Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Show & Tell
Claire Keane

Kaledo Art
taylor price
sheepfilms
trying on a metaphor

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Today's Document
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Game of Thrones Daily

Origami Around

⁂
Acquired Stardust
hello vonnie

Product Placement

Kiana Khansmith
art blog(derogatory)

Discoholic 🪩
No title available

seen from China
seen from Singapore

seen from South Africa

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia

seen from Singapore
seen from Colombia
seen from T1
seen from Malaysia
seen from New Zealand
seen from Brazil

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Indonesia

seen from New Zealand
seen from Türkiye
seen from France

seen from Singapore
seen from Netherlands

seen from United States
@bachcave
Source: {x}
“A Female Reporter”
NELLIE BLY. HER NAME IS NELLIE BLY.
You know what else she did??
Saved a ton of mental hospital patients from persistent & sickening abuse. She went in undercover, and the doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc trrated her like all the others. They essentially said ‘Who cares if you don’t like hiw we treat you? No one will ever hear you or believe you!’
Wanna bet? said Nellie Bly
“Could I pass a week in the insane ward at Blackwell’s Island? I said I could and I would. And I did.” In 1887, investigative journalist for
Nellie was a fucking hero. You put some respect on Nellie Bly’s name.
“A Female Reporter” my ass
"One outstanding characteristic of the feminine speech is the reluctance to voice a declarative sentence—“I say this”—with certainty and strength. Robin Lakoff, a pioneering theorist of feminine inflections, devised a classic masculine-feminine exchange to demonstrate how women routinely turn a declarative into a faltering question:
MAN: When will dinner be ready?
WOMAN: Oh … around six o’clock … ?
“It is as though [the woman] were saying ‘Six o’clock, if that’s okay with you, if you agree,’” writes Lakoff. “Here we find unwillingness to assert an opinion carried to an extreme.”
But of course. It is not feminine to express a strong opinion, even about something as uncontroversial as when the roast might come out of the oven. Women are not supposed to be authoritative. By reputation we are not even supposed to be able to present a set of facts in a rational, cogent manner. A female opinion strongly expressed is often considered emotional or bitchy. Commands and directives that come from her lips will be modified with little grace notes, qualified with an extraneous phrase to take the edge off the expression of power. “Would you like to get that for me?” is a feminine turn of phrase. The underling may have no choice: he will get that memo on her desk first thing in the morning or be fired for incompetence, but the command has been softened, the power relationship disguised, the male ego left intact.
Except when dealing with children, women are rarely comfortable issuing a command—not only because we have had fewer opportunities to be in a managerial role, but because commands and orders are blatantly unfeminine. A command uses a minimum amount of language; it need not be couched in terms of politeness. Politeness is required from underlings but not from rulers. A command may be barked, but a woman must coo. “Would you do me a favor and … ?” It is not surprising that insincerity is a charge that is leveled at feminine speech.
Few fault the Southern belle for her insincerity, however. Insincerity is part of her flirtatious charm, as long as it is directed toward the gentlemen in the form of compliments and feigned, wide-eyed interest."
- Femininity by Susan Brownmiller
Credit: Instagram: @ magay_45
I love her videos. I wish I could send them to my younger self.
A Swedish woman hitting a neo-Nazi protester with her handbag. The woman was reportedly a concentration camp survivor. [1985]
Volunteers learn how to fight fires at Pearl Harbor [c. 1941 - 1945]
Maud Wagner, the first well-known female tattoo artist in the U.S. [1907]
A 106-year old Armenian woman protecting her home with an AK-47. [1990]
Komako Kimura, a prominent Japanese suffragist at a march in New York. [October 23, 1917]
Margaret Hamilton, lead software engineer of the Apollo Project, standing next to the code she wrote by hand that was used to take humanity to the moon. [1969]
Erika, a 15-year-old Hungarian fighter who fought for freedom against the Soviet Union. [October 1956]
Sarla Thakral, 21 years old, the first Indian woman to earn a pilot license. [1936]
Voting activist Annie Lumpkins at the Little Rock city jail. [1961] (freakin’ immaculate)
Now with more awesomesauce!
Female pilots leaving their B-17, “Pistol Packin’ Mama” [c. 1941 - 1945]
The first basketball team from Smith college. [1902]
Filipino guerilla, Captain Nieves Fernandez, shows a US soldier how she killed Japanese soldiers during the occupation. [1944]
Afghani medical students. [1962] (man, screw fundamentalism.)
A British sergeant training members of the ‘mum’s army’ Women’s Home Defence Corps during the Battle of Britain. [1940]
and just to wrap up…
Nina Simone, one of the most talented vocalists of the 20th century.
— @greenwire
