Penguins and period dramas... and fun? :)

Artsy craftsy stuff

[lullabyes22-blog]

I'm sorry but you absolutely cannot strip Jane Austen's work of Regency politics and social etiquette without the entire narrative collapsing into nonsense.

Modern writers need to stop treating Austen’s world like a generic, pretty fairy tale, and start remembering that her books were actually razor-sharp critiques of a brutal socioeconomic landscape with examinations of class, gender, power and money that are still culturally relevant today.

[taradactyls]

I just saw a comment on fb that ran off the misconception that dowries were a sexist subjugation of women for the purposes of buying and selling them like objects, and since this morning I would rather die than engage with a stranger on fb I'm going to talk on here instead about dowries as they were around Jane Austen's era/regency England.

Basically: dowries were an inheritance. It was a way to give a daughter what they would need to live comfortably at the time when they were most likely to need it - leaving their father's care and support and beginning a home elsewhere. In Austen terms we're generally talking about a sum of money, but dowries can also include items for a household like linens and China (goods like this were called a trousseau from at least the 1830s onward). Dowries very materially improved the life of a woman as they were meant to.

Some of the ways they did this were actually before marriage. We tend to call every inheritance a woman was to receive a dowry but that's incorrect, most of Austen's heroines don't have a dowry, though we know how much they'll inherit upon the death of their father and/or mother. Fortune =/= dowry. The Bennets of Pride and Prejudice, the Dashwoods of Sense and Sensibility, Anne Elliot in Persuasion, and even Emma Woodhouse in Emma all will inherit a little to a great deal of wealth but not as a dowry. This means that even Emma, who will one day have the staggering amount of thirty thousand pounds, would not be bringing wealth immediately into a marriage (though in her circumstances she has a father who would hardly let her live impoverished if she had chosen to marry a penniless man).

For women as poor as the Bennets in Pride and Prejudice (though they should've had more money each, if their parents weren't useless, as has been discussed) the distinction between dowry and eventual inheritance didn't mean much: a max of fifty pounds per annum in interest was literally less than what some servants were paid so couldn't alleviate the need for their husbands to have an independent income. But what money a woman could bring into a marriage definitely increased the likelihood of her preferences being realised. Northanger Abbey's Catherine Moreland, who "would have three thousand pounds" means she has enough of a fortune to "smooth the descent of [General Tilney's] pride" and make him consent to the marriage of his son to her. She certainly would've been glad her parents saved this money for her, instead of feeling that she was an object being bought or sold. It empowered her choices, rather than reduced them.

That the inheritance of a woman is presented as a dowry also reduces the chances a woman and the man she loves will need to wait to marry until either of them inherit something or he makes a living. If Anne Elliot of Persuasion had had a dowry, instead of a future inheritance (a "share of ten thousand pounds which must be hers hereafter"), would she have broken off that original engagement? In ch23 she tells Captain Wentworth she would've been engaged to him when he had only "a few thousand pounds" and the likelihood of more thanks to an advantageous posting. If she would receive her own few thousand pounds upon marriage would that've been enough to remain engaged from the first, and perhaps even marry once he had added a few more thousands to that instead of needing to wait for Wentworth to build their shared fortune himself?

We can also see that a dowry was an inheritance parents provided for their daughter's benefit, rather than a sale price, by how carefully marriage articles were drawn up. This could legally define pin-money (how much money a woman would receive for her private usage and upkeep from her husband), and often specified that the husband couldn't diminish the bulk sum of his wife's fortune, only use the interest it generated, so that there would always be something to support the wife and her children no matter how spendthrift he was. Think of it like an old-fashioned pre-nup or family trust.

This is a huge reason why eloping was so bad, it meant there hadn't been articles drawn up beforehand and so the legal default of 'everything the wife has is now the husband's in full' applied instead of the chance to preserve her rights to her own fortune. If Wickham had succeeded in eloping with Georgiana Darcy in Pride and Prejudice her thirty thousand pounds would've become his in full when she turned twenty-one, though her guardians could've withheld it before then, and he could've spent it all and left her penniless without legal consequence.

