u/Acrobatic_Long_6059

When I think about many of the common insults in English across time (both in general and the ones aimed at men), I notice a common thread in the insult being some reference to femininity in a pejorative way, or to being in an "effeminate" position as if in some derogatory sense. Even the homophobic ones seem, at their core, rooted in misogyny.

For example, terms like: pussy, cunt, beta, cuckold, bastard, little bitch, soy boy, pretty boy, bastard, Pussywhipped, "gay" and the f slur as an insult, etc

Also phrases like: "get fucked", "Son of a bitch", making X "your bitch", "quit bitching", "grow a pair"
"don't get your panties in a twist", saying who
"wears the pants" in one's relationship, etc

Edit: perhaps I should have said rooted in sexism more broadly

When I was in elementary school, so many teachers would correct us from when we said “can I do X” to say “may I do X”. Apparently this was a common experience in my generation, where "can I go to the bathroom?" would often be met with a playfully smug "I don't know, can you?"

But is it actually wrong to say the former instead of the latter, when it’s often used and understood to mean the same thing, colloquially? Is it technically incorrect, or does it depend on whether or not you’re a prescriptivist?

Edit: grammar (ironically)

I swear, my genetics are holding me back from staying fit. I have a slower metabolism and store fat so much more easily than my non-Indian friends.

I‘ve also noticed all the middle-aged women in my extended family (and other Indian families) put on and retain weight more, and struggle to lose it even with much effort. I read somewhere that it was common for Indians due to the impact of generations of famines. Is this a thing?

Any advice on how to stay fit as a young Indian woman?

For context, I'm a Canadian with a BA in PPE (Philosophy emphasis). I'll be applying this cycle to high-ranking law schools in the US and Canada, and though things have gotten increasingly competitive, I'm relatively confident about my prospects. I'll likely also be applying to a few graduate programs (Bioethics, Public Policy, etc), though I'm not sure how likely it is I'd choose that route over law school.

While important, my primary concern is not what makes the most money. I want to do what I'm passionate about. I believe I could do well in the legal field, but as an ultimate career goal, I would really like to end up in legal academia. I'm sure I'd still be relatively content just practicing if that's how things go, but given the choice, I know academia would be far more fulfilling and suited to my interests. I understand that this path is quite competitive, so I would sincerely appreciate any advice on how best to position myself for it.

I already have a decent bit of research experience and held several TAships throughout my undergrad. I'm currently working on a paper co-authored with a professor of mine, which we conceptualized together, and hope to soon submit for review.

One thing I'm specifically curious about is joint programs. For example, the JD/PhD in Philosophy program, such as the ones at UPenn, UCLA, and the University of Toronto. Should I be prioritizing these kinds of programs? And in terms of qualifications, would a JD and a PhD in Philosophy suffice for legal academia? Would an SJD be viewed more favorably than a PhD in Philosophy or another field?

The cost of living is insane, as much as I'd rather be shopping at a local Canadian-owned grocery store, I can't afford it. I still do my best to check labels to buy Canadian brands over American ones, and have completely switched from using Uber to my area's new local ride sharing app.

I'm not that well-versed on the economy, but I want to do whatever I can, within my means, not to send money to America and to make this ridiculous trade war hurt.

What else can I do to help?

I'll definitely be watching, personally. It looks like Pitch Perfect meets Step Up, but Bollywood.

To me it seems like they're clearly just trying to stir the pot with ragebait.

"If you interpret hell as burning for an unending duration of time, at what point would your identity become someone that is burning in hell rather than someone who used to exist as a human for a few decades that did something to go to hell?

Because imagine you're in hell and the millennia pass, trillions of years go by, and you're still there burning in hell. At that point, how relevant is it that you used to exist as a human for a few decades? In the grand scheme of things, that would just be a tiny minuscule speck of dust, so the whole of your identity would be swallowed up by the fact that you're someone that's burning in hell. This is why I don't think any finite crime would justify an eternal punishment. Are you still the same person, after trillions of years of burning in hell, as you are now?"

Credit to @the_absolute_light on TikTok for this question. It's not mine, but I found it thought-provoking and just wanted to share it to hear what others think.

When I think about this question, immediately, some heavy hitters like Agatha Christie, Ursula K. Le Guin, and J.K. Rowling come to mind.

However, I'm especially curious about more modern or lesser-known female authors that might be your favourite.

Some I'd like to see:

• Unreliable narrator
• Friends to enemies to lovers
• Canonically "ugly" MC
• Antagonists with genuine depth and character arcs
• Obsession or revenge plots
• Historical characters time travelling to present day
• Divorced characters getting back together
• MC's romantic rival later becomes their love interest
• Popular MC x Popular LI
• Loser MC x Loser LI
• Hero, villain & civilian love triangle
• Conflicts where both sides are morally grey
• Fake amnesia
• Reformed villain MC
• Genuinely platonic opposite-sex friendships
• Slow-burn neighbours to lovers
• Slow-burn friends to enemies
• Criminal MC (heist, globe-trotting fugitive, spy, etc)
• LI is a really nice golden retriever who only hates the MC
• Stoic character accidentally adopting child
• Hilarious, charismatic villains
• MC with children and/or a family (not necessarily relevant to the plot)
• Fourth wall breaking
• Cat-and-mouse chase or power game between two rivals
• MC's BFF is complex with their own personality and subplot
• Highly-competent FMC, "ditzy" male LI (E.g: CEO is a himbo running his company into the ground)

I am not personally religious and know relatively little about Islamic theology, but I am a PPE student, and have often heard the distinction made between these two sects during my studies. I've looked up this subject in the past, but the context surrounding the divide seemed far more elaborate and nuanced for a simple Google search to properly address, which is why I'm here!

I'm curious to learn about what factors historically drove the split, what the major differences are between the two, and perhaps some modern context for how the divide between these two branches manifests today.

I have also heard Sunni-Shia divide be loosely compared to the Catholic-Protestant split, and I'm wondering if this is actually an apt characterization.

E.g: I'm a girl & I've often shown my friends pics of guys I'm seeing (who I think are cute) who'll say they don't think they're that cute. I get that that’s their opinion, but if they know their friend likes him, why say that? It feels like a relatively common thing in female friendships and is lowkey hurtful.

I already have Glam Kitchen. Any other cool or useful custom TV channel mods people would recommend?