I ordered a custom crepe and it seems the chef approves of my design
They sent you a crepe in an envelope???
IT'S THE LID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!😭😭😭

@theartofmadeline

No title available
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

Andulka

Discoholic 🪩

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
noise dept.
Not today Justin

Janaina Medeiros
DEAR READER
wallacepolsom

#extradirty
RMH
🪼

roma★
Mike Driver
i don't do bad sauce passes
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year

seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from Bangladesh

seen from Singapore

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from France

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland

seen from Uzbekistan

seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from Italy
@alienglidder
I ordered a custom crepe and it seems the chef approves of my design
They sent you a crepe in an envelope???
IT'S THE LID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!😭😭😭
okay i just realized they meant "fascist" and not atleast 2 other words i can think of that are funnier
The faggots dont claim him
The faggots dont claim him
The faggots dont claim him
The council has spoken. Send him to the gayless wastes.
lumon sending their four craziest bitches on an outdoor retreat with the most overworked man in the company and a child as the only supervision
Severance, 2x04
the Helena reveal
lived a hater. died a hater. a true lover. #rip
the real reason they had to remove helly r and then kill irving b immediately after bringing her back is because lumon knew if they were allowed to exist in their current states together the company would be in ashes within the hour. the old gay and evil redhead duo would be too powerful. they had to make them enemies instead they had no choice
fuck. can i just say something. travis kelce gets on stage at the eras tour and swifties cheer. when he shows up to her shows, he’s seen as a supportive boyfriend. but taylor swift is shown on screen at the super bowl for 5 seconds and the entire stadium boos. the president of the united states even posts about it. they say she’s “ruining football”. if you can’t see the double standard here, you are part of the problem.
HAPPY DAY!!!!!!!!!!
probably not a great sign for capitalist hegemony when even the facebook crowd can't take this seriously
being called "cringe" by another tumblr user is just so..............my sibling in christ u are also on the app
"we need to bring back x" it starts with YOU
"we need to bring back inviting people over for coffee and cake" invite people over for coffee and cake. "we need to start watching films on dvd" start watching films on dvd. don't wait for something to become a trend to start doing it.
We got one very hilarious win
Normal person in my replies right now.
as much as I love portrayals of the sun and moon as a (lesbian) couple, the greeks were really on to something when they said "actually they're siblings who disapprove of each other's life choices"
my friend took in a stray and she’s the cutest kitty ever but he named her oil so whenever he sends a picture of her me and my other friends look like we’re roleplaying as the US military
in our defense this is oil
@creatures-in-posts
This creature is a sopping wet beast
Boy why are you so paws??
I really do think a big part of Austen's works is examining what happens when a lot of wealth and a lot of leisure brings out the worst in people. Most of her characters are Trust Fund Babies who never have and never will work a day in their lives. Even good landlords like Darcy can take two month vacations at their friend's houses without consequences beyond writing a few letters of business. Even some of the real jobs were hardly work, clergymen could (and did) hire dirt cheap curates to cover their sermons, landlords had stewards.
What sort of terrible behaviour results? A ton of greed, a lot of social envy (trying to get higher and richer in society), a lot of men and women treating love as a game (either for giggles or to marry up), a lot of indolence/laziness (Mr. Bennet and Lady Bertram), and a ton of pride despite having done nothing for their wealth and position except you know, being born (and often being born male).
How could a man flirt with women just for fun? He doesn't have anything else to think about or do! Why is that woman trying so hard to manipulate a rich man? It's her only way to attain wealth since it's uncouth for her to dirty her hands.
These people need actual jobs. I'm convinced Henry Crawford would be like an 80% better person if he had something to do with his life.
And then you have the fact that almost none of the actions of men have any real consequences, at least for themselves...
Oh man I was JUST discussing this with a friend! These people have nothing to do. They are literally making up things to do. How many tables do you have to paint? How many purses do you have to net, really?
My mother raised ten children as a stay-at-home mom. She had her hands full. But even then she redecorated the house on a constant rotation of rooms, because designing and then reworking each room with her own hands gave her something to turn her energy toward
