u/No-Working2160

Looking for a name but not for a kid. Must be white European or at the very least Asian, no Indians though. Could be Christian or also of indigenous european (white) pagan. Non hebrew.

My ideas so far for a male:

Thor, Benito, Heinrich, Franco, Adolphe, Vladimir, Ratko, Hermann, Anders, Slobodan, Miloš, Voldemort, Pogrom

Ideas for girl:

Artemis, Runa, Freya, Zyankali, Margaret, The wicked wich of the west, Hillary, Marie Antoinette, Kris Jenner

I'm on episode 7 and I didn't want to come onto reddit before seeing all the released episodes, but this has been pissing me off so much.

Ryan, apart from performing this cringe spiritual guru, acts like he has some kind of high performer career going on. But what does he do? "public speaker". He goes to events where he blabs sweet nothings for corporate airheads who are paid to listen to him.

Then he gets home and acts like this takes so much, he needs DAYS to regain energy. Like come on dude, you're not a neurosurgeon and you didn't speak at the UN security council. It's your job to hold silly little keynotes. You should be able to get home and have your shit together. If you lost interest, just say it rather than doing this pathetic show.

EDIT: yeah I get it, people have social anxiety, people feel drained after major social events... of course that's all true! But it's also true that this guy does public speaking FOR A LIVING. He DELIBERATELY signed up for a dating show with extreme camera time for a long time and extreme public exposure. He scheduled this. It's not comparable to us regular people having to speak in public in our regular life. We should hold this man to a higher standard because what he did here is just not fair to Cuba.

I'm not sure if interior design / decorating content actually got worse or if I just got better at spotting that it's not good.

I mostly look at instagram content for inspo and here is what I see a lot that doesn't help me at all:

- set ups that make sense in that particular video and that particular video only. I am talking about intricate lamp / mirror / decoration / coffee table book setups that look stunning in the instagram reel but it is filmed in a certain angle with certain lighting and I can tell that it does not actually tie into any room nicely when it is just plain sitting there

- content creators that just fill their apartment with all the trendy items, rearange them every now and then, add something from an ikea ad and call it a day. I am talking about appartments filled with the Togo Sofa, string / telescope shelves, the ikea donut lamp, kartell nightstand, lantern lamps, balton racks... my only take away from this is that if you got enough money you can just buy the right designer items, throw them into a room and feel like an interior designer

- "hacks" that are either just the regular use of an item or whole damn bob the builder construction sites

- decoration but it's just plain consumerism where you have to keep up with the trends / seasons and just keep buying new amazon landfill crap to stay up to date

I used to look at pinterest but as a regular person with a regular life I find it increasingly tedious. I always try to look at somewhat realistic inspo but end up looking at these intricate, extremely specific interior designs that could never, ever be my life. And it just makes me feel shitty about my regular shmegular life where I don't have a colour drenched sitting room with nothing but beautiful things to put into. Oh and don't get me startet on the AI slop posts.

So- where to look for actual inspiration? Any tips?

I just finished Post Office and it's my first work by Bukowski. I read it because I wanted to know what it is all about. For most of my adult life, Bukowski has been a name I came across frequently and I always got the impression that he is a "men's favorite writer". I have never heard a woman referencing Bukowski or even mentioning his work, let alone obsess over him. I have, however, encountered many men, both in literature / movies and in real life, who pride themselves in referencing Bukowski and speak about him & his work in a very admiring tone. I often encountered men who I suspected of wanting to be Bukowksi, the same kind of men who are utterly in awe over that "Dude" guy from the Big Lebowsky. I have never met a queer man obsessing over Bukowski or even being interested at all.

That being said, I enjoyed Post Office a lot, I like this kind of low level scum / dirt bag literature. I appreciated his perspective on class consciousness.

However, in chapter 14, the main character rapes a woman. I found it shocking, but that's of no further interest, since it was meant to be shocking. I was curious if he would follow up the scene with some kind of meta contextualization of the scene, a catharsis or narrative on how the fictional character Chinasky would incorporate the event into his own self-image. As far as I can tell, none of that happened, the rape scene was just kind of stood for itself with no further hint for interpretation. Please do correct me if I am wrong on this take and if I have missed something!!

