I see so many well intentioned women talking about how modesty is important when it comes to men's objectification of them. Like, they will condemn men's lust, but say, "but we have to do our part too." I just need you guys to understand that there is literally no amount of clothing you can wear to keep men from sexualizing you. It sucks, but it's true.
I dress very modestly by the typical conservative Christian standard... Loose clothing, long dresses/skirts, nothing low cut, etc. Usually the only skin I expose is my forearms, neck, and face... But I am not exempt from being sexualized. I can't tell you how many times I've heard stuff like, "it's so nice when women leave things up to the imagination" and "I love your librarian/teacher vibe, it's so sexy." Men sexualize nuns and muslim women, who are completely covered. No woman is exempt from this.
Why is this important? So you can stop blaming yourself for men treating you like sexual potential instead of a person and hold men accountable for their own willful inability to control themselves.
To the Christian women, you are not responsible for men choosing to lust after you. Lust is a choice. I am same-sex attracted, and when I find myself attracted to a woman, I simply choose not to fantasize and lust after her. Men are capable of the same, they just like to shift blame.
As a Christian, I dress modestly as an act of humility more than anything else, but I know there is nothing I can do to control the sinful actions of men. Please stop blaming yourselves.
Let me clarify one thing about this post. Nothing about what I've said excuses women from actively attempting to provoke men to lust. However, in Christian circles the usual framing of this issue puts a lot of blame on the female being sexualized, and my point is that even if you were completely covered or if you walked around nude, a person's decision to lust after you is 100% on them. Christian women are not the guardians of men's virtue. Obviously purposely provoking someone to sin is also a sin, but simply existing isn't, and I'm tired of everyone blaming women for the way men mistreat them.
Georgia’s Pro-Life laws have reduced abortion and protected women. Amber Thurman, who died because of a legal abortion from out of state, is the only person in Georgia for years of records to die from septic shock from “retained products of conception.”
Amber, a healthy 28-year-old single mother, learned she was pregnant with twins in 2022. Scared for her stability and feeling unable to provide for them while attending nursing school, she and her friend Ricaria Baker scheduled a legal surgical abortion in North Carolina.
After leaving her son with a babysitter and making the long drive to another state, Amber and Ricaria were delayed by heavy traffic. They contacted the abortion facility only to find out that the facility had crammed in so many clients that they wouldn’t let her have more than a 15-minute delay or they would cancel her appointment. However, a facility worker gave Amber a “counseling session” and sold her the abortion pills. Tired from the journey and frustrated at the idea of making the long trip for a second time, Amber agreed. She took the first pill at the abortion facility on August 13. She was nine weeks pregnant.
Ricaria later told media that Amber wanted to get home before the abortion symptoms started. The two of them went home and Amber took the final dose.
Amber would soon learn that chemical abortion was not as safe or convenient as the facility claimed. She was in intense pain and bleeding much more heavily than she was led to expect. Her boyfriend called 911 after she vomited blood and lost consciousness.
At 6:51 P.M. on August 18, Amber was brought to Piedmont Henry Hospital in Stockbridge, Georgia. Her condition mirrored that of others killed by “safe and legal” use of the abortion pill. A pelvic exam and ultrasound indicated that the legal abortion left tissue inside of her, where it decayed and caused sepsis. Her blood pressure was dangerously low from bleeding, her white blood cell count was elevated, and while attempting to use the bathroom she fainted again and hit her head.
After assessing Amber’s condition, doctors started her on an IV drip and antibiotics to combat the sepsis, The OB-GYN who was caring for Amber noted the possibility of doing a D&C the next day. However, her condition badly deteriorated. By 5:14 the next morning, she was having trouble breathing and her blood pressure was still dangerous even after five liters of fluids. Realizing that Amber was even sicker than previously thought, her doctors continued to gather information and increased her antibiotics. They also tested for STDs that could potentially complicate treatment and for pneumonia, which can easily develop in patients with sepsis.
With her blood pressure so low, Amber’s doctors tried to save her by giving her Levophed. This was a powerful blood pressure support medication given because she desperately needed her blood pressure to be stabilized. But even with Levophed, Amber’s blood pressure kept falling. She was admitted to the ICU at 6:45 A.M.
