected that?? https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/white-house-mexico-is-serious-canada-appears-have-misunderstood-trumps-executive-2025-02-03/

What I find disappointing is that people STILL need to find a common enemy to unite against, or else we tend to find yet another reason to fragment amongst ourselves.

Just because historically we're "polite", tend to be fatalistic, and have gone along with them and supported them in the past (including supporting their stupid wars), this doesn't mean that we're going to keep bending over. This is likely the permanent breaking point for us. Like... even conservatives have turned against Trump here, though maybe there's a few braindead bottom feeders left. Even just the idea of us all being one state, lol. Spoken like someone who understands nothing about Canada and doesn't want to know anything. At least split it up, WTF?? Have fun with the riots, lol.

This is like watching a game of Civ where that one leader starts acting unhinged in diplomacy, lol

Trudeau's speech: FYI, Canadians are pretty much universally on board with this. I'm optimistic about Canada's long-term prospects, and I think we're in the process of being snapped out of our own lethargy and complicity when it comes to our dependence on the US. Many of us are already in the process of weaning ourselves off American megacorps and products (e.g. Amazon) in response to this. Ironically, Trump might be doing much more for Canadian unity and strengthening our identity and sense of collective purpose. I'm not so optimistic for you all in the US of A, particularly for the common person without wealth. You guys have your own gauntlet ahead of you, and must somehow decide for yourselves, both individually and collectively, despite the shellshock... At its heart, this isn't just a trade war about the exchange of currency and natural resources. This is also a war of cultures and values.

Ok, name a time when there was currency but no paid sex... This has been done before. A number of Polynesian societies were not so precious about sex, nor did they fetishize it. People still coupled up, most often stayed coupled up (to my knowledge), and had kids. Believe it or not, men still wanted to be around women.

My overall impression is that people don't want to hear you talk about it, even if it's a human experience that needs to be processed and made sense of just like any other. Also, there is a stupid taboo against calling yourself beautiful, even if it's other people who decided that you were in the first place. They want the power to build you up and rip you down at their discretion. You used to see a similar type of behaviour in tabloid magazines in the 2000s with people crucifying female celebrities and pop stars. The paps were like wolves back then. Like shut up, be pretty, and be of use to other people. But surely anyone with any sense and experience sees how disposable they are. From my perspective -- I don't make money or receive other material benefits from my appearance, so I don't see why I ought to be grateful for it, just because it's something other people covet and I myself used to covet. If all I wanted was the simple validation of being affirmed constantly, that wore off a long time ago. I grew up, I got older, and the attention hasn't stopped. But I don't have a hole in me that needs constant filling with the attention and approval of strangers and acquaintances for any reason at all. I'm quite whole enough, thank you. Sure, I have the human desire to be seen, admired, and appreciated, even for my looks. Within reason though. People project onto you a lot, especially some men. They think that just because THEY would milk it for all it's worth that all (i.e. to use it like a weapon or in a sociopathic way) therefore most women would. I have never seen evidence of this being truth. As far as I'm concerned, other people made these rules, not me, They have their complexes about it, and sometimes I've had my own. Sometimes there is no overlap.

I guess it depends on what your 'beauty features' are, but this is what I've found works. At work: Dress as androgynously as possible without looking sloppy. If you have curves, make sure you disguise them. Don't wear clothes that are too tight but also don't wear clothes which are too baggy; it just makes it more obvious. Don't wear turtlenecks if you have boobs lol. Don't wear makeup, or keep it to a bare minimum. Don't do too much with your hair. In general, don't be flashy with anything. If you have a face that is considered conventionally attractive enough, people still might think you're pretty without makeup, but you'll be less threatening. In the presence of women, either ignore the men entirely or do the bare minimum of politeness, especially if someone's partner or someone they're interested in is there. Make it clear that you're not competing and not interested in it. If you're outside: Resting bitch face goes a long way. Wear a resting bitch face so much that you start to wonder if this is, actually, in fact, just your normal expression. Dress eccentrically. I don't mean like "manic pixie dreamgirl" quirky cute, I mean like "old bag lady that collects 200-year-old musty books and also cats" eccentric. Confuse people with your outfit so they don't get distracted by your face. Look expensive, as it will make you look significantly less approachable. Best paired with a resting bitch face and an attitude. Though this might backfire and you'll get another type of guy you probably don't want... As lame as this is (because lots of men do not take a woman's "no" or lack of interest seriously) -- have a man with you who looks like he doesn't take shit. Or better yet, go move to a city where no one approaches strangers. If you think this all sounds like a massive pain in the ass, you are correct. It is. Someone might STILL hate you anyway.

