Gyaru-girlfriend - See Ya! - Tumblr Blog

those first couple weeks after escaping a time loop have gotta be disorienting as all fuck. all those little cues that used to tell you what's about to happen are now triggers that cause you to brace for something that isn't coming. you have to relearn the permanence of death -- hell, you have reacquaint yourself with the entire concept of finality altogether. everything keeps changing but it never changes back and you keep having to remind yourself that this is normal. "it won't reset anymore," you echo to yourself, over and over and over, like a broken record, like you're still trapped in a loop, like someone who escaped the time loop but was doomed to bring it into the future with them

Of all the political satire in Disco Elysium, I find the Moralists to be the most poignant. Because you trend towards Moralism--towards Centrism--just by staying on track and focusing on the task at hand. You're trying to deal with the world as it is, and so it feels logical and right. My first playthrough, I felt guilty for all the trouble I had caused people, and so I ended up leaning hard into Moralism and becoming a Sorry Boring Cop.

Except "focusing on the task at hand" isn't logical at all, because it actually means ignoring information. Do not question why things are the way they are. Continue to obey the very people who have stolen from and victimized you and everyone you are likely to meet and care about.

While the "traditionalists" are repugnant, hateful, and deluded, they aren't the game's true threat, because they are not in power. The Moralists have already won, and they've convinced everyone that obeying them, enriching them, and living under the watchful eye of their distant warships is normal and uncontroversial.

They promise incremental change, but we know for certain that the future of Elysium is a sudden, apocalyptic flash of light. Moralism is associated with faith and religious imagery, but it is a faith that will never be rewarded. If you build the radio tower, you reach someone who cannot help. If you get to talk to someone in power at all, they will at best be a Sunday friend offering meaningless platitudes.

And the most tragic part is that Kim--the person you most trust and rely on--is the embodiment of this mindset. No matter how much it hurts him, he's still going to try to be a good cop.

I was a bit surprised when I saw the silhouette lineup, it seemed a little early for main Theresa battlesuit, since APHO battlesuits of other characters haven’t even been released! I was relieved when it turns out to be Tericula instead. I expect main Teri will get it during climax, after main story reach beyond APHO 2.

As much as i'm rlly happy we're finally getting a new Theresa battlesuit AND it's an adult version of her (i mean,,,,,she has been an adult but i meant like her physical form lol), i rlly wished the adult Teri we got wasn't Tericula. I rlly do love the design for adult Tericula, and i'm happy enough that at least ONE OF THE THERESAS look their age, i still kinda wished it was the Teri from the main story.

We saw an adult form for her in Chapter 35, and i was rlly hoping it'd be her, but alas, it's not. I'm fine with this tho, i'm just hoping that maybe main story adult Teri would just be a costume for adult Tericula one day or smth, but that's also less satisfying to me ngl.

tokyo street snap

"This story is a tragedy because it didn't have to end this way."

vs

"This story is a tragedy because it was always going to end this way."

From the makers of "this meeting could have been an email" we present: this universal moral dictum could have been a personal boundary

The obvious answer is Vita need those energies for... something, something that need ridiculous amount of energy only by cultivating and ‘reaping’ bubble universe can give her. It also explained why she is very stingy at destroying ‘em - she want as much energy as possible, so better to take more time but use less energy than something faster but needing more.

If Vita is Sa, the scary planet/bubble busting energy slurper, how come she’s doing something she doesn’t want to do? Where’s that obligation coming from… Any ideas?

— Phoebe

Dunno, Im still not sure if Vita = Sa or if Vita is like a Herrscher to the Cocoon.

>how come she’s doing something she doesn’t want to do?

I dont feel that Vita is being forced to do something she doesnt want to do. Like, she doesnt have a gun to her head. She is just taking out the dishes from the dishwasher; something she has to do sooner or later, but something that no one is especially enthustias- enthustei... words are hard.

That is true! I wonder how to make it more exciting :v The best I can come up is ‘because it’s pretty’, which isn’t exactly good. Maybe she got inspired from her time on Siberia.

This is a silly question but why does Elysia use Ice as power, how is it related to Origin?