There are plenty of historical examples of husbands without the regulations of marriage articles squandering the fortune and selling off assets, leaving the wife eventually destitute. Marriage articles are a response to that as father's wanted to protect their daughters and her future children. It actually limited the power of a husband in favour of preserving the comforts and rights of his wife, so was opposite of misogyny (though the society and laws which required these extra protections was undeniably sexist and male-centred)

Nor was receiving an inheritance upon marriage a specifically female-only practice. Eldest sons would generally receive the bulk of their inheritance when their father died, but it was common in this time and for centuries beforehand for them to be confirmed as heir or given a set income from their father (or one of their father's lesser estates, if we're talking nobility and the ultra rich) as part of the marriage articles (which would generally benefit the wife for the remainder of her life, either as a jointure or dower). Younger sons, if not already provided for, could also be given something upon their marriage and may have a commission in the army or a church living bought for them, to give them some independence. In Sense and Sensibility, after accepting the engagement of Edward and Elinor, Mrs Ferrars gives her son ten thousand pounds "towards augmenting their income" and this allows the marriage to occur. No one accuses Mrs Ferrars of selling Edward off in matrimony, even though what she's doing is so similar to a dowry that the narration points out it's exactly what "had been given with [her daughter] Fanny".

Fortune hunters and those marrying purely for money and a comfortable lifestyle definitely existed, as they do now, but dowries were not a socially and legally mandated way to give women to men to benefit them financially. 'Mercenary' marriages were frowned upon, and women were taught to look out for fortune hunters (like Wickham). Nor was it considered only men who might marry primarily to benefit from their spouse's wealth (Charlotte Lucas being a sympathetic female example). That both men and women could have inheritances gifted upon marriage, and were represented as seeking to marry for money, helps show that the practice of dowries wasn't a sexist practice which reduces women to little more than livestock.

In fact, there's an argument to be made that the very existence of large dowries being a cultural norm indicates that daughters were valued and loved. Instead of leaving everything they could to the sons (which would be expected if daughters were worthless objects to be given away at any price) these daughters were considered worth saving for, worth drawing up legal contracts to protect the living standard of, and worth leaving an inheritance often equal or greater than what younger sons would receive (as they could earn their own income). A dowry didn't reduce the humanity of a woman, it empowered her choices and protected her future. It was the women without dowries or an inheritance that were in danger of needing to marry whomever would take them.

[nyomblr]

[craftsypenguin]

We're going personal this time...

[noahwyles]

i, a rock collector, had to go to the ER yesterday because of a gallstone attack, here is how my father messaged me

thanks dad

[anremithrl]

That was the correct thing to say.

[fwizard]

[todaysbird]

that’s a whole man.

[starsinfight]

you can't leave off the photo the sawmill worker took of the kiwi

[4-0-doublenatural]

It's so funny when the doctors wander around in their bloody scrubs. Second episode they're still wearing gloves too and Hawkeye makes a phone call.

I'd say the 4077 would be scary under a blacklight but considering the rats and the doctor's night time habits that would be a given.

[tuttle-did-it]

Personally, I believe Hawkeye does this on purpose. He finds everything about war offensive. He finds the fact that he is doing surgery on 18 year-old kids with bullets in their bodies – and then who are sent back after he removes those bullets for him to remove more bullets – repugnant.

I think little things like this is his way of trying to remind everyone that nothing they’re seeing is OK. They all get so used to piles of bodies, it almost becomes normal.

He knows that it’s distasteful to walk around covered in the blood of these dying kids. He knows that. He knows it’s actually probably offensive to some people to do that. But I think it’s his way of trying to be offensive to the war. Trying to remind people that what they are seeing is not normal, and it’s not acceptable.

He is mirroring the offensiveness of war in order to remind people that it’s never acceptable or normal. I am convinced he does it on purpose, as a visual representation of not just “fuck the war” but also “fuck all of us who are willingly participating in this shit when we know it’s wrong.”

He wants to be visually offensive because he finds his entire surroundings offensive.

[4-0-doublenatural]

I feel like this works on a meta level of the writers trying to show this, as well as the emotional and physical exhaustion that went into that long in surgery, but works less so in universe since a doctor that we have been shown is competent and cares about patient health would never risk the kind of contamination this would cause. It would be Frank Burns level malpractice.

On my part I think the writers just weren't considering this. There's one point early on where Hawkeye switches between patients without switching his bloody glove at all.

[outlaw-monarch]

I think all of you have good points here! But I definitely also agree that it was probably a case where they just hadn't researched it /thought it through as carefully as they should have, especially in the earlier seasons, Where they figured that people were mostly focused on the comedy and not noticing that sort of thing.