After I finished it, I went to read reviews online to find out if there is a canon position towards the rape scene. As far as I could tell, there isn't really. I have read a couple reviews from classic newspapers / publishers where the rape is not mentioned at all but Chinasky is rather depicted as someone who "unsuccessfully tries to establish a stable sexual relationship" - quote from the KiWi publishing house that published the german edition. This is a representative example for the general tone I have encountered. I have also found a couple of scientific research papers that elaborated on the question whether or not Bukowski objectifies women in his work. Obviously, the answer is yes. I found some reddit posts concerning the rape. Most of them were concerned with the fact that Chinasky is an autofictional character and apparently, the scene in Post Office isn't even the worst of his rape scenes. There has been some interesting discourse around whether or not Bukowski is a rapist or misogynist and how much of his autofictional characters deeds are factual. I find this discussion interesting, however it is not what I actually want to speak about here.

I want to speak about how Bukowski fandom / his cultural reception deals with his casual mention of his autofictional character raping a woman. The first thing I noticed is that his fans / readers are having a much harder time naming the rape for what it is than the author & main character does. I have read "quasi rape" or whole paragraphs of people trying to find hints in the book that could make it not rape. But Bukowski could not have been clearer in the book: the woman yelled "rape!" and Chinasky said "and she was right", to paraphrase. Again, correct me if I have missed something, but I am pretty sure that nothing was said that could make the reader think it could've been anything other than rape. And I think I have been looking for these hints really hard too, because I actually like Chinasky, I sympathize with him, I think he is nonchalant and witty and funny. I can see what women see in him, despite him being a misogynist. I wanted him to be a good guy so bad. But I am able to look the facts in the eye and realize that he is not. And he never even claimed to be! So what makes his readers want to turn a blind eye to him being a rapist so bad? Is it because the rape scene is so abrupt and shocking that we can just not wrap our head around the fact? My theory on this is that the fact that his readers have such a hard time calling the rape by it's name is part of rape culture. We are just so trained to find excuses / be blind towards sexual violence against woman that it happens on a reflex, rather than dealing with the fact that sexual violence is thrown in our face.

I have seen multiple readers compare it to Nabokovs "Lolita", which obviously is not a good comparison. Lolita is not autofictional and in Lolita, there is definitely this meta contextualization where the author clearly wants the reader to realize that the narrator / main character is actually the villain and is an unreliable narrator. We don't have this setting in Post Office. The rape scene could, however, be the hint to fill in the blanks in other parts of the book. Chinasky keeps being left by women and he always acts so non-chalant and understanding about it. He gives reasons for Betty and Joyce but not Faye. She takes his child and leaves, and he is so understanding about it - but what is he understanding? He must know that he wasn't a good partner & father to be so understanding, but was it that he actually did? Maybe it is harmless, maybe their life was just too miserable. Maybe it was more, with Faye and the other women too. Who is to say that a rapist wouldn't rape his girlfriend / wife? Beat them? On the other hand: if Chinasky already admitted to a rape, why would he not admit to domestic violence? We get another blank when he talks about not hitting Faye because it is hard to hit a girl with grey hair - so who does he beat? Maybe no one, maybe all his girlfriends. Maybe this is all fictional, maybe not. I have read in my little "research" that apparently, Bukowski has many extremely violent rape scenes in his other work. Personally, I don't find the discourse around whether that is okay or not very interesting. I do know, however, that I would not want to be alone with this man. If you are familiar with the case of Till Lindemann - men who fantasize about violating woman on a regular basis, be it in their art or otherwise, are maybe not guilty but they are a liability and I am not taking any chances.

I am not sure if Bukowski leaves these blanks on purpose for us to figure out or if he even sees them as blanks or if he rather assumes that it is obvious how to fill them in. I tend to the second theory. Maybe Chinasky would hit his girlfriends occasionally but finds it so normal that he doesn't feel it worth mentioning. I am curious to hear about your opinions on this. In the end, this is what I also like a lot about Post Office. Bukowski decides how he wants to write is life's story, how much fiction he sprinkles in, where to leave a blank. And it is up to us to have the critical thinking to form an opinion on it. It is a very "take it or leave it" approach and I appreciate that.

To close my argument, after all I have read from and about Bukowski, I am definitely seeing the men who obsess over him in a different light. I am not saying being a fan of Bukowskis makes a man a misogynistic rape-enthusiast by default. But next time I encounter one in the wild, I will be asking more questions about what exactly they like about Bukowski and how they feel about his autofictional sexual / domestic violence.