After a few years of finding it unsufferably high maintenance, I've slowly become a convert to the traditional (raw) cast iron pan. The main advantages: It tends to be much better for anything where you need to develop a crust or sear. Anything where you have to bake it, including starting on the stovetop first. E.g. a casserole. Again, much better crust. It lasts forever. E.g. my mom has a cast iron wok she bought before I was born, and I'm probably going to inherit it lol. Once you've preheated it (which is helpful if you multi-task), it cooks everything really quick. Eggs cook in 15 seconds, no joke. After a while, you get used to the whole seasoning and cleaning process, and it becomes second nature.

Not all seed oils are created equally though.

Yea, it is stupid. I think it was probably an American thing? I've never heard about this being an issue in Europe. Ironically, one of the earliest American movie stars/ sex symbols was Asian (Sessue Hayakwa). Silent film era. He was made a sex symbol by American white women in the 1910s/early 1920s, though I don't think that was the intent of whoever cast him as a "dangerous foreign villain" in movies lol. Growing up, I had no idea who he was when he was younger, but I watched "Bridge over the River Kwai" (1957) with my parents. This dude was a like a bonafide Asian Jock too. It seems like everything fell off after this due to the "yellow peril" in America, and ever since then, it's been laundromat owners, dweebs, or martial artists. Martial artists are cool though.

To my awareness, what you're describing originated and peaked the most strongly in the early 2010s, especially with the use of "woke" in a nonsarcastic, non-ironic way (i.e. these days you hear it used more to insult people rather than hearing people use it as a positive self-identifier). I was an undergrad when this peaked. Well, most of these people were young adults and probably not much older than their mid-thirties, even back in the 2010s. The people who hold onto it the longest and the hardest, and go into it the deepest, are those with the most to lose if they lose their grip. It's power. It represents survival, and they believe they are fighting for their right to take up space, and exist and speak freely. It's understandable, right? About 15 years ago, when I was the most plugged into these type of communities, I concluded that it is a combination of the following things: oppressed people want to oppress people (but want the power to control the language around it, to define it as non-oppression in every sense). Invalidated people want the power to invalidate. The use of it is often very blunt and overt and not subtle at all. People tend to not be realistic about the effects of such strategies long term on both individuals and communities, and many don't care. I am talking about the most vocal, most aggressive people. It's talk or be talked over. the obsession with surface-level things (i.e. "virtue signalling") is first about some combination of fitting into and arbitrating social dynamics in a group. Even if it doesn't actually start out that way and people truly do pursue social activism in good faith, it often devolves into this. Why do conservative people so often need a boogeyman? If there isn't one in sight, they might just make one. And if there is one, why not some embellishment here and there? In my grandpa's generation, it was the Red Scare, the commies, and those hippie university kids. My dad sometimes dryly brings up that most of those progressive hippie kids of his generation (the ones with the long hair that did anti-war protests about Vietnam) graduated, put on the suits, and became corporate CEOs who couldn't give a damn less about their children and grandchildren's generation, whether it was about the environment we'd have to live in or our comparative lack of economic prospects. AKA. Those were the boomers. In my great grandfather's generation, it was the left-leaning, actually communist intellectuals, artists, and philosophers. (Communism used to mean something different back then lol, as it seems to every 20 years or so.)

Sorry, what's stupid?