By 7:15, doctors discussed a D&C. However, because of her critical condition and because of how the Levophed affected blood flow, surgery was very risky for Amber. Still, after a specialist in intensive care examined her, it was decided that the risk had to be taken.
In the OR, it was discovered that the sepsis was causing her organs to fail. Amber’s bowel needed to be removed, but because of how her blood flow was affected, it was too dangerous to do so. A surgeon carried out the D&C as planned, but the infection was so bad that Amber also had to have a hysterectomy. Despite the hospital’s efforts, Amber went into cardiac arrest during her surgery. A maternal mortality review noted that her death was preventable.
Once Amber’s case became publicly known, some pro-abortion sources tried to claim that the Georgia abortion ban was what actually killed her. They claimed that Georgia law had criminalized D&C so absolutely that doctors were limited in what they could do to save her life.
This is not true.
First, Amber’s twins were already dead. A procedure to remove a dead baby’s remains or other retained tissue is not medically or legally qualified as an abortion.
Second, the legal text of Georgia’s abortion ban clearly states that even if a treatment could be considered an abortion (which, again, does not apply to removing the remains of a corpse), it is unambiguously legal if needed to preserve the life or health of the mother. The text of the law allows doctors, not politicians, to have the final say in what qualifies. Legally, Amber’s doctors were allowed to give her a D&C at any time— which they did. The claims that the abortion ban forced the doctors to delay the D&C or criminalized it are unfounded.
Amber’s D&C was also performed on the day it was planned. There was no refusal to treat her, and in fact even the article that attempts to paint her as a “victim” of abortion bans admits that surgery was dangerous at that point because of the blood pressure medication— the medication given because her legal abortion made her lose so much blood. Surgery may be delayed for extremely fragile patients, and seeing that multiple experts were being brought in to analyze her case and help the best they could, it is extremely likely that she did not receive surgery sooner because they thought it was more likely to kill than save her. This is especially relevant in a patient with respiratory distress, organ failure and extremely low blood pressure— surgery on someone with highly impacted blood flow poses risks of its own.
Lastly, there is no denying that Amber died from a legal abortion. She was not a criminal— she underwent something she was told was “safe and legal” and still died. The blame for her death rests on the abortion facility that packed in as many women as they could and then risked their lives.
It is also worth noting that in a case like this of abortion pill-induced sepsis, treatment can fail even when everything can be attempted. Given that she was already in severe sepsis when admitted to the hospital, even an immediate D&C (had she been stable enough for one) may have been too late. A similar case, the death of “Jayden Roe,” records an immediate D&C being done on a patient who was much less sick and still died.
But even if, hypothetically, Amber’s doctors delayed an aspect of her treatment needlessly, that would be their fault individually as practitioners, not the fault of a law that clearly allows them to use their own judgement and decide for themselves.
Although Amber was afraid of financial instability, she loved being a mother and frequently posted about how much she loved being with her young son— a son who lost his mother and two siblings to “safe and legal” abortion.
Since becoming publicly known, Amber’s death has been exploited by abortion supporters. All of the social media posts claiming that abortion bans killed her miss a very crucial fact: she died of complications of a fully legal abortion.
At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found.
Amber Nicole Thurman (1993-2022) - Find a Grave...
I want to emphasize that Ms. Thurman died from MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, not abortion. Secular Pro-Life has made a very important post here about how her care team continually talked about and put off her needed D&C for DAYS instead of JUST DOING IT.
Obstetrical negligence and violence happens in pro-choice AND pro-life states. Journalists choosing to only cover those that can be warped for their agenda are disgusting.
The heartbeat law in GA did NOT harm Ms. Thurman. The negligent doctors are weakly using the heartbeat law as an excuse to cover their asses over their obvious malpractice.
Anyone buying their pitiful excuses for negligence are just condoning and enabling medical sexism. Period.
