Ah, interesting callout; I can totally understand why that is a turn-off. My sister recommended the book to me so I didn’t give the title any thought.

The story is definitely about that trope, and mostly turning it on its head. It’s about the women, with the underlying theme that they are what they are because of men but they own who they are and their future.

I hope if you give it a shot that you enjoy it as much as I do!

Deliberate in what way?

Oh, I may have a book (series) for you! The Alchemist’s Daughter by Theodora Goss. It starts with Mary Jekyll—the daughter of Dr. Jekyll—and expands to find Sherlock and Watson, a daughter of Hyde, Justine—the woman made to be Adam Frankenstein’s bride, and other women left in the path of various men who tested the limits of humanity. It even talks about Shelley’s book and why she might have written it as she did. The second book expands into the wife and daughter of Van Helsing.

I’m about 75% of the way through the second book and have been loving them. They’re very post-modern though, with the characters somewhat frequently interrupting the narrator to discuss the way the story is written. I love that sort of thing but know it’s not for everyone!

I’ve had mine since before I started driving ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I noticed in my late teens I had a lot of freckles on the left side of my body and very few on the right, and I didn’t start driving until I was 22. I did spend 2 years in high school with a much darker tan on my right arm from hanging my arm out the window of a boyfriend’s car with no AC, but still have more left-arm freckles.

Have you seen the panda that was raised by zookeepers? The zookeepers had to teach it to break bamboo, which was hard for them so they often grimaced while doing so. The panda learned to make a similar face, seeing it as part of the process. They’ve even caught the panda making the grimace after breaking the bamboo, like it realized that it forgot to do the thing and had to make up for skipping that step.

Thanks for the clarification on your intent. I understand (and appreciate) skepticism; however, I took your original comment to be a dig rather than helpful criticism, but your clarification here helps me read it more positively.

Someone else commented and used words that aligned with my intent behind the comment, which was just to leave open the door that there are nuances I may be uninformed about. But I recognize I could have been more explicit about what research I had done to maybe establish a little more credibility.

Thanks for responding with such a level head!

Ah yeah, in both cases I’m referring to they were saying the gerrymandered districts meant their blue votes for president didn’t count. I agree that the apathy strongly affects the overall outcome!

In one case, I tried to correct the perception by saying basically when I said here (popular vote determines the state’s allocation of electoral college votes), and I was “corrected” by my acquaintance that the president race is determined by electoral vote, not popular vote. 🤦🏻‍♀️

True, some states are too extreme to ever flip. Then other states like Texas or North Carolina are perceived as firmly in one camp, but they might not be if everyone actually voted.

Exactly what I’m trying to help counter! In just 24 hours I heard two people I know from Texas mention that the presidential vote was affected by gerrymandering. I did my research to confirm that was wrong and have been trying to help fix that false belief since then.

And what you’re saying now is, “What you said doesn’t align to what I think, so I’m sure you’re wrong.”

So here’s proof:

Of the 50 states, all but two award all of their presidential electors to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (Maine and Nebraska each award two of their electors to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote; the remaining electors are allocated to the winners of the plurality vote in the states’ congressional districts). (source)

Ok, fair point, lol.

That’s precisely what prompted this post: conversations with friends in Texas who said their presidential vote didn’t count because of gerrymandering.

I agree districts are fucked, but that doesn’t affect the electoral college outcome. Texas is leaning more blue every year and getting everyone who feels like their vote doesn’t matter out and voting anyway is the first step to changing it. (One example source)

The state has 30 million people. Of those, 8M are in the Dallas area, 7.5M are in the Houston area, and about 5M between San Antonio and Austin. That means over 20 million of the state residents live in one of the 4 largest metro areas which are all majority blue.

Yet only 11M voted in 2020. National average turnout in the 2020 election was 66% but Texas was less than 40%, and it’s because of the exact sentiment you called out.

I’m from Texas (but don’t live there now) and I know how disheartening the voting season always felt. I want to fight the perception I’ve heard now from multiple people in Texas that their vote for president doesn’t mean anything, because it absolutely could if everyone gets out to vote.

It means I didn’t go look at the laws of 50 different states, correct. Doesn’t mean I didn’t do any research at all; I did confirm for multiple states where I heard people saying this (OH, NC, and TX) and I confirmed that only those two states allocate votes based on districts while all others allocate all voters to one candidate. Maybe there’s some other method out there other than district-driven or popular vote–driven; I’m holding space that I could be unaware of something rather than trying to claim I know everything.

You could look at it that way. I think gerrymandering specifically refers to lines being drawn specifically to create advantage or disadvantage in voting though, and we don’t move state lines that way. So it’s more just like bad district allocation?

I don’t disagree, but it’s the system we have and I want to ensure people aren’t disenfranchising themselves in states that could swing the opposite way if everyone actually voted.

Remorse: “I am sorry for what I did and the impact it had on the victim. I made stupid choices that hurt another person, and while I can never take that back, I will seek to do better so no one needs to suffer from my actions again.”

Not sorry you did it, just sorry you got caught: “I can’t reverse it, so I have to carry the consequences. It’s the biggest mistake of my life.”

I believe people can change and I think it’s important we hold space for people to do so. However, that hinges on the person actually growing, which often starts with showing remorse. I know you implied that this guy has done so, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that.

Even the quote you posted somewhere else about it being the worst thing he’d done, or something like that? That very much sounds like a, “I’m not sorry I did it, I’m sorry I got caught” kind of statement.

Asked if van de Velde had ever expressed any remorse to him for rape, Immers [his teammate] said: “No, he doesn’t, he doesn’t explain it.” (source)

“I have been branded as a sex monster, as a pedophile,” he said. "That I am not — really not.” (source)

If there’s an apology or some actual statement showing his remorse, I’d love to see it, but I’m skeptical that it exists. This whole controversy he’s had a huge opportunity to step up, apologize, and rebuke his prior actions. Instead, he’s faced it all with silence and a reaction of ‘I don’t want to talk about it.’ That is not the behavior of a person who acknowledges they were in the wrong, imo.

I took that comment to be summarizing the platform’s perspective, rather than their own. I think it’s common sense that people will watch/engage with things they don’t like, but the algorithms don’t care about how you feel or why you watched something; they see engagement and they give you more of that thing to drive more engagement. As far as the unfeeling numbers go, engagement might as well be liking; they don’t need to distinguish a difference.

I didn’t know that so I looked it up. Source

“In the next hundred days, I will learn to go off the prompter and Joe Biden will learn to stay on the prompter.”

That’s good to know!