woman bore me, I will rise

[poniatowskaja]

It's a small sin on the scale of the problems of clothing designed for women, but why are women's summer tops, even if not on thin straps, cut in rather than straight down, so that the strap of the bra, which women are commonly expected to wear, shows, which in turn is commonly considered undesirable?

[lostinhistorypics]

A Woman Rocking Menswear in India, 1940s.

[brisling]

This is a photo of my very elegant grandmother, Sushila Rao, posing with her new camera in India, where she was born and raised. It was probably taken sometime in the 1940s. She’s wearing a tailored, white linen suit and flat, brown leather sandals, which make her look so strong despite the fact that she’s very petite. It was very daring of her to be out and about in menswear back then, rather than a traditional sari! -Tejal

The Sartorialist, May 28, 2011

[ragehangover]

on the topic of shaneandilya vs. the centaurs media machine. i would be very very interested in like. actual professional conflict between harris + the centaurs new reputation as a gay athlete utopia and shane specifically. shane went to the sidcros school of saying a lot of words but also nothing of substance at all. nothing political. nothing personal. fun anecdotes that just reword the question he was asked. given how shane in particular is treated after being outed, that he is the one person completely ostracised by his team, there is not a universe where i feel he would tolerate his relationship or personal life being used as fluffy content for the centaurs tiktok page. harris wants to show the world shaneandilya’s loving, respectful relationship and how they support each other in the room. he wants them to reveal how they met, their favourite memories, what it was like playing against each other. maybe one of those couple guessing games. shane refuses outright and will not budge. harris asks on behalf of the queer fans, the kids in ottawa who might grow up to be drafted as centaurs in the future. shane declines again. harris, gently, tells shane that there’s nothing to be ashamed of, and the centaurs support him and ilya completely. shane asks if the centaurs will continue to support them if he refuses to be milked for viral bits. harris is perhaps thinking — unkindly — that shane is still repressing his sexuality, and denying his and ilya’s right to publicly love each other the way everyone deserves. he asks why shane is so reluctant to even consider it when the centaurs have been so welcoming to him and troy. shane replies well maybe that’s because when you came out as gay it wasn’t a top story on cnn, harris.

[bluegrasshole]

haha so cute the centaurs have a video of ilya and shane — let me stop you there. shane would never. he would never! he has an airtight agreement with the marketing and comms team that anything posted of him is strictly professional. he knows every comment on social media will be about him and ilya already, and he will NOT be encouraging it. he is a hockey player. my shane would rather die than discuss his married life on instagram on the official centaurs account. or any platform. are the other centaurs doing this?? the other hockey teams??? no. he is an athlete not a reality star.

[poniatowskaja]

The way that it often comes up in fic is in this humiliating way towards Shane specifically. Not only by randoms online, but by his teammates and by his husband. Not only because/when it comes in a framework where Ilya is oversharing and Shane is trying (in vain, to little effect, and yet not in a way that causes an actual problem for their relationship) to stop him (often like 'Shane: take this down'), but because the oversharing of what they do in bed is about what Shane does for Ilya and Shane, as the receiving partner and as the less penetrative one, is cast in the role of the woman in heterosexual sex and so objectified sexually, in an environment that's misogynistic and treats women as sex objects. It's 'what Ilya does to Shane' becoming public consumption. Which, again, is something Shane doesn't want, and notionally tries to stop, but so ineffectively that it has to keep going on - because Ilya's desire to expose their sex life to the public is more important than Shane's privacy or dignity and his actions, even if with requisite minor pushback from Shane, are fundamentally framed as acceptable. That's slightly different than the PR exploitation by Harris in fics, or having their teammates share 'cute' anecdotes about them (including of public-adjacent sex acts and PDA), but it's the same narrative of the Ilya/Shane's relationship becoming public consumption, even in quite intimate ways. I'm so fed up of running into this that I want reactive fic narratives now that's about the struggles of this post-canon ficverse exploitation of their relationship. That's even before we get to those others (randoms online being inappropriate, but also said teammates) saying things that are apparently meant to be okay in-narrative, but are homophobic/inappropriate (going "shut up, fruit" to Shane) and are not there as an indication that even the progressive Centaurs are playing in the same apparently analogously-to-RL (not that Reid really develops this) hockey league and so have been shaped by it. It's a certain kind of homophobic-rhetoric-but-played-as-fine online talk that's clearly written by people who think this is an acceptable way to talk themselves, but again it's a kind I've seen more towards Shane than Ilya - just like the homophobia in the league we do get bits of in canon are towards Shane, not Ilya.