It’s just gameplay, they didn’t want to make her overlap completely with her other battlesuit, I guess they picked ice because it’s crystal-like and they wanted to give her a water motif (yaknow life being born from the sea and all)

✧ JENNA ORTEGA The 2023 Met Gala Celebrating “Karl Lagerfeld: A Line Of Beauty” (May 01, 2023)

Favorite other well known Neil?

Armstrong.

more substantive thing about Glass Onion and then i think this is all my thoughts: i really liked something i feel was clearly shown in the flashbacks but not outright stated, which was that andi knew damn well miles bron was a dumb huckster.

that's what she wanted him for. she needed that ability to throw himself into his latest shill with total commitment, because of his need to believe in his own hype. the 'reality distortion' of his hard sell.

she knew that to get what she wanted out of life, she needed to harness that confidence of a mediocre white man we all talk about.

that it would open doors that would stay unmoved in the face of all her brilliance, and polish, and perfected rich bitch voice.

there's a lot of these guys out there, and she picked a dumb one because she planned for him to be the front man to her mastermind. (apologies to paul mccartney lol i don't mean to impugn your intelligence.) a smarter man would have had his own plans, would be harder to use as a mouthpiece for her better ones. she would have needed to find an actual partner and not a tool, and she didn't trust like that.

duke wasn't actually wrong to say they were all playing the same shitty game and andi lost. i mean, he was morally wrong but he wasn't incorrect.

like blanc says, she thought that because she was better than bron, because she was the genius and he was the cheap con artist, he wasn't dangerous. and in the end that was where it all fell apart.

“Cave Johnson here. I’ve received complaints from anonymous employees that our support of the “homosexual lifestyle” is “degenerate” and “irresponsible”. It really got me thinking and I think I found a solution. So good news! We now have 23 vacated positions reserved for members of the LGBT community. Additional good news, we began a new testing initiative on evolutionary degenration with 23 test subjects all ready to go.“

So I’ve been enjoying the Disney vs. DeSantis memes as much as anyone, but like. I do feel like a lot of people who had normal childhoods are missing some context to all this.

I was raised in the Bible Belt in a fairly fundie environment. My parents were reasonably cool about some things, compared to the rest of my family, but they certainly had their issues. But they did let me watch Disney movies, which turned out to be a point of major contention between them and my other relatives.

See, I think some people think this weird fight between Disney and fundies is new. It is very not new. I know that Disney’s attempts at inclusion in their media have been the source of a lot of mockery, but what a lot of people don’t understand is that as far as actual company policy goes, Disney has actually been an industry leader for queer rights. They’ve had policies assuring equal healthcare and partner benefits for queer employees since the early 90s.

I’m not sure how many people reading this right now remember the early 90s, but that was very much not industry standard. It was a big deal when Disney announced that non-married queer partners would be getting the same benefits as the married heterosexual ones.

Like — it went further than just saying that any unmarried partners would be eligible for spousal benefits. It straight-up said that non-same-sex partners would still need to be married to receive spousal benefits, but because same-sex partners couldn’t do that, proof that they lived together as an established couple would be enough.

In other words, it put long-term same-sex partners on a higher level than opposite-sex partners who just weren’t married yet. It put them on the exact same level as heterosexual married partners.

They weren’t the first company ever to do this, but they were super early. And they were certainly the first mainstream “family-friendly” company to do it.

Conservatives lost their damn minds.

Protests, boycotts, sermons, the whole nine yards. I can’t tell you how many books about the evils of Disney my grandmother tried to get my parents to read when I was a kid.

When we later moved to Florida, I realized just how many queer people work at Disney — because historically speaking, it’s been a company that has guaranteed them safety, non-discrimination, and equal rights. That’s when I became aware of their unofficial “Gay Days” and how Christians would show up from all over the country to protest them every year. Apparently my grandmother had been upset about these days for years, but my parents had just kind of ignored her.

Out of curiosity, I ended up reading one of the books my grandmother kept leaving at our house. And friends — it’s amazing how similar that (terrible, poorly written) rhetoric was to what people are saying these days. Disney hires gay pedophiles who want to abuse your children. Disney is trying to normalize Satanism in our beautiful, Christian America. 