These people have nothing, and more limited sources of entertainment, more limited sources of travel. No wonder they are so catty. No wonder Elizabeth spends hours a day walking. What ELSE is she going to do??
People did a lot of positive things too, like natural sciences, charity, and educating themselves, but clearly not everyone.
At least, when you're looking at the women at the time, you also have to consider that, like? Unless you were born and raised a Fanny Price (no titles, no real pedigree that would allow you to "marry well")?
Women did not work.
It was a sign of being "outside of Society," of being the class of people who would go on to work as household servants or trades people.
Also. Women could not inherit property or money from either immediate family (like a parent or sibling) or their spouse, save for very specific circumstances.
All of that would go to the next closest male relative of the deceased. Like? Even if your husband has a single living male cousin he never saw? That's who'd be getting that money.
So, like? Yes, money made a lot of these people awful, but also. Of course the women treated marriage like a competitive sport. Their survival depended on marrying well, or having enough male relatives with money to financially support them.
Which, if you consider the Bennett's living situation, explains a lot about Lizzy's mom. Because she's seemingly the only parent concerned about what will happen to her daughters, or herself, when her husband beefs it.
(If even one of her kids married well, that could be a safety net for them all, because that daughter would have access to her husband's resources in order to give her mother/sisters living stipends.)
And because of that, you also get a lot of the wealthy men behaving badly, because they were very aware of this reality, and used it to their advantage (see: any number of Austen's "rakes").
So yeah, Austen is very much something to examine through the lens of "money can make you act terribly."
But also...... it's a very poignant bit of social commentary on the reality of women's lives, and how it's a disservice to dismiss their actions as frivolous when their options were to either play the game, or be homeless/starve/etc once their father/brother/uncle beefed it.
(bc it's hard to get a trade job when you were never taught a trade. so. "just get a job" wasn't necessarily an option, since the jobs women of the lower classes could get were forms of skilled labor)
This is a bit inaccurate. Women inherited money all the time, many women in Jane Austen's works have dowries which are inheritances (the Dashwood sisters, the Bingley sisters, Emma Woodhouse, Sophia Grey, the Ward sisters) or held property (though that was rarer). Married women often had jointures (Mrs. Jennings, Lady Russell) that maintained their style of living or close enough after their death of their spouse. Women weren't in a great legal position, but it's not as bad as you have written.
It was rare for a woman to be the primary heir of an estate, but it was possible if the estate wasn't entailed. Mrs. Ferrars and Lady Catherine both seem to have full control of their husband's estates once they become widows.
Also, most of the awfulness we see from women in Austen is from securely married or rich widowed women, like Mrs. Ferrars, Fanny Dashwood, Mrs. Norris, and Lady Catherine. They don't have a real chance of falling into poverty. Or unwed but very rich women, who would be totally fine if they didn't marry, like Mary Crawford or Caroline Bingley. They are not looking for a "comfortable home", they want the most they can get. Mary would still be very upper class if she married her *huge air quotes* poor second son (Edmund's income would be 750/year, without adding Mary's dowry).
And two women who treat love as a game, Isabella Thorpe and Maria Bertram, already are engaged and "safe", but try to catch a better man.
Anyway, neither Austen nor I am dismissing the hardship of women's lives, but women in the upper classes were definitely participating in the "wealth and leisure bringing out the worst in people".
Very much agreed with the last post, and I'd also add that the idea of women "not working" is one that needs to be considered with a lot more nuance than it usually is.
Even above the level of artisans who participated in the family business (which was probably a bit socially higher/more prosperous than you think), women were active. They didn't clean or do the major cooking, they didn't do directly profitable work, but they had to be very wealthy before they could afford to hand over every domestic task to servants. And then on top of that ... I am running low on time right now, so I'll quote myself from elsewhere:
A large part of women's use of their needles when they didn't need-need to relates to the ideology around "women's work". Plain sewing was the quintessential womanly skill; a woman who couldn't manage a seam or a hem might be thought to be a frivol, inattentive to her duties. Spending too much time in idleness or pleasure-seeking was, if not sinful, a waste - not just in the eyes of society, but in their own self-opinions. Anna Larpent, an Englishwoman, left a diary of her own around the turn of the century that detailed her own sewing in even more detail than Anna Winslow Green's letters, and it shows that she was fairly constantly at work on sewing curtains, neckcloths, dust covers, and needle-cases, and embroidering handkerchiefs and chair cushions, as well as doing ordinary mending. In addition to providing the house and family with new or renewed items, this gave her a specific kind of pleasure: I can smile, I mended two shirts and two shifts ... and had it not been a duty how much rather would I have studied history or poetry, but I protest ... fulfilling my female duties warms my heart as much as Mental pursuits delights it ... * She also recorded that this work gave her time to digest and consider those mental pursuits that she had been pursuing earlier in the day. Regarding embroidery - there's another thing that tends to poorly-portrayed in pop culture, where it's made out to be a special kind of torture with no purpose. In reality, it's just the other side of the plain sewing coin, another type of womanly industry. The most basic embroidery, which served a necessary purpose, was stitching numbers and letters onto otherwise unremarkable undergarments and handkerchiefs, so that the owner ended up with them after laundering; this could be entrusted to children and any maidservants. Being able to spend valuable time on embroidering home furnishings and clothing (samplers and pretty pictures for the wall were projects for those learning the skill) was itself a privilege - and would result in something nice for the home or body. We can also regard it as an art like drawing or painting, though typically it isn't given the same respect as those two activities, which, of course, were mostly done professionally by men. A good way to understand sewing both plain and fancy is to compare them to modern-day DIY and crafting. It often saves a little money, but the real benefit is the feeling of accomplishment while working on the projects and using or looking at them after they're finished. There's a sense that what was created is better or more desirable not just because it's of a certain level of quality, but because it has the distinction of being made at home.
We consider all of this kind of thing "not work", but it was definitely considered "work" in the period for middle-class and even most gentry women. (Anna Larpent was the daughter of a British ambassador and the wife of a civil servant in the late 18th century. Her family rented a house in London and another in the country, and in addition to male staff she employed a housekeeper and multiple maids.) It was not like picking up an embroidery hoop, doing a few stitches, and putting it aside again a few minutes later out of boredom - it was like spending a day at the job of clothing the family or decorating the house.
A typical month's work can be seen in July 1799 when she "made three valences for the Eating Room Windows, and three pocket handkerchiefs for John, cut out four shirts for John and one for Mr Larpent, made a collar and sleeves for the latter, made a pair of mittens, finished a Hearth Carpet in X stitch, worked part of a gown for my sister, did much mending particularly chair covers old and worn which I patched into the pattern that they might be dyed."
"‘After they went I worked’ : Mrs Larpent and her Needlework, 1790–1800", by Mary Anne Garry in Costume, 39:1, 91-99 (2005) * There is a lot to delve into wrt this quote and what it says about Larpent, her upbringing, and women's places in the world, but for right now in the present context it must suffice to say that this was in a private diary and should be assumed to be reasonably sincere. Other diary entries are straightforwardly positive about the relief she found in sewing.
This isn't hugely important to Bethany's point, as this would not bring in any money (but with the dowries and/or jointures and/or outright inheritances these characters have, they are in zero danger of needing to earn a living or being plunged into genteel poverty like the Bateses). It's just something I wish more people were aware of when they say that women didn't work or that women had nothing to do with themselves - it's important to be specific and talk about "working for a wage" or "being hired by an employer", because this kind of labor was considered vital to the household, and doing it was considered "working".
Also, the women Bethany is pointing out as leisured in Austen do not have to do this kind of thing at all, or rather, they have the luxury of being so wealthy that they can afford to rise above the "proper women are industrious" principle. Even the Bennets don't seem to do anything more than occasionally remake bonnets for amusement; Caroline Bingley and Fanny Dashwood are definitely not engaging in the work of mending clothes or sewing curtains, not because it would demean them but because there are other things they would rather spend their time on.
(as an addendum to the above statement, I will say that they weren't usually MAKING their own gowns or the men's suits. the letters mention shifts, shirts- for men -or embroidery because garments fitted to adults were the purview of professional mantua-makers and tailors)
(and that went for the middle- and most of the working-classes as well)