[vorbisx]

Replacing physical buttons and controls with touchscreens also means removing accessibility features. Physical buttons can be textured or have Braille and can be located by touch and don't need to be pressed with a bare finger. Touchscreens usually require precise taps and hand-eye coordination for the same task.

Many point-of-sale machines now are essentially just a smartphone with a card reader attached and the interface. The control layout can change at a moment's notice and there are no physical boundaries between buttons. With a keypad-style machine, the buttons are always in the same place and can be located by touch, especially since the middle button has a raised ridge on it.

Buttons can also be located by touch without activating them, which enables a "locate then press" style of interaction which is not possible on touchscreens, where even light touches will register as presses and the buttons must be located visually rather than by touch.

When elevator or door controls are replaced by touch screens, will existing accessibility features be preserved, or will some people no longer be able to use those controls?

Who is allowed to control the physical world, and who is making that decision?

[somecunttookmyurl]

when it's "the most significant solar eclipse since 1999" but you live in scotland

[somecunttookmyurl]

periodically nipping back over to the bedroom window to see if there's been any improvement in the cloud situation

if anything i think it's worse now actually

[akinari-kashihara]

My fuck ass nothinggggggg

[somecunttookmyurl]

this is so fucking funny imagine voluntarily coming up here to look at the sky

[shinhati]

it's completely crazy that women are still taking their new husband's surname in 2026. how does this not register as horrific to literally everyone. under what paradigm could that possibly be anything but pure male supremacy

[meidotan]

i mean, in the west its kind of a choice between would you prefer your husbands surname vs your fathers or grandfathers surname. i get the sentiment but its not a battle worth picking imo.

[poniatowskaja]

Why is the surname your husband/fiance has "his" surname, but the one you've (presumably) had all your life is "your father's" or "your grandfather's"? Why say "your husband's surname" and not "your father-in-law's" or "your grandfather-in-law's"? Why do only men have surnames but not you, who only has a man's surname? If it's a choice between your own ancestor and your spouse's ancestor, even in that poor choice the answer should be clear: the name you've had your whole life. Why would you accept the civil death of the erasure of something so basic to your identity as your name for a man and a man's lineage instead of your own?

Alternate suggestion: if it's "your father's" surname only, why not change it to your mother's? She grew you and gave birth to you. The man you're marrying (or his father) is not a more important link to you.

"Not a battle worth picking" but who are you fighting? Keeping the surname you've had all your life is a non-action. It requires no change. OP's opponent is a patriarchal practice erasing women's identities, but instead of opposing it as a societal practice, you want to take its hand.

[pinniposting]

“get a job” nope im splashing in da pool

via

[deathwarlock]

meet me under the pier we are going beast mode

[poniatowskaja]

when 'OP has turned off reblogs from this post' :(((((

[qapleulia]

the sound of love is a pigeon going hroo hroo

[gingeralevodka]

I still see a lot of people saying that Ilya could have gone to any other other team in the league if it wasn’t for Shane. I don’t blame you because Ilya thinks that way too.

Well, where would he go? Would he be better off in the end? Let’s keep his goal of obtaining Canadian citizenship in mind.

Montreal? They can’t afford Ilya and Shane, and Ilya didn’t want to take a pay cut.

Toronto? There’s Dallas Kent.

Let’s say in this universe, there are tons of Canadian teams, they’re all better than Ottawa. Do they not have a Dallas Kent? Do they have cap space? Do they have a star center already and that’s why they’re good? Ilya can’t just knock anyone out of their team he wants just because he’s “the great Ilya Rozanov”. For example, is he going to waltz into New York anytime he wants, take up a huge chunk of their cap space, take the captaincy and kick Scott Hunter out of the team?

Let’s say Ilya is Roger Crowell’s favorite son, he also doesn’t give a fuck about any other players, and he goes to a great team. Once he gets there, does he gel immediately with the new team? Because a great team would also expect better results pretty quickly. How would he deal with that pressure? Does he also not get so depressed he can barely get out of bed or give speeches before games?