Just tons of conspiracy theories in there that ranged from “a few bad things happened that weren’t actually Disney’s fault, but they did happen” to “Pocahontas is an evil movie, not because it distorts history and misrepresents indigenous life, but because it might teach children respect for nature. Which, as we all know, would cause them all to become Wiccans who believe in climate change.”

Like — please, take it from someone who knows. This weird fight between fundies and Disney is not new. This is not Disney’s first (gay) rodeo. These people have always believed that Disney is full of evil gays who are trying to groom and sexually abuse children.

The main difference now is that these beliefs are becoming mainstream. It’s not just conservative pastors who are talking about this. It’s not just church groups showing up to boycott Gay Day. Disney is starting to (reluctantly) say the quiet part out loud, and so are the Republicans. Disney is publicly supporting queer rights and announcing company-supported queer events and the Republican Party is publicly calling them pedophiles and enacting politically driven revenge.

This is important, because while this fight has always been important in the history of queer rights, it is now being magnified. The precedent that a fight like this could set is staggering. For better or for worse, we live in a corporation-driven country. I don’t like it any more than you do, and I’m not about to defend most of Disney’s business practices. But we do live in a nation where rights are largely tied to corporate approval, and the fact that we might be entering an age where even the most powerful corporations in the country are being banned from speaking out in favor of rights for marginalized people… that’s genuinely scary.

Like… I’ll just ask you this. Where do you think we’d be now, in 2023, if Disney had been prevented from promising its employees equal benefits in 1994? That was almost thirty years ago, and look how far things have come. When I looked up news articles for this post from that era, even then journalists, activists, and fundie church leaders were all talking about how a company of Disney’s prominence throwing their weight behind this movement could lead to the normalization of equal protections in this country.

The idea of it scared and thrilled people in equal parts even then. It still scares and thrills them now.

I keep seeing people say “I need them both to lose!” and I get it, I do. Disney has for sure done a lot of shit over the years. But I am begging you as a queer exvangelical to understand that no. You need Disney to win. You need Disney to wipe the fucking floor with these people.

Right now, this isn’t just a fight between a giant corporation and Ron DeSantis. This is a fight about the right of corporations to support marginalized groups. It’s a fight that ensures that companies like Disney still can offer benefits that a discriminatory government does not provide. It ensures that businesses much smaller than Disney can support activism.

Hell, it ensures that you can support activism.

The fight between weird Christian conspiracy theorists and Disney is not new, because the fight to prevent any tiny victory for marginalized groups is not new. The fight against the normalization of othered groups is not new.

That’s what they’re most afraid of. That each incremental victory will start to make marginalized groups feel safer, that each incremental victory will start to turn the tide of public opinion, that each incremental victory will eventually lead to sweeping law reform.

They’re afraid that they won’t be able to legally discriminate against us anymore.

So guys! Please. This fight, while hilarious, is also so fucking important. I am begging you to understand how old this fight is. These people always play the long game. They did it with Roe and they’re doing it with Disney.

We have! To keep! Pushing back!

one of the things that i think we should pay attention to, socially, about the disney v. desantis thing is that it is really highlighting the importance of remembering nuance.

in a purely neutral sense, if you engage in something problematic, that does not mean you are necessarily agreeing with what makes it problematic. and i am worried that we have become... so afraid of any form of nuance.

disney isn't my friend, they're a corporate monopoly that bastardized copyright laws for their own benefit, ruin the environment, and abuse their workers (... and many other things). this isn't a hypothetical for me - i grew up in florida. i also worked for the actual Walt Disney World; like, in the parks. i am keenly aware of the ways they hurt people, because they hurt me. i fully believe that part of the reason florida is so conservative is because it's been an "open secret" for years now that disney lobbies the government to keep minimum wage down, and i know they worked hard to keep the parks unmasked and open during the worst parts of Covid. they purposefully keep their employees in poverty. they are in part responsible for the way the floridian government works.

desantis is still, by a margin that is frankly daunting, way worse. the alternative here isn't just "republicans win", it's actual fascism.

