@hel-is-lurking-in-the-shadows la moitié du gang à la plage (l'autre moitié boit des cocktails sous leur parasol, maître Duom refuse de mettre un orteil au soleil)
macklin celebrini has autism
taylor price
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
No title available
★

Discoholic 🪩
Doug Jones

#extradirty
Today's Document

shark vs the universe

ellievsbear
The Stonewall Inn

Andulka
NASA

titsay
official daine visual archive

bliss lane

Kiana Khansmith
occasionally subtle
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from New Zealand
seen from Botswana

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Brazil
seen from Australia
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
@forthestarsandmoon
@hel-is-lurking-in-the-shadows la moitié du gang à la plage (l'autre moitié boit des cocktails sous leur parasol, maître Duom refuse de mettre un orteil au soleil)
Every year Dracula daily revamps interest in the novel and every year I have to be reminded of the utter buffoonery and misogyny that pervades every modern adaptation that romanticizes Dracula and his predation of women in the name of being “subversive” while completely cutting out or sidelining his predation of men (namely Jonathan) because all of a sudden when he’s assaulting and robbing men of their agency it’s not sexy or sympathetic anymore and we can’t include Jonathan (one of the most interesting and unique and ACTUALLY subversive male characters in gothic literature) because he’s not “manly” enough
And let’s go into this further. Because what also pisses me off is people do this and defend it by claiming it gives the female characters (chiefly Mina) empowerment and agency where they didn’t before. But they DID! That’s the whole thing!!!! They had an astounding degree of agency and respect and happiness BEFORE Dracula came into their lives and robbed them of it.
Lucy lived happily with her loving mother, had her pick of three lovely suitors, was given full freedom to choose whom she would spend her life with and has that decision respected by all the men involved, who all admire and care for her so much that they remain devoted friends to her (and I mean REALLY genuine friends) up to and past the point of her death where they risk their lives to avenge her and put her soul to rest.
Mina is in an unusually healthy, loving, devoted marriage to a man she completely adores, again with a bright future ahead of them both. Jonathan constantly thinks of Mina, compares almost all women against her, and is absolutely utterly in love with her. Mina and Jonathan regularly subvert Victorian expectations of a married couple in that they deeply love and respect one another to the point of flouting “proper” Victorian customs by being affectionate out in public. In fact, the one time Jonathan decides to play the traditional man and ignores Mina’s wishes to leave her at home while he goes hunting vampires w the other men, he is IMMEDIATELY punished by the narrative! Draculas predation of Mina starts that night because she was left behind, and in response Jonathan affirms and reaffirms his total devotion to Mina above the other men for the rest of the story. In the third act of the novel while the team is trying to stop Mina’s slow turn to vampirism, Jonathan not only explicitly tells us the reader through his private journal entires that he will LITERALLY go against god if Mina is turned and damn himself to be by her side in hell rather than kill her if she becomes a vampire, he is unsubtle enough about it that the other men genuinely worry about where Jonathan’s loyalties will lie if they fail in killing Dracula and saving Mina.
So when adaptations pose that either of these women were just your typical trapped, bored, sexually frustrated poor Victorian traditional ladies looking for an out until bad boy Dracula comes to sexually liberate them…. Motherfucker they were ALREADY about as liberated as female characters written by a man in the 1800s could get. Lucy is introduced to us as a young woman flush with bright and happy futures and her pick of the litter for the life she wants to lead until Dracula kills her and takes that from her. Mina marries her childhood sweetheart who literally prioritizes her over God and is building a business with him before Dracula nearly ruins her life permanently.
Not only is claiming that dracula is an agent of the female characters agency just completely antithetical to his role in the original narrative as a blatant serial THEIF of women’s freedom, from the brides to the peasant mother to Lucy to Mina, it’s literally less subversive than the fucking source material
the horrors persist but so do books, art, hot chocolate, winter nights, the moon, the sea, the stars, sunsets, literature, libraries, cats, flowers, stories, love and the wistful feeling you get when you finally return home
