2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Cosimo Galluzzi
Fai_Ryy
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
occasionally subtle
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
One Nice Bug Per Day
Cosmic Funnies
Game of Thrones Daily
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵
art blog(derogatory)
No title available
$LAYYYTER
@theartofmadeline
oozey mess
h
noise dept.
Jimmy Eat World
The Bright Sessions
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Brazil
seen from Italy
seen from Australia
seen from Brazil
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from Maldives
seen from Germany
seen from South Korea
seen from T1
seen from Türkiye
@stabby-stabby-yall
STOP saying u cant draw something u can literally draw whatever U want. I wanna draw a horse, BAM drew a horse. I wanna draw two ppl kissing BAM drew two ppl kissing. I am God of mine own hands and I will create
javi are you ok
I can draw you disintegrating
What the FUCK IS HOMESTUCK ABOUT??
The Sameer Project just posted on their Instagram that they’re having to severely pause/cut back their operations due to dwindling funding. Please considering giving and signing up to be a monthly donor
Here is the link to their page.
Alicia Czechowski (American, b. 1945) - Lady Sleeping on Couch
Damnit. Mystery Flesh Pit guy uses AI.
really funny (in a bad way) that the AI is the part of this anyone gives a shit about
ohhh you don’t like that i’ve used AI? well, i’ve killed people. checkmate, liberals.
"we need more characters with disability aids" you guys can't even give a dumb character glasses
i love writing out numbers and then putting them in parentheses like "one (1)" even when i dont need to i think its funny
Brown is a beautiful color FUCK all the propaganda trying to convince us its ugly.
Gustpaw they/them btw
having a multi year long character obsession becomes like a abstract thought experiment at some point
The upside to the adhd forgetting that you made yourself a drink thing is thinking to yourself “man I could go for a drink right now” and looking to your right and seeing a drink has appeared there. Thank you, past me. I lost you somewhere but you have still provided.
has anyone noticed recently that it's expensive
times like these really make you appreciate pouring river water in your socks
i wonder if part of the reason the secret bosses exist is to show the strange fringe cases were the lines between darkners and lightners blur.
Jevil as a darkner who learned too much and now views himself as equal to lightners
Spamton as a darkner who takes control of a lightners dream
The Knight
Gerson as a dead lightner brought back to life as a darkner
Pink as both a lightner and darkner at once
It all kinda sets up the twist about the flowers at the end of ch5 really well. We're already primed to accept that the boundaries aren't quite so clear, even though that's what everything else has been telling us. (And by everything else I mostly mean Ralsei but. He is kinda our only source of clear information.)
And if this really is all an intention pattern... I wonder what that means for the Knight? I hesitate to say it could be anything but a lightner, but we've been given so many edge cases...
Got some good shots at tgirl baseball yesterday! Was a great time and we had a great turnout. Had like 50+ tgirls out there!
It is your life's mission that you draw women from media you like with more body hair. It is imperative.
To be fair to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, if I wrote some pulp short stories for a quick buck and an obsessive fandom sprung up around it at a time when fandom culture as we now know it didn't really exist yet, and I had to witness people being insane about my characters while having very little precedent for what the fuck was going on, I would also be confused and frightened and desperately trying to escape from the situation I'd ended up in.
new plan get a time machine go back and show acd sherlock omegaverse fiction
Truncated text of tweet from MrPitBull, Mar 11, 2026:
She kept finding women in laboratory photographs from the 1800s. Then she read the published papers—and every single woman had vanished. Someone had erased them from history.
Yale University, 1969.
Margaret Rossiter was a graduate student studying the history of science. She was one of very few women in her program.
Every Friday afternoon, students and faculty gathered for beers and informal conversation. One week, Margaret asked a simple question: "Were there ever any women scientists?"
The faculty answered firmly: No.
Someone mentioned Marie Curie. The group dismissed it—her husband Pierre really deserved the credit.
Margaret didn't argue. But she also didn't believe them.
So she started looking.
She found a reference book called "American Men of Science"—essentially a Who's Who of scientific achievement. Despite the title, she was shocked to discover it contained entries about women. Botanists trained at Wellesley. Geologists from Vermont.
There were names. There were credentials. There were careers.
The professors had been wrong.
But Margaret's discovery was just the beginning. Because as she dug deeper into archives across the country, she found something far more disturbing.
Photograph after photograph showed women standing at laboratory benches, working with equipment, listed on research teams.
But when she read the published papers, the award citations, the official histories—those same women had disappeared. Their names were missing. Their contributions erased.
It wasn't random. It was systematic.
Women who designed experiments watched male colleagues publish results without giving them credit. Women whose discoveries were assigned to supervisors. Women listed in acknowledgments instead of as authors. Women passed over for awards that went to male collaborators who contributed far less.
Margaret realized she was witnessing a pattern that stretched across centuries.
Women had always been present in science. The record had simply pushed them aside.
She needed a name for what she was documenting.
In the early 1990s, she found it in the work of Matilda Joslyn Gage—a 19th-century suffragist who had written about this exact phenomenon in 1870.
In 1993, Margaret published a paper formally naming it: The Matilda Effect.
The term captured something that had been hidden in plain sight for generations. Once you knew the term, you saw it everywhere.
Her dissertation became a lifelong mission.
For more than 30 years, Margaret researched and wrote her landmark three-volume series: Women Scientists in America. She examined letters, institutional policies, individual careers. She gathered undeniable evidence that women in science had been consistently under-credited and structurally excluded.
Her work faced resistance. Many dismissed women's history as political rather than academic. Others insisted she was exaggerating.
Margaret didn't argue emotionally. She presented data. Documented cases. Patterns repeated across decades and institutions.
Eventually, the evidence became undeniable.
Her research helped restore recognition to scientists who had been erased:
Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work revealed DNA's structure—credit went to Watson and Crick.
Lise Meitner, who explained nuclear fission—omitted from the Nobel Prize.
Nettie Stevens, who discovered sex chromosomes—received little credit.
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered stars are made of hydrogen—initially dismissed.
And countless others whose names had nearly vanished.
Margaret changed the narrative. Science was no longer just the story of solitary male geniuses. It became a story of collaboration that included women who had been written out.
The Matilda Effect became standard terminology. Scholars used it to examine how credit is assigned, how authors are listed, who receives awards, who gets left out.