To add a little bit: When the early bathroom bill came out a friend/colleague of mine asked “Are they going to do gender checks?” meaning checking people’s genitals (as I understood her). I found that convincing because I acknowledged that there is some overlap in the appearances of gender non-conforming men and gnc women (one of the first reported attacks on a person entering the women’s restroom was on a female person). I also figured that a transwoman wanting to use the women’s restroom is trying to not out themselves as trans, and they would therefore behave accordingly. But I have seen, in the intervening years, that a number of transwomen are not actually interested in passing as women, at least not among women. Walking around the women’s changing or spa rooms with your penis out means you are not trying to pass as a woman. Masturbating in the women’s restroom means you are not trying to live as a woman. Preventing women from talking about their gynecological cancers in women’s cancers group means you are not trying to live as a woman. It means you want to be a man with unimpeded access to women.
I think my issue with drag is that men have decided that’s their safe space to play with femininity and womanhood and it’s an integral part of gay culture allegedly but like what if (hear me out) you were just openly feminine without acting like you’re putting on a female caricature? What if instead of making fun of yourselves or over-sexualizing yourselves for being feminine and acting like it’s part of this female caricature, what if instead of that you just acted like it was normal and doesn’t make you like a woman in any way shape or form and there’s nothing to perform because you’re just being yourself? There’s all these talks about whether drag is ok for kids but like what are you teaching them? That men have to dress up as women to be feminine? And that’s the joke? Wouldn’t it be better to teach them that you can be a feminine man without making fun of women or comparing yourself to them? Wouldn’t it be better to show little boys that it’s ok to be gender nonconforming and that doesn’t make you womanly or the butt of the joke?
Agree with the sentiment here. Femininity is a male fantasy, it has nothing to do with womanhood. I would not have as many problems with drag if they stopped calling each other "girl"/"ladies", stopped using terms like "fishy" or "serving cunt" to describe particularly feminine drag looks, if they stopped picking female names and calling each other "she". In short, if they stopped making drag a caricatured reflection of womanhood. They're playing into stereotypes that will never affect them, they're reinforcing the objectification and sexualisation of women - a kind of oppression that is not about them or directed at them. As much as they're brave for eschewing masculinity under patriarchy, in this instance they're also cowards. It's time for drag to be a reflection of manhood. Start using male names, using "he" pronouns, ditch the breastplates and the padding and maybe we'll get somewhere. Just keep women out of your mouth.
If men start dressing feminine without pretending it makes them women, or representations of women, they’re no longer doing drag. The ‘I am acting as a woman’ part is essential to drag, so there’s no amount of scaled-back drag that I’m okay with, because men dressing feminine isn’t automatically drag.
If you read the Sins of Jack Saul, which is a historical non-fiction book about the Cleveland Street Brothel scandal of 1889, at one point the author goes into a digression about the gay male history of pretending to be women as a homosocial bonding tool - it wasn’t automatically a public entertainment, they kind of merged later, through music hall / variety shows. It actually happened a lot in private, with men recreating the public rituals they were able to have with their wives with other men - there are documented accounts of weddings, with cross-dressing in wedding dresses normally happening by the working-class rent boys and the upper class clients remaining male grooms. Not just weddings, but also mimicked pregnancies giving birth to wooden dolls. I don’t think the class/power disparity is a coincidence in who has to be the bride - but it still initially presents it quite sympathetically, he then (critically) goes on to talk about historical examples of straight men pretending to be women too - the example that stuck with me is the priests of benin (the city, not the country) who would expel all women from the city for ritual holy days, where they would dress up as pregnant women and do a dance around the city. If any women were found hiding they would be savagely beaten.
Basically, mocking women by pretending to be them is a homosocial bonding tool that repeats throughout history, but the idea that it’s exclusively a gay male thing born out of repression and homophobia is a fairly recent development and while there’s probably some truth to it on an individual level, it is also a convenient narrative that allows a continuing, socially acceptable public outlet for men mocking women by pretending to be them. Even women who are open about being made uncomfortable by trans women usually give the benefit of the doubt to drag.
Little Women (2019) // Simone de Beauvoir // The Woman Who Rides Like a Man (Tamora Pierce) // The Color Purple // Persuasion (Jane Austen) // Catherine, Called Birdy (2022) // tumblr.com
“our work should equip the next generation of women to outdo us in every field this is the legacy we’ll leave.”
- rupi kaur
They literally can't point to anything. All their talking points are actual jokes.
This is stunning.