My somewhat controversial take is that many people who call themselves queer or spend time in “queer spaces” are not actually queer. It’s not that I don’t believe they are gay or trans or whatever gender or sexual orientation they identify with. What I mean is that queerness is more than an orientation. It is a distinctly political identity. I know I’m not the first to say this, not by far, but still, many people seem hesitant when I bring it up. They worry about gatekeeping queerness. But I’m not suggesting we go on a witch hunt to banish all fake queers from our dyke nights and drag brunches. When I hear someone call themselves queer, I am not going to contradict them. I just know we may not mean the same thing, they same way that people throw around terms like “trauma bonding” to mean “sharing intimate and painful memories” rather than “forming an emotional attachment through trauma.” I know what queer means, and maybe that definition has been watered down in the public consciousness, but it doesn’t mean the more precise definition is dead. Queerness is something active, it’s something we strive towards. It’s a conscious effort to decide for ourselves who we want to be rather than letting the discourses of heteronormativity, cisnormativity, misogyny, etc. dictate the roles we play in our relationships. This is why I believe straight people can be queer too — queerness is not defined by who you love but by how you love them. I think we should all be trying to get more queer. It’s like José Muñoz in said in Cruising Utopia, “we are not yet queer. We may never touch queerness, but we can feel it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality”
Who is the bigger Wife Guy?
Odysseus (The Odyssey)
Jonathan Harker (Dracula)
Two dudes who just love their wife to hell and back (literally)
THIS IS ABOUT THEIR ORIGINAL BOOK ITERATIONS
Get those movies outta here!!!
Musicals and ballets can stay but you’re on thin ice
No fucking way Jonathan is losing
How many people did Jonathan kill for her tho?
Count Dracula
Yeah. One.
Odysseus didn't throw shit at the Gods, he was always respectful and devout and the only times he resisted them was when he told Kirke not to put a spell on his dick when they have sex or when he resisted Calypso's love on her island
Not just that but Dracula dying is the best outcome. By joining Dracula had Mina fallen to his curse, they would've doomed the entirety of England (because the crew absolutely wouldn't be able to do shit without Mina's intellect and psychic connection or even Jonathan's physical abilities).
“Would you kill for your wife?” Yeah, but would you comfort her when she’s in pain? Would you be her companion through the most difficult moments of her life? Would you honor her wishes if it meant your own heart breaking? Would you look at her with unwavering love and tenderness if the world declared her unclean and unworthy?
The Amnesty International report that JK Rowling is trying to censor through legal threats.
It can also be found on Google Drive here and on Bluesky here.
Please save and share this info where possible. This report has since been removed by Amnesty International due to legal threats of libel from JK Rowling. This information is no longer easily accessible.
sources: l.e.s. by donald glover // this year by the mountain goats // maya hornbacher, madness // watchisjawdrop on tumblr // wuntrum on tumblr // kim kardashian // unknown // godblessryankent on tiktok // nayyirah waheed // unknown // lev st. valentine
on hope, finally
I will always reblog this
still remember how revolutionary this ad felt 10 years ago
excuse me but it still feels revolutionary
Keep reblogging until it feels normal everywhere.
For context: this came out in 2011 in Australia. Same-sex marriage would not be legalized until December 2017.
It was only legalized in 8 US states (the 8th only a few months before), and wouldn’t be legalized nation-wide until 2015.
It was only legal in TEN COUNTRIES in 2011. We wouldn’t hit 20 countries until 2017. (Australia was 23rd)
As of today (April 14, 2026), I believe only 38 countries have fully legalized same-sex marriage. Out of somewhere around 200 countries in the world. That’s only ~19% of countries.
This is still revolutionary.
someone invents a recipe > their child loves it > they grow up and replicate it for their own child > their child loves it > they grow up and replicate it for their own child > their child loves it > they grow up and replicate it for their own child > their child loves it > (this continues indefinitely)
The funny thing is as a parent you always think, “mine isn’t as good as Nana made it.” But your kid adores it and one day will say “it isn’t as good as my mama made it but the kids like it.”
and on it goes
and so love is passed down the chain of generations, on and on, from mouth to mouth to heart to heart
Love is stored in the Multi-Generational Game Of Telephone.
Love is stored in the
Multi-Generational
Game Of Telephone.
Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.
Bon lundi et on oublie pas d'aller dire à doctolib de ne pas utiliser nos donnés médicales pour leur IA
(Mon compte-> préférences-> amélioreration des services)
I think there's something about seeing my country potentially less than one year away from being taken over by fascists that's awakening patriotic feelings in me I don't often experience. Something about seeing the sick farce fascists make of it helping me appreciate the real thing. I don't believe in nationalism - I don't even think thinking politics in terms of nation-states makes any sense in the modern world frankly - but there are those rare, fleeting moments when the idea suddenly makes sense. When the Nation isn't just an empty signifier employed by charlatans to exclude and other, to shut off critical thinking and enforce conformity, but suddenly becomes a rallying cry for liberty and dignity against an imperial oppressor. Moments like the one Ukrainians and Palestinians are living through right now. Like so many colonized peoples lived and often still live through. And like the French lived through in the 1940s.
All this is to say, watching La Bataille De Gaulle on July 14th made me feel things.
A few more decades
arson? no, you mean crime brulé, mon ami