As for Bukowski, I guess my final thought is that I appreciate his work but not the man behind it. I think it gives us many interesting topics to think and talk about, but I am not interested in reading any more of his ape stories without the much needed catharsis, may they be fictional or not.

I read a lot and this is my 3rd or 4th attempt to having an active goodreads account. Technically, it would be perfect for me. I love tracking my reading record and I love being inspired for my next reads. However, I just don't get the website? It just seems so technical and complicated. Why can I not just click on a bunch of covers to indicate what I have read / want to read? I always have to add the "want to read" first and then edit it to indicate I have read it. I do this for 4 books and then it gets annoying so I give up. Also, I think the searching interface is just not smooth. Is it me, am I the problem? Any tips?

Hello

I own a Le Creuset Cast Iron Round Casserole. Despite it looking extremely sturdy, it has developed a spot of rust or rather almost a whole with a rust surface right next to the handle. This is totally random but I noticed on an influencers video who owns the same casserole that she has the same damage. What is it? How did it happen? How can we prevent more such damage? Thanks in advance!

This is super random and totally not my business and completely up to him but I was puzzled about him having a necklace of the star of David, but also of the hand of Fatima, but then asking his dates if they are a "godfearing woman" - isn't that typical Christian lingo?? Like who is this guy, all sons of Abraham at once?

It just seems like he collected parts of his personality like panini stickers

I think WHAT IS WRONG WITHT THESE PEOPLE

- Jebin: immature with no intention of getting serious, shaming his partner for eating fries????

- jebin & alex: ultimatum at 23? Come onnnn. Just go on love island if you want the attention so bad

- jessica grace & edris: arguing about giving high fives to people at almost 40??? Please grow upp

- edris: mouthbreather

- blake: did blake just compare her to a car??? Listening to him talk makes me want to smash my head against a wall.

- blake & haley: ultimatum at 23 after 1.5years together? Come onnnn. If you need to add the .5: just go on love island

So we know the show has taken STDs into consideration when they explicitly showed that Emily was tested upon release. But I do think it's an interesting topic to think about: should Gilead consider protected / saver sex (condoms) and regular STD testing - at least when it comes to Handmaids?

Arguments for an anti-STD campaign:

- some STDs can affect fertility, especially in women

- some STDs are transmittable to uborn children

- some STDs harm unborn children longterm

- commanders cannot be trusted with being STD free since they might have sex / rape any women: handmaids, marthas, wives, jezebels, minor family members

- some commanders might have sexual relations with / rape other men

- even the commanders that follow the rules and without "transgressions" can't be save - they don't know what STDs a handmaid might bring in from former postings

- not caring about handmaids fertility and babies health makes them hypocrites

Arguments against an anti-STDs campaign:

- protected sex is declared as a sin

- regular testing might sugest that the commanders migjt be up to no good which they don't want

- subpar sexual education before Gilead - they might not even be aware of the risks

- they are men who do not care about the consequences of their actions and the women don't have the power to do so

- they don't have a problem being hypocrites

Realistically I think it's probably save to say that they are all riddled with syphilis and chlamydia and one HIV outbreak might decimate the population before they can bring themselves to react to it

Yes she convinced the Commanders to hold a big pompous funeral for the traitor but only because it suited them politically. She thinks the name Waterford will protect her, but she should know better because she underestimated those peoples misgony so many times before already. Without the man to the name she is nothing. So what is she going to do if someone claims her baby isn't Freds to get rid of her? How will she proof it's his?

Not a fan of her at all and kind of rooting for this to be her downfall.

It wasn't even discussed, right? No one asked about Angela or adressed it with Janine? Janine was so quick to committ to the cause of the angel flight without putting forward any demands. I understand there might have been a good reason for Angela not to leave or maybe Janine didn't even wish for her to leave. Maybe because she has no family in Canada and can't go with her, and even if she could she would be a stranger to Angela. I understand all of that but I still feel like it should've been discussed with Janine and acknowledged that this is hard for her too, not just for June with Hannah

Ok this is a controversial take and I am not trying to shit on social work as a whole. Also I am only on Season 3 so there's probably a lot still to come.