in a case like this, where the alternative is to allow actual fascism into united states legislation - where, if desantis wins, there are huge and legal ramifications - it's tempting to minimize the harm disney is also doing, because... well, it's not fascism. but disney isn't the good guy, either, which means republicans are having a field day asking activists oh, so you think their treatment of their employees is okay?

we have been trained there is a right answer. you're right! you're in the good group, and you're winning at having an opinion.

except i have the Internet Prophecy that in 2-3 months, even left-wing people will be ripping apart activists for having "taken disney's side". aren't i an anti-capitalist? aren't i pro-union? aren't i one of the good ones? removed from context and nuance (that in this particular situation i am forced to side with disney, until an other option reveals itself), my act of being like "i hope they have goofy rip his throat out onstage, shaking his lifeless body like a dog toy" - how quickly does that seem like i actually do support disney?

and what about you! at home, reading this. are you experiencing the Thought Crime of... actually liking some of the things disney has made? your memories of days at the parks, or of good movies, or of your favorite show growing up. maybe you are also evil, if you ever enjoyed anything, ever, at all.

to some degree, the binary idealization/vilification of individual motive and meaning already exists in the desantis case. i have seen people saying not to go to the disney pride events because they're cash grabs (they are). i've seen people saying you have to go because they're a way to protest. there isn't a lot of internet understanding of nuance. instead it's just "good show of support" or "evil bootlicking."

this binary understanding is how you can become radicalized. when we fear nuance and disorder, we're allowing ourselves the safety of assuming that the world must exist in binary - good or bad, problematic or "not" problematic. and unfortunately, bigots want you to see the world in this binary ideal. they want you to get mad at me because "disney is taking a risk for our community but you won't sing their praises" and they want me to get mad at you for not respecting the legit personal trauma that disney forced me through.

in a grander scheme outside of disney: what happens is a horrific splintering within activist groups. we bicker with each other about minimal-harm minimal-impact ideologies, like which depiction of bisexuality is the most-true. we gratuitously analyze the personal lives of activists for any sign they might be "problematic". we get spooked because someone was in a dog collar at pride. we wring our hands about setting an empty shopping mall on fire. we tell each other what words we may identify ourselves by. we get fuckin steven universe disk horse when in reality it is a waste of our collective time.

the bigots want you to spend all your time focusing on how pristine and pretty you and your interests are. they want us at each other's throats instead of hand in hand. they want to say see? nothing is ever fucking good enough for these people.

and they want their followers to think in binary as well - a binary that's much easier to follow. see, in our spaces, we attack each other over "proper" behavior. but in bigoted groups? they attack outwards. they have someone they hate, and it is us. they hate you, specifically, and you are why they have problems - not the other people in their group. and that's a part of how they fucking keep winning.

some of the things that are beloved to you have a backbone in something terrible. the music industry is a wasteland. the publishing industry is a bastion of white supremacy. video games run off of unpaid labor and abuse.

the point of activism was always to bring to light that abuse and try to stop it from happening, not to condemn those who engage in the content that comes from those industries. "there is no ethical consumption under late capitalism" also applies to media. your childhood (and maybe current!) love of the little mermaid isn't something you should now flinch from, worried you'll be a "disney adult". wanting the music industry to change for the better does not require that you reject all popular music until that change occurs. you can acknowledge the harm something might cause - and celebrate the love that it has brought into your life.

we must detach an acknowledgment of nuance from a sense of shame and disgust. we must. punishing individual people for their harmless passions is not doing good work. encouraging more thoughtful, empathetic consumption does not mean people should feel ashamed of their basic human capacities and desires. it should never have even been about the individual when the corporation is so obviously the actual evil. this sense that we must live in shame and dread of our personal nuances - it just makes people bitter and hopeless. do you have any idea how scared i am to post this? to just acknowledge the idea of nuance? that i might like something nuanced, and engage in it joyfully? and, at the same time, that i'm brutally aware of the harm that they're doing?