I desperately would love love LOVE to introduce Feanorians to a Quenyan version of Scrabble and watch them explode
I imagine that they'd make a bigger board to be able to fit 10-12 players and it would go on for days. With bickerings on the validity of words and with Moryo as the score keeper who can't quite keep his mouth shut and joins in on the bickering on wheter the word choice is "so fucking stupid, Tyelko. It should be banned on principle. What the fuck-". Each of the Feanorion just keeps on making up new rules especially after the Ambarussa makes up new words and argues for a whole hour and a half that it "totally counts as a word. Trust us, Nelyo-", that time Meadhros tried to pass a whole ass sentence as a "word", when Feanor took almost 12+ hours to think up an appropriate word to put down and etc.
Because come on guys. Ñoldor? "Those with great knowledge"? Feanor? The guy who created a whole ass writing system (the Tengwar)? His family? Who is just as intense and competitive as him? His step-siblings who would no doubt love an excuse to throw down without getting into trouble with the Valar or Finwë? Scrabble is THE BEST for Ñoldor Family Game Night(s).
I can just imagine Feanor playing scrabble with Finwë, Indis, Nolofinwë, Arafinwë, Írimë and Findis. Oh boyy. Findis is keeping score but everyone keeps trying to justify how they should have a higher score that word. Nolo and Feanor are shouting. Accusing each other for cheating. Ara made a throwaway joke once and suddenly BOTH his brothers are shouting at him. Indis saw the chaos and wanted to put away the game but was immediately stopped. Finwë is just happy to spend time with his family. Írimë is, in fact, the one who is cheating
Edit: More Feanorion shenanigans here! For part 2
Edit: And another! For part 3
Edit: Part 4!
[Edited to keep it to one post. Was too excited to post]
Why You're Writing Medieval (and Medieval-Coded) Women Wrong: A RANT
(Or, For the Love of God, People, Stop Pretending Victorian Style Gender Roles Applied to All of History)
This is a problem I see alllll over the place - I'll be reading a medieval-coded book and the women will be told they aren't allowed to fight or learn or work, that they are only supposed to get married, keep house and have babies, &c &c.
If I point this out ppl will be like "yes but there was misogyny back then! women were treated terribly!" and OK. Stop right there.
By & large, what we as a culture think of as misogyny & patriarchy is the expression prevalent in Victorian times - not medieval. (And NO, this is not me blaming Victorians for their theme park version of "medieval history". This is me blaming 21st century people for being ignorant & refusing to do their homework).
Yes, there was misogyny in medieval times, but 1) in many ways it was actually markedly less severe than Victorian misogyny, tyvm - and 2) it was of a quite different type. (Disclaimer: I am speaking specifically of Frankish, Western European medieval women rather than those in other parts of the world. This applies to a lesser extent in Byzantium and I am still learning about women in the medieval Islamic world.)
So, here are the 2 vital things to remember about women when writing medieval or medieval-coded societies
FIRST. Where in Victorian times the primary axes of prejudice were gender and race - so that a male labourer had more rights than a female of the higher classes, and a middle class white man would be treated with more respect than an African or Indian dignitary - In medieval times, the primary axis of prejudice was, overwhelmingly, class. Thus, Frankish crusader knights arguably felt more solidarity with their Muslim opponents of knightly status, than they did their own peasants. Faith and age were also medieval axes of prejudice - children and young people were exploited ruthlessly, sent into war or marriage at 15 (boys) or 12 (girls). Gender was less important.
What this meant was that a medieval woman could expect - indeed demand - to be treated more or less the same way the men of her class were. Where no ancient legal obstacle existed, such as Salic law, a king's daughter could and did expect to rule, even after marriage.
Women of the knightly class could & did arm & fight - something that required a MASSIVE outlay of money, which was obviously at their discretion & disposal. See: Sichelgaita, Isabel de Conches, the unnamed women fighting in armour as knights during the Third Crusade, as recorded by Muslim chroniclers.
Tolkien's Eowyn is a great example of this medieval attitude to class trumping race: complaining that she's being told not to fight, she stresses her class: "I am of the house of Eorl & not a serving woman". She claims her rights, not as a woman, but as a member of the warrior class and the ruling family. Similarly in Renaissance Venice a doge protested the practice which saw 80% of noble women locked into convents for life: if these had been men they would have been "born to command & govern the world". Their class ought to have exempted them from discrimination on the basis of sex.
So, tip #1 for writing medieval women: remember that their class always outweighed their gender. They might be subordinate to the men within their own class, but not to those below.