reading a historical romance novel and reflecting on the way these stories often present woke nobility for the contemporary reader. a big thing is servants. you can’t not have servants in those times but many modern readers think “but I would never have servants. it would be so weird to have servants” and in order to make the protagonists of the story more relatable they are actually friends with the servants. but flip your perspective and think of it from the side of the servants. wouldn’t it be so awful if your boss was always trying to be friends with you. a really common thing you’ll see is the woke baronet having tea in the kitchen with the servants bc he’s not like other baronets. but what if your boss wanted to hang out and talk during your lunch break every day. not so charming when you think about it that way
#okay but now what is the optimal way to be a good boss in this situation i genuinely wanna know#its easy to guess what makes a bad boss or a mid boss. but what is a good boss#specifically in such a highly structured hierarchal situation (via @rainbowroach)
HELLO you are asking questions that literature and poetry THROUGHOUT the middle ages has asked, and it is from this questioning that we derive things like the Codes of Chivalry (which is not "how to treat a noble lady really nice" but is actually "how to be an ethical person when you're rich and you own a horse" and includes such things as "don't run people over with your horse")
In fact I daresay you already know instinctively just from cultural osmosis what a good boss -- a good liege lord -- is and does based on the tropes that have survived to the current day and the kinds of things that get Hugely Praised in things like legends of King Arthur.
A good boss (liege lord) is:
Merciful. He is not having his peasants killed for things like poaching rabbits during a famine. In fact, he is working to mitigate famine. During times of individual hardship, he might negotiate with a peasant for a payment plan on their annual rent.
Patient. He is not impulsive, he does not lose his temper.
Prudent. He makes choices that are thoughtful, considered, conservative (in the sense of not needlessly risky--he's not investing his entire fortune in having everyone plant an unproven crop). He is making sure local infrastructure like roads and public buildings are maintained and kept in good nick.
Gentle. He doesn't haul off and slap a servant or a tenant for breaking a dish or making a mistake. He doesn't abuse animals, his wife or children, or his employees. He doesn't rape the servants.
Generous (both in money and in spirit). He is not extorting the peasants for an amount of rent that is beyond their means, he is not raising taxes every year to cover his own lavish lifestyle. He is paying his servants a living wage (or, if wages are low, he's giving them room/board/clothing to make up the difference). If someone in a tenant's family dies, the lord is sending a gift of condolence, or helping to pay for the funeral, or possibly even ATTENDING the funeral and speaking a few kind words about the deceased, ESPECIALLY if they were a really upstanding and important member of the community. If one of his tenants is gravely sick, the lord is sending a basket of food or paying for a doctor. He is giving charitably (generally this will be, like, a bequest to the church so that they can run a hospital or an orphanage or a school for the local village children).
Pious. This classically means "goes to church, submits with humility to God" but to me this quality is subtextually standing in for "maintaining an ongoing sense of Perspective that HE'S not god, that there are higher powers he is Accountable to, that he too can be Judged, etc, so that he doesn't end up going on a weird fucked up power trip"
Humble. One of the most admiring things you hear about a lord doing in literature and epic poetry is, "He ate off of wooden plates while his followers ate off of gold and silver." Humility isn't about being meek, it's just about not thinking so much of yourself that you turn your nose up and sneer at what "lesser" people do. In other words: Don't be a fucking diva. If your carriage gets stuck in the mud, climb out and help everybody else push, you're not gonna die from getting mud on your shoes.
Condescending. This word has changed wildly in meaning/tone over the last couple centuries -- it's now a rude thing to do (because we've done away with legal social hierarchies, so someone acting like they're lowering themselves to your level IS insulting), but in older times, a high-ranking person "condescending" to a servant was worthy of praise and admiration: it means they were setting aside rank and privilege to speak to them with the easygoing, friendly respect and compassion they'd give a peer. This is things like... Treats those beneath him with courtesy and respect (ie: listens soberly and attentively when one of his servants or tenants comes to complain about a problem). Having a sense of humor and kindness about it when the lord and a servant both come around a corner at the same time and run into each other and the servant gets knocked to the ground and starts babbling apologies--the condescending (positive) lord helps them to their feet with his own hands and cracks a joke to show them that it's ok (as opposed to just walking off without a word or insulting/scolding them). This is also things like trusting a farmer, woodcutter, or artisan to speak with expertise about their own livelihood and taking their advice into consideration if they tell the lord that one of his ideas won't work.