"so what do i do?" ... well, often there isn't a right answer. i mean in this case, i hope mickey chops off ron's head and then does a little giggle. but truth be told, often our opinions on nuanced subjects will differ. you might be able to engage in things that i can't because the nuance doesn't sit right with me. i might think taylor swift is a great performer and a lot of fun, and you might be like "raquel, the jet fuel emissions". we are both correct; neither of us have any actual sway in this. and i think it's important to remember that - the actual scope of individual responsibility. like, i also love going to the parks. Thunder Mountain is so fun. you (just a person) are not responsible for the harm that Disney (the billion dollar corporation) caused me. i don't know. i think it's possible to both enjoy your memories and interrogate the current state of their employment policies.

there is no right way to interrogate or engage with nuance - i just hope you embrace it readily.

i love one (1) disaster wizard

I swear Bronya uses rose stickers in chat with Seele too

Serval's qualifications are simply funny to me. So you go to see a concert from your favorite rockstar, all is well and good until you get drunk and wind up in jail somehow. The next morning, you're filling out paperwork on your way out or whatever and you spot her again, messing with her brother who is evidently, Captain of the police force. You then hurry to class because you paid for those textbooks goddammit, only to find your teacher is out for the day and who is the substitute teacher but the rockstar.

A few years later, you've graduated and straightened out a bit and are working in the records department, and you're looking through old records and discover that not only was your favorite musician once an Architect; revered position by the people, on record for the inheritance of a highly renowned noble family, but she's also the president's ex-wife.

Also you broke your heater once and your friend recommended a good cheap mechanic to you. Guess who’s behind the counter? The rockstar again

tldr I was looking up the classification system for cerebral palsy (GMFCS) and part of the 2nd level is "climbing stairs with the use of a railing" which just about knocked me out. Ableds. . . are you not. . . using railings? it's right there? this is trying to tell me it's abled culture Not to use the railing?

(use your best judgement as to whether or not abledness applies to you here. mostly I mean disabilities that would have some impact on stair-climbing, natch. chronic pain/fatigue counts, but, like, d/Deafness wouldn't, you get me?)

I think a lot of people spent their childhoods being very deliberately forced out of their comfort zones by parents / teachers / whomever in a way that was just deeply unpleasant and degrading and so, when they reach young adulthood and are finally allowed real control over their lives, become set on only doing things they know they're comfortable with forever. that's a really important thing to be able to do, especially if you're so used to having your boundaries routinely ignored that you aren't even certain what you like vs what you can bear, so I absolutely see why a person would have a negative reaction to being told that discomfort is good: it can very easily sound like being told that all that work they've been doing to prioritze their needs for the first time ever is Bad and Selfish, actually. and to that I will say two things:

one: as long as you aren't hurting or, like, being a dick to anyone, just staying in your comfort zone isn't an immoral action. if you just want to read one type of book (or just fanfiction), or just eat one type of food, or just watch one type of movie, or not go to new types of social events, you aren't being a bad person for that, and if people say that, they are soundly wrong and just trying to get a self-righteousness kick.

two: trying new things because you want to expand yourself feels a hell of a lot different than trying new things because you're being forced to. you'll feel better about trying new foods if you know you have a back up familiar one in case you can't stomach the new one, it's easier to read new books if you can experiment with audio versions or reading it in little five-page chunks by yourself, you can breathe a lot easier going somewhere new if you aren't chained there for three hours because your parent is your ride home, etc.

tl;dr: new things are good. I get why you might not want to try new things, and that's fine, but it's also more comfortable to try new things as an adult with your own agency so, yeah, what have you got to lose by trying a weird old art film?

Ok listen we NEED to talk about your girlfriend. I know you’re doomed by the narrative and all, but she keeps defying the will of fate with her vain and ever more desperate attempts to save you. It’s SERIOUSLY going to rend the fabric of space-time if she keeps this up. I’m not even joking. We’re all going to end up in a closed loop of decaying reality if—it’s not cute, stop laughing!!

Pulling a piece out of an already massive post to reply to @zenosanalytic :

Most of this is great, but I feel like this overstates the influence and power of exclusionists; they never took over either Feminist or Lesbian groups or turned them en masse against bisexuals and transpeople, at least not in the US(in Britain it's an accurate description from what I've read). They def were still there, TRYING to(they were majorly annoying in the Fair scene), and you'd meet them or lesbian-separatists moving in wider queer circles, but they were pretty consistently losing that fight especially in academic and political queer orgs and, by the 00s, were pretty much irrelevant. They stayed that way until the Conservative movement deliberately revived/coopted them in the 10s.