Ill always be a sap and reblog this
My formative feminist text was "Marked Women, Unmarked Men" by Deborah Tannen. I read it when I was 14 for my English class and suddenly I had a framework to describe what I'd always known to be true: Gender is a defensive invention. I'd like to recommend it as reading to anyone curious about female-centered feminism... Frustratingly, the New York Times hosts the article and requires a subscription. If any gyns have a copy on hand or are willing to copy it below, I would be so appreciative.
Wears Jumpsuit. Sensible Shoes. Uses Husband's Last Name.
by Deborah Tannen | June 20, 1993
Some years ago I was at a small working conference of four women and eight men. Instead of concentrating on the discussion I found myself looking at the three other women at the table, thinking how each had a different style and how each style was coherent.
One woman had dark brown hair in a classic style, a cross between Cleopatra and Plain Jane. The severity of her straight hair was softened by wavy bangs and ends that turned under. Because she was beautiful, the effect was more Cleopatra than plain.
The second woman was older, full of dignity and composure. Her hair was cut in a fashionable style that left her with only one eye, thanks to a side part that let a curtain of hair fall across half her face. As she looked down to read her prepared paper, the hair robbed her of bifocal vision and created a barrier between her and the listeners.
The third woman's hair was wild, a frosted blond avalanche falling over and beyond her shoulders. When she spoke she frequently tossed her head, calling attention to her hair and away from her lecture.
Then there was makeup. The first woman wore facial cover that made her skin smooth and pale, a black line under each eye and mascara that darkened already dark lashes. The second wore only a light gloss on her lips and a hint of shadow on her eyes. The third had blue bands under her eyes, dark blue shadow, mascara, bright red lipstick and rouge; her fingernails flashed red.
I considered the clothes each woman had worn during the three days of the conference: In the first case, man-tailored suits in primary colors with solid-color blouses. In the second, casual but stylish black T-shirts, a floppy collarless jacket and baggy slacks or a skirt in neutral colors. The third wore a sexy jump suit; tight sleeveless jersey and tight yellow slacks; a dress with gaping armholes and an indulged tendency to fall off one shoulder.
Shoes? No. 1 wore string sandals with medium heels; No. 2, sensible, comfortable walking shoes; No. 3, pumps with spike heels. You can fill in the jewelry, scarves, shawls, sweaters -- or lack of them.
As I amused myself finding coherence in these styles, I suddenly wondered why I was scrutinizing only the women. I scanned the eight men at the table. And then I knew why I wasn't studying them. The men's styles were unmarked.
THE TERM "MARKED" IS a staple of linguistic theory. It refers to the way language alters the base meaning of a word by adding a linguistic particle that has no meaning on its own. The unmarked form of a word carries the meaning that goes without saying -- what you think of when you're not thinking anything special.
The unmarked tense of verbs in English is the present -- for example, visit. To indicate past, you mark the verb by adding ed to yield visited. For future, you add a word: will visit. Nouns are presumed to be singular until marked for plural, typically by adding s or es, so visit becomes visits and dish becomes dishes.
The unmarked forms of most English words also convey "male." Being male is the unmarked case. Endings like ess and ette mark words as "female." Unfortunately, they also tend to mark them for frivolousness. Would you feel safe entrusting your life to a doctorette? Alfre Woodard, who was an Oscar nominee for best supporting actress, says she identifies herself as an actor because "actresses worry about eyelashes and cellulite, and women who are actors worry about the characters we are playing." Gender markers pick up extra meanings that reflect common associations with the female gender: not quite serious, often sexual.
Each of the women at the conference had to make decisions about hair, clothing, makeup and accessories, and each decision carried meaning. Every style available to us was marked. The men in our group had made decisions, too, but the range from which they chose was incomparably narrower. Men can choose styles that are marked, but they don't have to, and in this group none did. Unlike the women, they had the option of being unmarked.
Take the men's hair styles. There was no marine crew cut or oily longish hair falling into eyes, no asymmetrical, two-tiered construction to swirl over a bald top. One man was unabashedly bald; the others had hair of standard length, parted on one side, in natural shades of brown or gray or graying. Their hair obstructed no views, left little to toss or push back or run fingers through and, consequently, needed and attracted no attention. A few men had beards. In a business setting, beards might be marked. In this academic gathering, they weren't.
There could have been a cowboy shirt with string tie or a three-piece suit or a necklaced hippie in jeans. But there wasn't. All eight men wore brown or blue slacks and nondescript shirts of light colors. No man wore sandals or boots; their shoes were dark, closed, comfortable and flat. In short, unmarked.