Good boundaries. The ethical liege lord knows that it's normal for the staff to probably be softly bitching about him in private (even with a really good boss, we all grumble from time to time). He's not eavesdropping on them, he's not going into the staff areas where they should reasonably expect to have a degree of privacy, etc.
Righteous and protective of "the weak". The "weak" here doesn't necessarily mean physically weak, this is often used in the sense of someone politically or socially weak, aka The Marginalized -- the poor, the disabled, women, children, the elderly, etc. If a lord sees someone like this being mistreated or abused, he's supposed to step in and put a stop to that.
Committed to reciprocity. In a highly hierarchical system like feudalism, every person (from the lowest peasant all the way up to the crown prince) legally OWES their liege lord certain things (taxes, labor, service, loyalty, etc). A good liege remembers and takes very seriously the idea that this should be a balanced and reciprocal relationship -- in other words, he owes something BACK. Feudalism is modeled very strongly on the family system: If children owe their parents obedience and service, then parents owe their children care and protection. This still applies when the "child" is a farmer and the "parent" is a local baron. Or when the "child" is a duke and the "parent" is the king.
Basically, we get so caught up in the aesthetics of nobility that we forget that it literally is a managerial position that comes with responsibilities that were... very similar back in the day to the same ones we have now. Humans have not changed all that much. At the end of the day, a really good boss in the 1400s versus in one from the 2020s displays most of the same qualities of personality, even if the details of execution are different.
The next question is, of course, "well, but this theoretical liege lord is HIGHLY idealized -- how often did that actually HAPPEN? Wasn't it more likely that everyone was exploited all the time?" and to that I say: Well, maybe. But again, I don't think humans have changed all that much. Just like the bosses of today, there's a SPECTRUM: A really really good boss is rare and precious and one that you tell stories about for years after you've left that job, but a truly, genuinely, homicidally nightmarish boss is also pretty rare. Most bosses are sort of meh -- they have their good moments, they have their shitty moments, but they're tolerable and you can get along with them well enough to do your job, and then you roll your eyes at them behind their back. Generally, humans don't take outright exploitation lying down. Being a bad boss in the historical period is how you get peasant uprisings and revolts, and you know that to be true because your parents raised you with that knowledge, so unless you are very stupid or inbred or an egomaniac, there is literal personal incentive to at minimum be a Tolerable liege lord. And that means hitting at least SOME of the above bullet points.
TL;DR: In the words of Honore de Balzac, "Everything I have just told you can be summarized by an old word: noblesse oblige!"
(for more discussions of the ethics of fealty and what it means to be a good boss when you are an exquisitely beautiful twink of a prince with a hot beefy bodyguard.... [fingerguns] read A Taste of Gold and Iron)
Pose pas de questions auxquelles tu veux pas connaître la réponse 🤷🏻
j'interromps un instant les posts de menhirs pour vous montrer mon joli petit chien
il est très courageux, il s'appelle idefix
ça c'est moi et idefix. il adore les câlins
Marc Bloch (1886-1944)
Today France honored a trailblazing scholar and a heroic combatant who exemplified the struggle against fascism through his thought and his action alike.
A pioneer of social history, Bloch was among the first to orient the discipline away from the deeds of Great Men to the lives of ordinary people, understanding history not as a succession of events but as the unfolding of continuous multifaceted processes embodied in everyday relations and practices. He ruthlessly cut through grand narratives and just-so stories with unfailing academic rigor, always skeptical of dogmatism. He championed a pluralistic, open education system, more focused on forming critical thinking than on rote memorization.
A sincere patriot, he served his country in two world wars, not with nationalistic zeal but with a steadfast sense of duty. Fiercely secular, he was unashamed of his Jewish origins in the face of rising antisemitism, and added his voice to the choir of intellectuals sounding the alarm against the rise of fascism in Europe. When fascism finally came to France, he took up arms once again and joined the Resistance, soon becoming one of its regional leaders. He was caught, tortured, and murdered by nazi thugs and their French lackeys, mere months before the Liberation.
Perhaps his most unique work was his sober recounting of the months leading up to France's fall, Strange Defeat - where the historian himself became a primary source helping future generations understand the events he lived through. He excoriates the ineptness of his military superiors, who prioritized rigid obedience over effective leadership, or the cravenness of France's capitalist class, who would sooner come to terms with Hitler than cede to their workers' demands, without sparing himself and his fellow intellectuals from criticism for being too afraid to take a more active role in politics.
At a time when fascism is once again on the rise across Europe and elsewhere, and it so often feels that we are repeating the same mistake, we can stand to learn a lot from Marc Bloch's works and from the example of his life.