[ragehangover]

purely from a practical perspective i can’t believe that tripgate was resolved so quickly off page because it like. not only actively discredits both shane and ilya’s professional accomplishments, questions their integrity, and alienates them from other hockey players. it also technically can’t be disproven by the fact that they’re on the same team? like say the season starts and the centaurs break every record and sweep their way to a cup win. if people discuss tripgate it’s not gonna be a ‘well we were wrong and these guys clearly gave a fuck about winning the entire time’ it would probably be ‘these guys threw games for each other until they were on the same team and got to win together’

[ragehangover]

on that note — wouldn’t shane’s injury from marleau also be called into question? how does ilya’s trade to boston not permanently affect his reputation in a new negative way? like every other league would come out of the woodwork to try and discredit their efforts if it means they might benefit. the public response would frame shane and ilya as dishonest because they actively hid their personal relationship, even though they had no obligation to come out, because now the focus is how they might have been rigging games for each other. why the fuck is tripgate a plot point introduced 85% of the way through the book

[dykieran]

it's crazy how once you notice how literally everything centres men all the time you will never be able to enjoy anything properly ever again

[dykieran]

this show is about men this movie is about men this game is meant to be played as a man these characters are men so they're intrinsically more likeable than their bitchy women counterparts this show is about women but they're all for men to look at this movie is about a woman but there's a guy there as well to make it more palatable for General Audience (men) this fandom is all about this one man what do you mean you don't like men. what about this man you must like him!!! he's like a woman to me! and by that i mean i headcanon him as a trans man because im #queeringit and him being a trans man basically means Woman Lite right? so i basically do care about women! and going on e makes you like men and going on t makes you like men and being a lesbian means you still have to have a himbo man friend and you HAVE to read this book! it's about a man

[ninawenn]

I’ve explained to a lot of people why I won’t play video games where I have to play as man. That was the ONLY option I had growing up, and I learned to enjoy myself anyways. And then I grew up, and there were other options, and I heard men complain that they couldn’t related to woman main character. Or didn’t want to play a “girl game”. Or a thousand other reasons why they hated her. And I was like HUH??? So now when I see a game where I can only play a guy, I ask myself questions. Was this made for me to enjoy? If not, I don’t play it! Same with movies, same with books. Media starring men is no longer the default for me. I have to be convinced in other ways. Otherwise it’s a “dude movie”, a “dude book” etc. (much like how I had to hear guys dismiss movies and women centered media as “chick flicks” “for girls”)

[pumpumdemsugah]

The article also details that men aren't abusive because they were abused as kids the driving force for abuse towards women is the behaviour is beneficial to them and they don't respect that woman or women in general

Abusive Men Describe the Benefits of Violence - BWSS

In a broader context, structural relationships of inequalities in politics, religion, media and discriminatory cultural norms perpetuate vio

[gracecode]

i will never consider wearing anything that is not normal for a male to wear, if it's not acceptable on a male that means its degrading.

[foggychapters]

but, why are we making males the standard for whatever we wear? We can just wear whatever is comfortable and not made with the motive to sexualize us. I think making males the standard again puts women on a manmade pedestal, where women have to "prove" to be worthy of being equal to males by acting like them or doing things equivalent to them.

Although i can see op might have meant that men have made clothing for themselves such that it keeps them comfortable and is not made with the intention of them trying to appeal anyone in the world. But, i can also see a lot of counter arguments on this particular statement.

do add your thoughts if someone wants to say more on this....

[gracecode]

there is nothing we are missing out on by avoiding clothes men don't wear. there is a reason men don't go around prancing in skirts and dresses and it has to do with dignity. male clothing will always be more comfortable than whatever the tighter, shorter female alternative is.

[gracecode]

i look around any room and see that men and women are so distinctly categorized in what they wear, how hairless they are, their mannerisms and how do women not feel humiliated seeing this, how do they walk into the same room and not see how every other women takes part in her own degradation, like how is nobody bothered by this. the way it's so binary, how you literally will not find outliers, and the thing is i don't think women who refuse to perform femininity are treated as harshly as they would be a decade ago, it literally doesn't have to be this way anymore but it still is and it's somehow gotten worse.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

The ”terror” in Cambrai

This is a compilation over all judgements pronounced by the Revolutionary Tribunal in Cambrai, an ”annex” of a bigger one in Arras. This tribunal, which held its sessions in a college classroom of the city, was in function between May 10 to June 28 1794, and during that period 212 people from all parts of the department of Pas-de-Calais were brought before it. Of these, 150 were sentenced to death, the youngest of them 17, the oldest 88.

Since the question of what exactly someone could get put to death for during the ”terror” has gotten rather mythologized throughout the years (looking at you Oversimplified 🙃), I thought it could be interesting to put together this compilation to see what actual court documents say. The data presented here comes from volume 2 of the 1864 work La terreur dans le Pas-de-Calais et dans le Nord by Auguste Joseph Paris, who in his turn cites exactly that form of document.