Although no man wore makeup, you couldn't say the men didn't wear makeup in the sense that you could say a woman didn't wear makeup. For men, no makeup is unmarked.
I asked myself what style we women could have adopted that would have been unmarked, like the men's. The answer was none. There is no unmarked woman.
There is no woman's hair style that can be called standard, that says nothing about her. The range of women's hair styles is staggering, but a woman whose hair has no particular style is perceived as not caring about how she looks, which can disqualify her for many positions, and will subtly diminish her as a person in the eyes of some.
Women must choose between attractive shoes and comfortable shoes. When our group made an unexpected trek, the woman who wore flat, laced shoes arrived first. Last to arrive was the woman in spike heels, shoes in hand and a handful of men around her.
If a woman's clothing is tight or revealing (in other words, sexy), it sends a message -- an intended one of wanting to be attractive, but also a possibly unintended one of availability. If her clothes are not sexy, that too sends a message, lent meaning by the knowledge that they could have been. There are thousands of cosmetic products from which women can choose and myriad ways of applying them. Yet no makeup at all is anything but unmarked. Some men see it as a hostile refusal to please them.
Women can't even fill out a form without telling stories about themselves. Most forms give four titles to choose from. "Mr." carries no meaning other than that the respondent is male. But a woman who checks "Mrs." or "Miss" communicates not only whether she has been married but also whether she has conservative tastes in forms of address -- and probably other conservative values as well. Checking "Ms." declines to let on about marriage (checking "Mr." declines nothing since nothing was asked), but it also marks her as either liberated or rebellious, depending on the observer's attitudes and assumptions.
I sometimes try to duck these variously marked choices by giving my title as "Dr." -- and in so doing risk marking myself as either uppity (hence sarcastic responses like "Excuse me!") or an overachiever (hence reactions of congratulatory surprise like "Good for you!").
All married women's surnames are marked. If a woman takes her husband's name, she announces to the world that she is married and has traditional values. To some it will indicate that she is less herself, more identified by her husband's identity. If she does not take her husband's name, this too is marked, seen as worthy of comment: she has done something; she has "kept her own name." A man is never said to have "kept his own name" because it never occurs to anyone that he might have given it up. For him using his own name is unmarked.
A married woman who wants to have her cake and eat it too may use her surname plus his, with or without a hyphen. But this too announces her marital status and often results in a tongue-tying string. In a list (Harvey O'Donovan, Jonathan Feldman, Stephanie Woodbury McGillicutty), the woman's multiple name stands out. It is marked.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN inclined toward biological explanations of gender differences in language, but I was intrigued to see Ralph Fasold bring biological phenomena to bear on the question of linguistic marking in his book "The Sociolinguistics of Language." Fasold stresses that language and culture are particularly unfair in treating women as the marked case because biologically it is the male that is marked. While two X chromosomes make a female, two Y chromosomes make nothing. Like the linguistic markers s, es or ess, the Y chromosome doesn't "mean" anything unless it is attached to a root form -- an X chromosome.
Developing this idea elsewhere, Fasold points out that girls are born with fully female bodies, while boys are born with modified female bodies. He invites men who doubt this to lift up their shirts and contemplate why they have nipples.
In his book, Fasold notes "a wide range of facts which demonstrates that female is the unmarked sex." For example, he observes that there are a few species that produce only females, like the whiptail lizard. Thanks to parthenogenesis, they have no trouble having as many daughters as they like. There are no species, however, that produce only males. This is no surprise, since any such species would become extinct in its first generation.
Fasold is also intrigued by species that produce individuals not involved in reproduction, like honeybees and leaf-cutter ants. Reproduction is handled by the queen and a relatively few males; the workers are sterile females. "Since they do not reproduce," Fasold says, "there is no reason for them to be one sex or the other, so they default, so to speak, to female."
Fasold ends his discussion of these matters by pointing out that if language reflected biology, grammar books would direct us to use "she" to include males and females and "he" only for specifically male referents. But they don't. They tell us that "he" means "he or she," and that "she" is used only if the referent is specifically female. This use of "he" as the sex-indefinite pronoun is an innovation introduced into English by grammarians in the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Peter Muhlhausler and Rom Harre in "Pronouns and People." From at least about 1500, the correct sex-indefinite pronoun was "they," as it still is in casual spoken English. In other words, the female was declared by grammarians to be the marked case.