Because... here's the bit from the original post I think this is talking about:

That process of expelling bi women from lesbian groups with immense prejudice continues to this day and leaves scars on a lot of bi/pan people. A lot of bisexuals, myself included, have an experience of “double discrimination”; we are made to feel unwelcome or invisible both in straight society, and in LGBT spaces.

It is absolutely true that radfems did not succeed in making exclusionary politics the mainstream policy of LGBT institutions. Hooowever. That's not what I was talking about.

Most people do not engage with the LGBTQ+ community solely by, like... walking into a policy meeting at GLAAD. Generally we do things like finding LGBTQ+ content on social media, or by attending LGBTQ+ social events, or by trying to find people to date!

In those settings, groups that are minoritized within the LGBTQ+ community (bi, pan, m-spec, ace, aro, trans, nb, etc) experience being treated in ways that are invalidating or derogatory. Not all the time! #notalllesbians!! The majority of the community might actually be kind and welcoming, and it might be relatively small microaggressions. But those microaggressions can happen often enough, and in a context where not much is being done to show that we are valued by the community, to create a sense of wariness and unwelcome in a space that ought to be safe for us.

I didn't attend a single LGBTQ+ event, or try to date a single woman, my entire undergrad career, because when I was 16, the first real-life gays and lesbians I ever met laughed and joked, in my hearing, about how bisexual teenage girls are just sluts who are doing it for the attention, not actually gay. It's not that I believed them, since they were obviously wrong; it's just that I went, "Oh okay, so LGBT spaces are still ones where I'll be bullied and shit-talked. I absolutely cannot deal with any more of that, so I'll just never go into those spaces."

Mine is a very small story. There are a lot of little stories like mine, and also ones big enough that they'd look exclusionary even to an outside observer. I know people who actually did get pushed out of their college GSAs, or lost their whole social support network, or had people try to coerce them into thinking they were horrible misguided tools of the patriarchy, in LGBT spaces, because they were bi, pan, m-spec, ace, aro, trans, nb, etc.

If you'd clicked the link in the post labelled "double discrimination", you'd read an NBC article that says, in part:

“This study adds to the growing body of research confirming that bisexual people face unique mental health disparities [that are] closely related to stigma and discrimination [they face] from straight, gay and lesbian communities,” Heron Greenesmith, a senior policy analyst at LGBTQ advocacy organization Movement Advancement Project, said.

(Note: this means "unique" as compared to gays and lesbians, which have been the focus of most mental health research and practice in this area. Namely, bisexuals tend to face certain pressures as a group that cis gays and lesbians don't so much. It does not mean "unique" as in "only bisexuals experience this". Bisexuals are just one of many groups that feel unwelcome or unsafe in LGBTQ+ spaces they ought to belong in.

Maybe you didn't mean to imply that all these experiences didn't happen. I hope you didn't. Because it would be really goshdarn silly for someone who's been on Tumblr for years to suggest that the 2010s were not a fucking golden age of young LGBTQ+ people tentatively reaching out to explore their gender and sexuality, and being deluged with immense volumes of bullshit by other LGBTQ+ people for it.

I don't want to in any way discourage people from reaching out to LGBTQ+ groups, because it's very possible that the reward will far outweigh the risks. It's possible that other people will welcome you and will enforce a code of conduct against anyone who gives you shit. I'm not saying, "Hide forever! You're on your own, kid!"

But on the other hand, it is very easy, in a million different ways, to say "We didn't think very hard about making these groups feel welcome and protected in our space" without ever writing it into official policy.

god I just. love ruthlessness as a character trait so much. sexy sexy sexy

White tuna

I guess I had so completely absorbed the prevailing wisdom that I expected people in bankruptcy to look scruffy or shifty or generally disreputable. But what struck me was that they looked so normal.