10 May — the Revolutionary Tribunal enters into force. The very same day it sentences five people to death — Angélique Dupuis, 47, for having kept two busts of the king and the queen, Marquise de Monaldy, 88, for having kept letters where the revolution gets described as a calamity and being in touch with foreign enemies, Antoine Gilles, 69, for having written the following regarding his annuities in letter from January 1792: ”circumstances and the calamity of the times have frustrated me at this moment, which I hope will not be of long duration,” Aubert Viennet, 62, for ”having discredited  assignats,” and finally Jean-Népomucène Évrard, 33, for having left his post as brigadier general in the presence of the enemy and fled. 21 of Évrard’s soldiers, accused of "having contributed to the rout,” are however acquitted and ”returned to the fatherland, which needs their services." Former municipal officer of Cambrai Augustin Dupuis, 19, is also acquitted, ”not being an accomplice of the royalists.” Dechy, Monaldy, Gilles and Viennet are guillotined three o’clock in the afternoon, while Évrard is sent to Lille to be shot at the head of the Republican columns. (Paris, page 93-97)

11 May — the tribunal sentences eight people to death — Maximilien Cottaux, 36, for espionage, François Laurent, 58, for ”corresponding with the crowned bandits,” Françoise Laurent, 52, for being her husband’s accomplice, and Pierre-Joseph Laderrière, 42, André Cacherat, 28, Boniface Jaquement, 48, André-Joseph Lefebvre, 62, and Jean-Joseph Desvignes, 62, for ”accepting public functions in Avesne-le-Sec, during the invasion of this town by the satellites of the tyrants.” (Paris, page 97).

12 May — the tribunal sentences six people to death: Rénée-Cécile Priston, 48, for ”approving of the emigration of her son and corresponding with counter-revolutionaries,” the marquis de Lawœstine de Becelaëre, 60, ”for having made his two sons emigrate and preciously conserved feudal titles forbidden by law,” and his wife Marguerite, 52, for being ”accomplice” of her husband, Augustin Leduc, 58, for having ”carried wine and other provisions to villages invaded by the enemy,” and Louis Moreau, 21, and Ferdinand Lamand, 22, for having been ”carriers of a letter for addressed to Calvaque, aide-de-camp to the Duke of York.” It acquits one person, suspected of ”stealing and pillaging.” (Paris, page 99-102)

13 May — five people are sentenced to death — toilet manufacturers Michel Chatelain, 27, and Austrians Jacques Tétard, 51, as well as laborer Noël Pouret, 47, for ”espionage,” the lawyer Pierre-Joseph Bruneau, 32, ”for having received and carefully preserved letters in which are recorded these phrases: "It could happen that, from one day to the next, the assignats would be worthless, let us strike while the iron is hot, for you know that, from one moment to the next, everything could change"; having discredited the assignats with the intention of favoring the enterprises of the enemies, sought to debase the national representation, to maintain or re-establish tyranny; having, moreover, through his criminal dealings with external enemies, favored the advance of their arms on French territory,  and his domestic Jacques Fontaine, 51, for ”having never denounced Bruneau’s intelligences with the émigrés, even accompanying him on August 21, 1791 (old style); having, moreover, preserved a multitude of fanatical and royalist writings, among others a song in honor of the Bourbons, and maintained correspondence with refractory priests, and sought by all these maneuvers to maintain or restore the monarchy or any other power which infringes upon the sovereignty of the people, and to favor the return of foreign powers to French territory.” (Paris, page 102-105).

14 May — two people are sentenced to death: the priest François-Dominique Tranchant, 78, for ”possessing more than sixty pamphlets, each more counter-revolutionary than the other [and] having carefully preserved a multitude of fanatical and royalist writings and sought to dissolve the national representation,” and his niece Euphrosine Tranchant, 45, for being her uncle’s ”accomplice.” (Paris, page 105-107)

15 May — four people are executed: captain of the third batallion of national volontaries  Lazare Bertrand, 26, for having ”abandoned his post to only think about his own safety,” Charlotte-Hubertine-Joséphine Le Roy, 41, for having ”buried feudal titles,” and finally blacksmith Pierre-Hubert Lainé, 38, and stonemason Pierre-Joseph Barbet, 59, for espionage. A dragoon accused of having murdered an army herdsman is acquitted, as is Madame Le Roy’s twelve year old son, suspected of prevention of seal breakage, and Barbet’s nephew, suspected of having been his accomplice. (Paris, page 107-108)

16 May — four people are executed: servant Marie-Anne-Joseph Biziaux, 27, and plowman Christophe Noizette, 22, for having ”provided aid in the form of men and money to the tyrants' henchmen,” seamstress Angélique Colpart, 22, for ”espionage, having often hosted the satellites of tyrants and lackeys,” and plowman Pierre-Joseph Hautecœur, 48, for ”having supplied food to the satellites of tyrants and having always shown himself to be the enemy of patriots.” Four people are acquitted. (Paris, page 108)

