🎮 The Sims™ 4 (234 hours played)

Leave a comment.⁺

Reading this article about the manosphere makes me think of a few conversations I’ve had recently about the “male loneliness epidemic.” Which I do not doubt is real, or serious, and while I don’t think it’s unique per se — everyone right now is having a loneliness epidemic, regardless of gender — I also think there’s a utility in naming a specific subset of the broader phenomenon in order to address it. Like, an intersectional approach to tackling loneliness, or whatever.

That being said, there’s definitely something to the viral “men: (overturn Roe v. Wade) / also men: why don’t women want to have sex with us any more?” posts that go around. And, like. I hang out in a lot of spaces populated by awkward antisocial weirdos with niche (and often pretty dark) interests and mental illnesses at various levels of treatment. And hanging out in said spaces really, I think, illuminates the two Types of Guy and how they respond to loneliness (as well as questions around modern masculinity more broadly). Because the ones who lash out? Who externalise all their issues on women, on queer people, on minorities? They get all the press, mostly because they make it by force. But there is a whole other Type of Guy who, when confronted with that black pit, actually does put in the work to climb out of it, or at least not sink deeper. They engage with social and community groups, access what mental health care they can, develop hobbies and creative outputs, try and look after themselves and their spaces and their pets. Imperfectly, sure, but so what? There’s no silver bullet for being human.¹

And there actually are influencers in this space . . . they just, again, a) tend not to get as much press for it, and, b) aren’t usually known for being “masculinity influencers” per se. Like, I’d argue John Walsh, a.k.a. Super Eyepatch Wolf, is effectively whatever the light-side-mirror-world opposite of a manosphere douchebag is. A popular YouTuber and streamer, with a focus on anime and gaming, who is conventionally attractive and enjoys combat sports and collecting anime waifu statues? And yet somehow manages to do all that without, y’know. A single sex-trafficking charge or leaked photo of himself making unfortunate gestures. Incredible.² He’s far from the only one. But, I guess, because dudes like this aren’t interested in nailing “no girls” signs to their clubhouses — nor build a business model around grifting their vulnerable peers — they tend to get skipped over in these conversations.

Which is a shame. Because I think a lot of dudes out there really are struggling, and there are a bunch of other dudes who are offering up positive ways to escape that darkness. It’s just that all the toxic dipshits take up so much space and air that people can (understandably, since they also usually trying to keep their own heads above water) run pretty short on grace re. this whole issue.

1. Well. I mean . . . You know what I mean. ↩
2. With apologies to Mr. Walsh, because I am selling him very short here; he is a dude who appears to sincerely engage with progressive causes, promotes and collabs with creators from marginalised backgrounds, talks with empathy and kindness about mental health struggles, and just generally seems to try and want to make the world a better, kinder place. The fact that the bar for male influencers is on the ground doesn’t mean he isn’t still giving it a good ol’ jump. ↩

Leave a comment.⁺

When Trump rails against “socialists,” he’s not defending neutral markets; he’s defending a particular distribution of rights — one that prioritizes asset owners’ claims and uses public power to sustain them. When Mamdani advances democratic socialist policies, he’s not suggesting we abolish markets; he’s redrawing the boundary between private exclusion and public provision to include things like housing and transportation. Their methods both involve the state but toward starkly different visions of democratic accountability and economic rights.

On the same means to different ends.

Leave a comment.⁺

Reading this article reminded me of a completely mundane experience I had the other day of sharing a First Bit with someone. You know how it goes; you’ve known someone for a while, and like them well enough, but you’re not particularly close. Then they’ll be some moment where one of you will make some dumb joke, and the other “yes, ands” it, and suddenly you’re both laughing and it’s like a little switch flips and you go from co-workers or acquaintances or whatever to friends.

You know this experience. You’ve had this experience, even if you’ve never really consciously thought about it. Everyone’s had this experience; no matter how weird, or awkward, or introverted, or how much of a natural loner they are.

Everyone, apparently, except Elon Musk.

Leave a comment.⁺

In 2024, food-at-home is no longer 33% of household spending. For most families, it’s 5 to 7 percent.

Housing now consumes 35 to 45 percent. Healthcare takes 15 to 25 percent. Childcare, for families with young children, can eat 20 to 40 percent.

If you keep Orshansky’s logic—if you maintain her principle that poverty could be defined by the inverse of food’s budget share—but update the food share to reflect today’s reality, the multiplier is no longer three.

It becomes sixteen.

Which means if you measured income inadequacy today the way Orshansky measured it in 1963, the threshold for a family of four wouldn’t be $31,200.

It would be somewhere between $130,000 and $150,000.

Michael W. Green on the poverty line.

Leave a comment.⁺

Sharkey is telling me this post was made seven years ago and excuse me I think that is illegal.

RE: https://godforsaken.website/@pisscotheque/101403740195630744

Leave a comment.⁺