Writing this article may mark me not as a writer, not as a linguist, not as an analyst of human behavior, but as a feminist -- which will have positive or negative, but in any case powerful, connotations for readers. Yet I doubt that anyone reading Ralph Fasold's book would put that label on him.
I discovered the markedness inherent in the very topic of gender after writing a book on differences in conversational style based on geographical region, ethnicity, class, age and gender. When I was interviewed, the vast majority of journalists wanted to talk about the differences between women and men. While I thought I was simply describing what I observed -- something I had learned to do as a researcher -- merely mentioning women and men marked me as a feminist for some.
When I wrote a book devoted to gender differences in ways of speaking, I sent the manuscript to five male colleagues, asking them to alert me to any interpretation, phrasing or wording that might seem unfairly negative toward men. Even so, when the book came out, I encountered responses like that of the television talk show host who, after interviewing me, turned to the audience and asked if they thought I was male-bashing.
Leaping upon a poor fellow who affably nodded in agreement, she made him stand and asked, "Did what she said accurately describe you?" "Oh, yes," he answered. "That's me exactly." 'And what she said about women -- does that sound like your wife?" "Oh yes," he responded. "That's her exactly." "Then why do you think she's male-bashing?" He answered, with disarming honesty, "Because she's a woman and she's saying things about men."
To say anything about women and men without marking oneself as either feminist or anti-feminist, male-basher or apologist for men seems as impossible for a woman as trying to get dressed in the morning without inviting interpretations of her character.
Sitting at the conference table musing on these matters, I felt sad to think that we women didn't have the freedom to be unmarked that the men sitting next to us had. Some days you just want to get dressed and go about your business. But if you're a woman, you can't, because there is no unmarked woman.
It is, and I could kiss you. Muah muah 🤍
“"Did what she said accurately describe you?" "Oh, yes," he answered. "That's me exactly." 'And what she said about women -- does that sound like your wife?" "Oh yes," he responded. "That's her exactly." "Then why do you think she's male-bashing?" He answered, with disarming honesty, "Because she's a woman and she's saying things about men."”
Source: {x}
“A Female Reporter”
NELLIE BLY. HER NAME IS NELLIE BLY.
You know what else she did??
Saved a ton of mental hospital patients from persistent & sickening abuse. She went in undercover, and the doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc trrated her like all the others. They essentially said ‘Who cares if you don’t like hiw we treat you? No one will ever hear you or believe you!’
Wanna bet? said Nellie Bly
“Could I pass a week in the insane ward at Blackwell’s Island? I said I could and I would. And I did.” In 1887, investigative journalist for
Nellie was a fucking hero. You put some respect on Nellie Bly’s name.
“A Female Reporter” my ass
Stolen from Twitter lol
follow @the-future-now
wow!
disabled women of color are capable and deserve to be recognized and respected
In 1912 Alfred Wegener proposed a controversial theory about how the Earth’s land masses formed. He said the great continents had once formed a single landmass, which had broken up over time. The idea went against all conventional ideas, and was roundly dismissed.
It took the work of young cartographer Marie Tharp to prove him right.
In 1947, she worked on a team that were running expeditions around the world, mapping the ocean floors with echolocation. However, Marie wasn’t allowed on the missions because women were seen as ‘bad luck’…
But the work she did back at the university was invaluable. Converting endless data into detailed profiles, she realised that the ocean floor isn’t a flat, featureless plane, but a complex, varied landscape.
Most importantly, she spotted a long, V-shaped valley in each of her profiles: a rift valley that supported Wegener’s theory, formed by two land masses moving apart, splitting the ocean floor in two.
But even with this evidence, Tharp’s ideas were dismissed as ‘girl talk’.
She then realised that her profiles tied in with worldwide earthquake maps being developed by a colleague.
The mounting evidence started to convince some sceptics, but not all. Renowned explorer Jacques Cousteau was so unconvinced that he sent an expedition to film the ocean floor and clear things up once and for all. What did his footage show? Exactly what Tharp had predicted.
Tharp’s steadfast determination had paved the way for Wegener’s continental drift theory to gain traction. As the tide of opposition waned, it gave birth to our modern understanding of plate tectonics and secured Tharp’s position as one of the most outstanding cartographers of the 20th century.
Watch the full story on our YouTube channel.
Once again I am filled with awe for a brilliant woman and disgust that I’ve never heard her name before today.
I am one of today’s lucky 10,000