18 May — a baker suspected of espionage is acquitted. (Paris, page 108)

20 May — a farmer suspected of ”counter-revolutionary remarks aimed at discouraging French troops” is acquitted. Five people are condemned to death — mulquinier Adrien Boucly, 26, for ”having provided the enemies with food and fodder,” Antoine-Joseph Tresca, 65, for having ”housed and fed the satellites of the tyrants,” farmer Armand-François-Joseph Delbart, 33, for ”having made or had made several shipments for the Austrians,” surgeon Jean-François Gérard, 55, for ”having been in contact with the enemies,” and sutler Jean-Baptiste Dumont, 39, for ”having brought brandy to the French to act as a spy against them” (Paris, page 164)

25 May — two people are executed: artillery driver Albert Dhéni, 27, for having ”debased assignats, and said that a king was needed,” and farmer Caroline Locquet, 26, for ”espionage and [keeping] correspondence with the infamous Cobourg.” (Paris, page 165)

26 May — Seven men are sentenced to death: Hector Antoine Joseph de Gargan, 71, for having ”sought to have patriots assassinated, [and] peddled counter-revolutionary and fanatic writings," Hector Jules Joseph Lagache, 32, for being Gargan’s ”accomplice,” manufacturer Benoni Denis, 20, for ”having corresponded with the enemies and served as spy for them,” son of a farmer Henri-Joseph Fontaine, 22, for having ”corresponded with the émigrés and provided them with all kinds of aid, notably in fodder, and also having refused to enlist in the last requisition declaring that he preferred the old regime to the new one,” weaver Jean-Baptiste Pouillez, 19, for having ”deserted in order to serve the Austrian troops,” Pierre Milon, 76, for having "preciously preserved on his coat and jacket buttons with the Tyrant's coat of arms, corresponding with the enemies and saying he preferred the old regime to the new one,” and gardener Jean-Joseph Lepève, 48, for having "corresponded with the Tyrant's satellites and served as their spy.” (Paris, page 165-167)

27 May — A woman and a man are executed, Marie-Anne-Joseph de Nédonchel de Baralle, 84, for having ”welcomed with enthusiasm the satellites of the tyrants and advised or ordered her coachman to display the white cockade” and having left Cambrai on August 5 1793 "to go to her castle at Baral [sic] where she gave food to the Austrian officers,” and farmer Placide Cuvelier, 31, for having "said that he took pride in being an aristocrat; [and] constantly fled the mass of sworn priests (priests that had taken the civic oath), and thereby sought to corrupt the public mind." (Paris, page 167-169)

28 May — the tribunal sentences two men to death — Pierre Devaux, 68, for ”federalism,” something which denied he was guilty of, and chevalier Pierre-Jacques-Joseph Verdelin, 52, who is already outlawed for, as an ex-noble "not having withdrawn from Cambrai, a stronghold, within the prescribed period." It acquits two others — Henri Lebrun and Boniface Doremus, mayor and national agent of Escaudœuvres respectively (Paris, page 170-171)

1 June — three men are sentenced to death — hussar André Coquel for ”having drunk with the hulands[sic],” farmer J-B Desmoulins, 32, for ”having an enemy passport,” and farmer Raymond Manessier, 38, for ”having sent flattering petitions to Cobourg.” Two men suspected of stealing, as well as a man persecuted in virtue of being an ex-noble, are acquitted. (Paris, page 171)

2 June — the tribunal sentences three people to death — abbé Noël Maillet, 40, accused of having ”led the Austrians to pillage,” and marchal François Beaucourt and spinner Catherine Gransart, for being Maillet’s ”accomplices” and also ”having preciously preserved portraits of Capet and his wife.” (Paris, page 171)

3 June — the tribunal sentences one man to death — François Podevin, 28, for being a ”deserter and spy,” and acquits four people suspected for ”acts of war.” (Paris, page 171)

4 June — seven people are sentenced to death: Suzanne Leproux, 43, suspected of ”correspondence with a woman named Aigremont, émigrée,” ex-noble Anne-Marie-Gatherine-Louise Parizot de Garondelet, 69, outlawed for not having withdrawn from Cambrai in due time, farmer Jacques Poillion, 56 for being a ”counter-revolutionary and a rabid royalist,” as he, when accused of being an aristocrat, had ”declared that if he were about to go to the guillotine, he would die for his Law, that is to say, his religion, and for his King,” carpenter François Penin, 44, "accused of being an aristocrat, fanatic, royalist and of having wanted to kill the patriots; [of having] said that he would always have been on the side of the king, and that those who had him killed were monsters; that he would defend the king to the last drop of his blood, and having said several times that he was proud to be a royalist,” brewer Alexandre Colet, 52, and gamekeeper J-B Durand, for espionage, and finally gendarme Joseph Ferrand, 35, for having ”deserted the republican troops to go over to the rebels in Vendée.” Two people are acquitted, Suzanne’s Leproux’s 19 year old son, as well as a volunteer accused of stealing. (Paris, p.  172-174)