To be clear: I know so many social workers do amazing work out of a true love for humanity and go above and beyond for people. I'll try to explain:

Theres two sides of Aunt Lydia that seem to collide on first glance: at one hand she is the authorian, repressive hand that enforces this horrible system on women, clearly taking the side of the oppressor. On the other hand, she seems to "care" for the girls, she seems genuinely happy when things are going well for them and feels for them when they are hurt. She is enforcing a cruel system and she is very strict in enforcing it, mostly going for the maximum punishment when she thinks punishment is due. But also she does seem to look for opportunities to make the girls life a little bit less miserable and really puts a lot of thought of how she can help the girls survive within the system.

And that is exactly my point - she cares for them WITHIN THE SYSTEM. She feels for them when they experience injustice but never challenges the root of this injustice. She tries to give the girls the tools to survive within the system but would never challenge the system, acknowledge that it is the root of the injustice or encourage the girls to stand up against the injustice.

I have made similar experiences in my profession. For example Social Workers that work in prisons, with delinquent youth, substance addicts or homeless people. Obviously not all of them, but many. They sympathize with their clients, they feel with them, they try their best for them. But when it comes down to it, they will take the side of the oppressor because that is their job. They will tell on their clients, they will enforce punishment and they will get desensitized enough to overlook daily injustices. And most importantly: they do not acknowledge the unjust system that put their clients in this position, nor question this system or give clients the tools to emancipate themselves. Their work is restricted to helping them endure injustice and violence quietly, turn the other cheek, be a productive aka fruitful member of society that doesn't cause any trouble, assimilate to the norm no matter what it takes.

Where I live, there used to be a rich discourse around social work and there was a big movement of critical social work that made tremendous efforts to fight against this kind of injustice sustaining social work, trying to build practice in social work that truely gets to the roots of the issue. However this movement has quietly died out over the years, the research isn't funded, colleges weed out critical social workers, the ones that stay in the field get burnt out instead of being supported to practice critical social work.

Instead of critical social workers, colleges and institutions - ironically - prefer fundamental christian people in the field. They obey all the rules without quiestioning them, don't cause any trouble and are very invested. More and more fundamental christian people are getting into the field because on one hand, helping people fits into the whole help thy neighbour thing and on the other hand, it is a fantastic gateway to mission. That context also plays into my analogy. Interested to hear your thoughts.

I know Gillead is all about combaining eco sustainability with the patriarchal obsession with anything archaic, but I also know that they are not above using technology when it suits them, e.g. for the severance of limbs, search drones for escapes, guns, fancy cars, phones & laptops.

So why is there no electronic surveillance? I am thinking on CCTV cameras in public spaces, surveillance of indoor places where women are kept, but also ankle braceletts / implanted chips for handmaids. They have so much interest in keeping tabs on the handmaids and locating escapees, why don't they use the technology available? Why no ankle bracelets for babies and children?

My fear is that this is because if they would use with the surveillance options we have in the regular world today, any attempt of resistance would collapse immediately and a plot of resistance becomes too unrealistic

Im only on Season 2 episode 10 where June is about to go into labor. Her confronting the commander & his wive feels like some kind of "look how far she's come" moment - but has she? What has she actually achieved in two seasons of constant struggling?

- tried to run away but failed

- helped Moira to escape

- ran away with the help of a man that didn't actually want her to leave, got caught & returned

- tried to get the mayday package but failed

- tried to give the mayday package to Rita but failed

- talked Janine out of jumping with the baby

- tried to talk Janine out of jumping herself but failed

- caused the uprising against Janines stoning (good job!)

- carried a baby to term in dire circumstances (very impressive)

- endured the most horrid circumstances

- helped Janine to get to hold her baby when she was sick

- figured out a latin joke

- managed to get a foto of her daughter

- helped the commanders wive do the commanders work

- maintained a secret affair

- was able to manipulate the commander a bit

- tried to be a good friend through all of this

Not all of these are fails and I'm not being sarcastic about the fails and the little wins. I think that's amazing. But also it's all things that most likely all handmaids have encountered in some way or another.

For a main character, she shows surprisingly little heroism or being capable of accomplishing great things. I feel like for two seasons she has had this attitude of "well I've been down but now I am back and now I will fight and the tables will turn" but then nothing ever really materializes. She's not really achieving many changes for herself or others.

Regardless I think she is a compelling character, well written, interesting inner dialogue. I just don't get this "main character saves the day again" vibe because clearly, she doesn't .

If she had'nt tried to resist that much - would it really have been such a different outcome?