A similar example- I like the show Elementary too and that one was also very well written for the most part One thing that I really appreciated about the show is that considering how much of the work they did was based on what kind of trace evidence they could find at a crime scene they were always careful not to touch the evidence directly with their hands.

So now if I catch a detective show where they AREN'T that careful, (especially if it's a detective outside the law who mught get more easily accused of things by official investigators, I'm like

"Where are your gloves?? You're examining this scene for the first time. No one else has looked at this yet! You JUST found that piece of evidence. WHY are you holding it with your bare hands??"

[chibird]

Anyone else or is it just me catastrophizing the worst case where my loved ones are gone? 😅 I have no idea why my brain does this…

Chibird store | Patreon | Instagram

[major-marg]

do i clench my fists? // MASH

[bobdylanslesbianlover]

what does BJ stand for?

bored and cold as hell scriblings

[thagomizersshow]

So much of paleontology is "what did this beaked thing eat?" And then your best guess for years turns out to be so so so wrong.

Like Gastornis was thought to be a carnivore for decades and then carbon isotopes were like, "nah this thing was basically a giant goose honk honk".

Art by Ja Chirinos

Oviraptor was thought to be an egg eater, then much ink was spilled about whether it ate mollusks, and now it's thought to be an omnivore, but mostly a fruit/seed eater like a parrot.

Somehow this Adobe Stock image is the only art of an Oviraptor eating plants I can find. How is that?

And even birds with some teeth are getting in on these dietary mysteries.

Longipteryx was first thought to be a kingfisher-like hunter of aquatic prey, but it has since been found with seed contents in its guts, making it another surprise frugivore.

Photo by Xiaoli Wang

[grapehyasynth]

he's not wrong

[sealdev]

mom said homework. i run away

[bracketsandunderscores]

If I was Hawkeye I wouldn't trust myself to be alone with Sidney because I'd probably catch feelings. Yeah, this dude who knows pretty much everything about me and can read me like a book and is always there for me when I need him to be and doesn't infantilise/villainise me and is quick with his words and can have playful banter with me and hates the war just as much as I do can't be that hot. We're just two guys who probably should not be this close. But we are this close. Woah the more I look at him he's actually pretty hot

[4-0-doublenatural]

"Hawkeye's a pacifist."

Listen. I love Hawkeye "I Won't Carry a Gun" Pierce, but he's not above physically harming someone. He's against weapons and war, but he isn't devotedly non-violent.

Hawkeye has leaped over tables to get into a fist fight with Frank Burns. He's almost gotten court martialed for shoving brass. He has physically postured more than once to get people to back off.

He won't carry a gun but you will absolutely catch his brilliant surgeon hands if he's pushed far enough.

The thing is, Hawkeye isn't GOOD at fighting. The one time he gets a knockout is when Frank had no idea it was coming. That wet noodle of a man goes off way more than BJ both emotionally, verbally and physically despite BJ getting pinned as the more aggressive of the two. It's just that when Hawkeye gets into a fight (with someone that isn't Frank) he's almost immediately overwhelmed. Also on a meta level Hawkeye's violence is always played for laughs.

The thing about BJ is that if he gets set off he might actually murder you because he can actually do damage. Hawkeye will get violent out of frustration, BJ gets violent from rage. That said in situations where BJ can keep a cool head he will verbally talk people down, or trick them if he has time. Early days he tries to soothe Hawkeye and talk sense into him when Hawkeye's frustration has boiled over and gotten him in trouble. That's why it's so jarring when he attacks someone. And with BJ it isn't played for laughs. Whenever it happens it's serious.

As for Trapper, despite his knowing how to fight he is not prone to sudden physical violence. Sometimes he will posture. The only times he actually tries to physically harm someone he usually has at least a second to think about it. Like smacking Hawkeye with his duffle when he's drunk. The situation he has a full beat to consider when Hawkeye tries to stop him before he acts. He isn't loud or intimidating, he just thinks about it and does it. The other time is when he's stewing over the death of his patient and cuts off the blood supply to the soldier that did it. Once again it's a very cool and deliberate action. So Trapper is less volatile. He thinks about it. I don't mean to say he has a clear head about it, just that he'll get to a bad enough place in his head where it feels like a solution rather than a sudden release of frustration like Hawkeye or a flash of uncontrollable rage like BJ.

The reason Hawkeye gets less physical later on is that Frank is gone, who apparently has been evoking Hawkeye's fight reflex on an almost daily basis.

[ithappensoffstage]

M*A*S*H 4x01: Welcome to Korea