5 June — the tribunal sentences eight people to death: the sisters and ex-nuns Marie-Eugénie de Médonchèl de Baralle, 64, and Marie-Joséphine-Albertine, 61, for having walked with Austrian officers, farmer Jacques Carpentier, 66, for having loudly expressed his opinion in favor of the old regime, he "loudly refused to plow the land any further,” Carpentier’s son Arnould, 36, for being his ”accomplice,” priest and ex-cordelier Pierre-Joseph Peugnet, 47, for being an ”immoral man [who has] sought to fanaticize all heads, having said that patriotic songs would go to the devil,” journeyman Jean-Charles Delécol, 78, for having ”sought to emigrate and go join the enemy army,” ex-noble Joseph-François Pronville, 63, for not having withdrawn from Cambrai in due time, writer Augustin Boulanger, 48, for ”having made aristocratic remarks, such as regrets over the old regime, saying that he had then everything he wanted, and that under the new one, he could not get two farthings, if he would need them.” One man, accused of having participated in the Lyon revolts, is acquitted. (Paris, page 174-176)

6 June — sixteen people are sentenced to death, fourteen of them accused of being ”accomplices of M. Gargan,” executed ten days prior. These are tanner Claude-François Fontaine, 42, butcher and plowman Bernard Fontaine, 35, and farmer Ferdinand Delval, 35, for ”having hit patriots with a chair,” tanner apprentice Pierre Delattre, 26, for ”hitting patriots and saying: No mercy for the patriots, one must must ring their death knell from morning until evening when they begged him to stop,” laundry boy Herménégilde-Joseph Delattre and Charles-Joseph Tramecourt for both ”having said: All democrats should be put in hell,” manor farmer Adrien Becquard, 56, for having "scorned the patriots by saying: "Let’s see who will be the masters today,” roofer Jean-Baptiste Canonne, 63, laborer Antoine-Joseph Becquard, 31 and Pierre-Joseph Peuvrel, 58, for ”hitting patriots,” roofer Charles-Joseph Tramecourt, 31, for having ”hit a female patriot,” ex-noble Marie-Florence-Joséphine-Pélagie de Gargan, 40, for having prevented people from going to mass with priests who had sworn the civic oath, stocking maker Célestin-Céleste Avansart, 32, (it doesn’t say for what), Antoine Becquard, 60, for ”hitting patriots, [and] having said he was aristocrat to the core,” servant girl Marianne-Angélique-Joséphine Hus, 36, for having corresponded with émigrés, hid their furniture, being a ”rabid fanatic,” and having helped her master Thellier (an executed ”counter-revolutionary”) escape from the Saint-Pol prison, and finally weaver Henri-Alexis Vasseur, 39, for ”having corresponded with the enemies of the state, notably a refractory priest.” Five people are acquitted. (Paris, page 176-178)

7 June — ex-noble and customs officer Jean-Charles Martinet, 57, is sentenced to death for several times having expressed himself against the revolution in his correspondence. Martinet’s 25 year old daughter Félicité Brecthel is acquitted, as she is ”not proven to have been her father’s accomplice.” Seven men are set free as well. (Paris, page 178-180)

10 June — One person, Philippe-Marie-Léopold-Joseph Le Caron de Sains, 53, is sentenced to death ”for having desired the restoration of feudalism and sought to debase the national currency.” (Paris, page 186-187)

13 June — Seven people are sentenced to death: Charles-Joseph Jonglet, 33, charcoal merchant, for "espionage and having sought to denigrate and discredit the assignats,” Jean-François Bracq, 38, mouquinier, for ”having maintained perpetual relations with foreign armies,” Marie-Françoise-Éléonore de Godet de Neuflise, 40, for ”having kept a collection of songs reeking of the most disgusting royalism and written several times to her émigré husband,” Théodore-Gonstant-Joseph Herpin, 51, for having ”debased the assignats […] by inviting Baron de Fiers, a raging aristocrat, to rid himself of this fine currency,” Joseph-François Jouenne, 80, for ”having corresponded with external enemies and the émigrés,” Joachim Magnier, 65, farmer and former judge of peace, for ”always [having] associated with the most fanatical aristocrats and continually persecuted patriots and protected the refractory clergy” and Robert-Amand-Augustin Goademand for being an accomplice of Magnier. They are the first persons tried under the Law of 22 Prairial in Cambrai. (Paris, page 187-195)