The people appearing before that judge came in all colors, sizes, and ages. A number of men wore ill-fitting suits, two or three of them with bolero ties, and nearly everyone dressed up for the day. They looked like they were on their way to church. An older couple held onto each other as they walked carefully down the aisle and found a seat. A young mother gently jiggled her keys for the baby in her lap. Everyone was quiet, speaking in hushed tones or not at all. Lawyers – at least I thought they were lawyers – seemed to herd people from one place to another.

I didn’t stay long. I felt as if I knew everyone in that courtroom, and I wanted out of there. It was like staring at a car crash, a car crash involving people you knew.

Later, our data would confirm what I had seen in San Antonio that day. The people seeking the judge’s decree were once solidly middle-class. They had gone to college, found good jobs, gotten married, and bought homes. Now they were flat busted, standing in front of that judge and all the world, ready to give up nearly everything they owned just to get some relief from the bill collectors.

As the data continued to come in, the story got scarier. San Antonio was no exception: all around the country, the overwhelming majority of people filing for bankruptcy were regular families who had hit hard times. Over time we learned that nearly 90 percent were declaring bankruptcy for one of three reasons: a job loss, a medical problem, or a family breakup (typically divorce, sometimes the death of a husband or wife). By the time these families arrived in the bankruptcy court, they had pretty much run out of options. Dad had lost his job or Mom had gotten cancer, and they had been battling for financial survival for a year or longer. They had no savings, no pension plan, and no homes or cars that weren’t already smothered by mortgages. Many owed at least a full year’s income in credit card debt alone. They owed so much that even if they never bought another thing – even if Dad got his job back tomorrow and Mom had a miraculous recovery – the mountain of debt would keep growing on its own, fueled by penalties and compounding interest rates that doubled their debts every few years. By the time they came before a bankruptcy judge, they were so deep in debt that being flat broke – owning nothing, but free from debt – looked like a huge step up and worth a deep personal embarrassment.

Worse yet, the number of bankrupt families was climbing. In the early 1980s, when my partners and I first started collecting data, the number of families annually filing for bankruptcy topped a quarter of a million. True, a recession had hobbled the nation’s economy and squeezed a lot of families, but as the 1980s wore on and the economy recovered, the number of bankruptcies unexpectedly doubled. Suddenly, there was a lot of talk about how Americans had lost their sense of right and wrong, how people were buying piles of stuff they didn’t actually need and then running away when the bills came due. Banks complained loudly about unpaid credit card bills. The word deadbeat got tossed around a lot. It seemed that people filing for bankruptcy weren’t just financial failures – they had also committed an unforgivable sin.

Part of me still wanted to buy the deadbeat story because it was so comforting. But somewhere along the way, while collecting all those bits of data, I came to know who these people were.

In one of our studies, we asked people to explain in their own words why they filed for bankruptcy. I figured that most of them would probably tell stories that made them look good or that relieved them of guilt.

I still remember sitting down with the first stack of questionnaires. As I started reading, I’m sure I wore my most jaded, squinty-eyed expression.

The comments hit me like a physical blow. They were filled with self-loathing. One man had written just three words to explain why he was in bankruptcy:

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

When writing about their lives, people blamed themselves for taking out a mortgage they didn’t understand. They blamed themselves for their failure to realize their jobs weren’t secure. They blamed themselves for their misplaced trust in no-good husbands and cheating wives. It was blindingly obvious to me that most people saw bankruptcy as a profound personal failure, a sign that they were losers through and through.

Some of the stories were detailed and sad, describing the death of a child or what it meant to be laid off after thirty-three years with the same company. Others stripped a world of pain down to the bare facts:

Wife died of cancer. Left $65,000 in medical bills after insurance. Lack of full-time work – worked five part-time jobs to meet rent, utilities, phone, food, and insurance.

They thought they were safe – safe in their jobs and their lives and their love – but they weren’t.

I ran my fingers over one of the papers, thinking about a woman who had tried to explain how her life had become such a disaster. A turn here, a turn there, and her life might have been very different.

Divorce, an unhappy second marriage, a serious illness, no job. A turn here, a turn there, and my life might have been very different, too.

– A Fighting Chance by Elizabeth Warren, pg. 34 - pg. 36

(Bolding mine)