SECOND. Whereas Victorians saw women's highest calling as marriage & children - the "angel in the house" ennobling & improving their men on a spiritual but rarely practical level - Medievals by contrast prized virginity/celibacy above marriage, seeing it as a way for women to transcend their sex. Often as nuns, saints, mystics; sometimes as warriors, queens, & ladies; always as businesswomen & merchants, women could & did forge their own paths in life
When Elizabeth I claimed to have "the heart & stomach of a king" & adopted the persona of the virgin queen, this was the norm she appealed to. Women could do things; they just had to prove they were Not Like Other Girls. By Elizabeth's time things were already changing: it was the Reformation that switched the ideal to marriage, & the Enlightenment that divorced femininity from reason, aggression & public life.
For more on this topic, read Katherine Hager's article "Endowed With Manly Courage: Medieval Perceptions of Women in Combat" on women who transcended gender to occupy a liminal space as warrior/virgin/saint.
So, tip #2: remember that for medieval women, wife and mother wasn't the ideal, virgin saint was the ideal. By proving yourself "not like other girls" you could gain significant autonomy & freedom.
Finally a bonus tip: if writing about medieval women, be sure to read writing on women's issues from the time so as to understand the terms in which these women spoke about & defended their ambitions. Start with Christine de Pisan.
I learned all this doing the reading for WATCHERS OF OUTREMER, my series of historical fantasy novels set in the medieval crusader states, which were dominated by strong medieval women! Book 5, THE HOUSE OF MOURNING (forthcoming 2023) will focus, to a greater extent than any other novel I've ever yet read or written, on the experience of women during the crusades - as warriors, captives, and political leaders. I can't wait to share it with you all!
We’ve had one Tolkien fanfiction study- what about Second Tolkien Fanfiction study?
Haleth
Eärien from The Rings of Power
Lothiriel of Dol Amroth
Aragorn and Arwen’s Daughters
If you write or read Tolkien fanfiction about any of these characters, I’d love to talk to you as part of my PhD research into the depiction of Tolkien’s female characters in fanfiction.
We’ve had one Tolkien fanfiction study- what about Second Tolkien Fanfiction study? Haleth Eärien from The Rings of Power Lothiriel of Dol A
Title: Remarkable
STORY LINK by Caiti (@caiti-creative-corner) - revealing on 9/8!!
ART LINK by The Elegant Bookworm @theelegantbookworm - already available to squeal over! Check it out!
Rating: T
Notes: Slight enough AU to overlook; written for @tolkienrsb
Relationships: Gandalf and The Took Family
Characters: Gandalf, Belladonna Took, Donnamira Took, Mirabella Took, Gerontius Took, and cameos by Frerin, Arathorn, Glorfindel, & Bilbo Baggins
Word count: 5,083 words
A story summary: Gandalf the Wizard had a special connection to the Tooks . . . which is why he felt so surprised by Bilbo's greeting on that bright morning when he sought a little help for an adventure.
"Remarkable" my fanart of the three daughters of the Old Took for Tolkien Reverse Summer Bang. A fantastic author wrote a fic to go along with it that will be revealed on September 1st!
I saw a post saying that Boromir looked too scruffy in FotR for a Captain of Gondor, and I tried to move on, but I’m hyperfixating. Has anyone ever solo backpacked? I have. By the end, not only did I look like shit, but by day two I was talking to myself. On another occasion I did fourteen days’ backcountry as the lone woman in a group of twelve men, no showers, no deodorant, and brother, by the end of that we were all EXTREMELY feral. You think we looked like heirs to the throne of anywhere? We were thirteen wolverines in ripstop.
My boy Boromir? Spent FOUR MONTHS in the wilderness! Alone! No roads! High floods! His horse died! I’m amazed he showed up to Imladris wearing clothes, let alone with a decent haircut. I’m fully convinced that he left Gondor looking like Richard Sharpe being presented to the Prince Regent in 1813
*electric guitar riff*
And then rocked up to Imladris a hundred ten days later like
My friend. My colleague. My brother my captain my king. I too have been pondering this question, and in my mind there can be only one ultimate outcome.
izzy806
discoholicmusic
blakekathryn
yousharknotpass