19 June — seven people are executed: second lieutenant in the 7th Cavalry Etienne Marchand, 28, for having "cowardly fled and abandoned his post, thinking only of his own safety,” former captain Charles-Joseph Conte, 60, for ”never having ceased, through all sorts of maneuvers and intrigues, to prevent the sale of national assets,” carpenter Charles-Guislain Bertrand, 41, for ”having said, during the flight of Capet, that the assembly would be dissolved within fifteen days, and always having wanted to support the noble party,” wife of a leatherworker Anne-Joséphine Locqueneux, 36, for "several times having brought provisions to the Austrians, refused to supply any to the French soldiers, and tried to emigrate,” the lawyer Charles-François-Ghislain Thellier 27, his brother the student François-Xavier-Yves Thellier, 21, and François-Joseph Biencourt, 38, all convicted of emigration. One man is acquitted. (Paris, 221-223)

20 June — seven people are sentenced to death: merchant Marie-Joséphine Prudhomme, 54, for ”having approved Dumouriez's treason and even hosted a meal in his honour the day she learned of this traitor's betrayal, and having preserved fanatical and counter-revolutionary writings,” former prosecutor Ignace-François-Alexandre Liborel for ”having corresponded with subjects of foreign powers and slandered patriots,” farmer Anne-Paquette Derocourt, 47, for ”having declared to the minstrel who was playing the tune Ça ira (it will all be fine) that it wouldn't all be fine, and diverted the inhabitants of the commune [of Monchy-le-Preux] from attending the mass of the constitutional priest,” surgeon Liévin Olive, 51, for ”having debased the assignats, the constituted authorities, and sought to disrupt the supplies of Tannée by disobeying requisitions,” Procope Delannoy, 67, for ”having kept the most counter-revolutionary writings,” and Pierre Baumont, 71, for ”having grieved at our successes, and having received with enthusiasm the Brunswick Manifesto, even going so far as to send it, for fear that it might be altered, to an émigré with whom he corresponded." (Paris, page 223-225)

21 June — 24 people are sentenced to death: former member of the National Assembly Charles-Marie Payen, 55, for having declared ”that he prided himself on being an aristocrat, [and having] brought a letter to prevent the installation of the constitutional clergy and told his harvesters not to go to mass and that the (constitutional) priests were worthless,” farmer Charles-François Barbet, 48, for ”having said: ’The Assembly is composed only of f*cking beggars,’ and having sought through his aristocratic and fanatical speeches to debase and dissolve the national representation,” collector Jean-Louis Coulmont, 57, ”for having affirmed, in the midst of citizens gathered in a primary assembly, that he was an aristocrat and that he was proud of it,” Joseph-Augustin Doudan, 24, a volunteer in the requisition, for having “slandered the Jacobins by saying, in a large assembly, that he would rather blow his brains out than owe them his existence; moreover, he had wanted to assassinate two defenders of the homeland,” rentier Charles-Michel Piaut, 57, for having ”held council for philanthropists and aristocrats at his home," his sister Marguerite Piaut, 48, for having ”given shelter to a refractory priest and always shown contempt for the national uniform,” substitute court-martial judge Pierre-Marie de Hennault, 48, for having “sold his Cross of Saint Louis rather than surrender it, as required by law, and shown the greatest contempt for the National Guard,” farmer André Triboulet, 34, and former seigneur of Gomiécourt Laurent-Robert Pecqueur, for having ”constantly refused to obey the laws, and said they prided themselves on being aristocrats,” Pecqueur’s wife Anne-Marie Pecqueur, 53, for being her husband’s ”accomplice,” surveyor Jean-Baptiste Truffet, 41, for having ”recruited for the enemy armies, tore down the tricolour flag from the church steeple where it was, and suspended effigies of the mayor and the public prosecutor of the commune, both patriots, to hang them,” laborer Mathieu Renty, 45, for having "offended the constitutional clergy, mistreated and insulted the patriots, and threatened those who were hiding their furniture with leading the enemy to the place where they were hiding it," farmer Eustache Carlier, 72, for having "said that the constitutional priests and the National Assembly were beggars, and signed a petition against the reintegration of a commune into its communal property,” former Recollects Jean-François Jessu, 68 and Louis Villery, 57, for having ”sought, through their fanatical speeches, to incite the people against the national representation,” cloth merchant Bose Jessu, 74, for being the ”accomplice” of Jessu and Villery, merchant Jean Boucher, 53, for having ”always associated with aristocrats; he had said, during the siege of Coudé, that the enemy would soon enter and the French would be driven out,” storekeeper Mathurin Delorme, 53, for having “declared that he was not crazy enough to get his head smashed in by going to repel the enemy; that he would rather let them pass,” merchant Pierre Delestré, 43, for having ”opposed the recruitment of the army by shouting: “Down with them, down with them!”, merchant Jean-François Bédu, 78, for having ”said to a citizen whom he mistook for an aristocrat: ’You are one of us. We will soon have the advantage of seeing the enemy, and all will be all right,’” merchant Jean-Louis Labouré, 49, for having ”denounced the assignats and said to citizens who were singing patriotic verses: "Sing, sing well; later you shall see"; and said of the Revolution: "This cannot last,” farmer Jacques-François Goubet, 54, for having ”held secret meetings of counter-revolutionaries at his home, and gathered together the refractory members of the commune who had been deported by law,” and finally brewer Pierre Delcourt, 41, for having ”maintained a criminal correspondence with his deported brother who told him that Austria was preparing formidable armies to annihilate Liberty.” Three people are acquitted. (Paris, page 225-229)

23 June —  eight people are sentenced to death: Pierre-Joseph Robert, 17, for ”having admitted that he had served as spy for the tyrants' henchmen and peddled counterfeit assignats,” Augustin Ducanne, 27, for having ”peddled counterfeit assignats,” trader Pierre-Anne-Joseph Marin, 44, for having ”corresponded with the enemies of the Revolution, notably with the Count d'Argenteau, the Emperor's ambassador, and having carefully preserved royalist and counter-revolutionary writings,” merchant Jean-François Boistel, 36, for having ”led the enemies to the declared patriots, in order to have them slaughtered, peddled counterfeit assignats and carried brandy to the enemies,” farmer and mayor  Denis-Joachim-Joseph Limelette, 67, for having ”been the correspondent for the émigrés and the Austrians, sent them oxen belonging to the Republic, preserved protests from the emperor, debased the assignats, and lodged enemy generals,” his wife Anne-Augustine-Philippine Limelette, 66, for ”[keeping] correspondence with enemies and émigrés, [having] carefully preserved the busts of Capet and his wife, and other fanatical pieces,” and finally the farmer Herménégilde Desailly and his nephew shepherd Toussaint Desailly, ”convicted of emigration.” (229-231)

26 June — farmer Jean-François-Chrétien-Marie Payen, 37, is condemned to death for ”having carefully preserved fanatical and counter-revolutionary writings, hidden a cassock with a belt in a pile of poppies; kept a banner bearing the coat of arms of the former Prince of Vaudemont and his wife; vexed the patriots; forbidden his farm laborers to attend the mass of the constitutional priest; gathered at his home all the fanatics and aristocrats of the district of Arras; discredited the assignats; corresponded with his brother, a former priest who had been deported; in short, having always been a monster of aristocracy and fanaticism.” Three people are acquitted, accused of having spread false information that the enemy was near Cambrai, having accidentally insulted the Convention and having corresponded with the émigrés respectively. (Paris, page. 232-235)

28 June — four members of the organisation Daughters of Charity, Magdeleine Fontaine, 71, Marie Lamelle, 48, Thérèse Foutoux, 42, Jeanne Fabre, 31 and Jeanne Gérard, 31, are condemned to death, Fontaine for ”[being] a pious counter-revolutionary, having carefully preserved and even hidden under a pile of straw a multitude of pamphlets and newspapers containing the most unbridled royalism, having refused the oath [and] insulted the district commissioners by telling them that this would not work and that there were no more devils in hell — they were on Earth instead,” the other three for being her ”accomplices.” A dragoon lieutenant is acquitted for unintentionally having made royalist and counter-revolutionary remarks. (235-239)

[poniatowskaja]

Intrigued by how one might have "unintentionally made royalist and counter-revolutionary remarks". "storekeeper Mathurin Delorme, 53, for having “declared that he was not crazy enough to get his head smashed in by going to repel the enemy" ha! What strikes me is the number of those for having kept pamphlets or else mementos of the previous regime (here and in Arras). Such things have political and propaganda value, so it's not shocking, but from the modern view, we want such things to have been preserved. These people were doing valuable work. Gets executed for being a hoarder. Then, sadly for them, they made their own way into history. Thanks for these write-ups, must have taken ages!