Untitled

[dhaaruni]

This is completely delusional lol. A lot of Republicans (and Democrats!) hate cis women, whether or not they believe it of themselves and self-report their misogyny to pollsters, and I don't understand how you can live in the real world and pretend otherwise.

[kateprincessofbluewhales]

Throw some pirate themed fic titles at me so I dont start posting without a fucking clue what to call it like all the other times I did exactly that.

Its not serious at all. Straight slapstick shenanigans. Ready set go 👀

[kateprincessofbluewhales]

I wont name it A Ship of Sluts and Scholars but thats probably the most accurate.

Edit:

Also do NOT let me call it the Gooner Schooner, which is also accurate.

Edit edit: also, yell at me if I call it Treasure in My Trousers

Edit edit edit: Do not let me name it Scallawag and the Scallahag.

[fieriframes]

[She was safe. She was warm and well fed. She was furious.]

[palesweetdeeer]

I love the idea of Rocky extending Grace’s lifespan to Eridian levels without telling him

[muffinlance]

Rocky learn about Greenland sharks. Statement.

Grace: ...I have so questions. Question.

[dhaaruni]

Shooting the messenger doesn't work when said messenger didn't sign an NDA to keep quiet about your guy's personal dealings.

A super neat trick to avoid stories about your candidate cheating on his wife as a newlywed getting leaked to the Wall Street Journal is to pick a guy who doesn't have a Nazi tattoo, history of publicly discoursing on international hookers, or a predilection for public masturbation.

[keystonewarrior]

I still need a few more than I thought I need.

[maulscrafts]

^leafs, and behind the leafs ^

[bauliya]

so women are supposed to grin and bear the books, the comics, the movies, the plays, the tv shows, the stories, the sci-fi, the translated ancient poems, the fucking millennia of men writing about their self inserts torturing women and it being declared as High Art by other men, we’re supposed to read it in our free time, study it in classrooms, include their styles in our own writing, accept their cultural influence as natural, watch it in the cinema, write about it, talk about it, accept it, aspire it, but men can’t tolerate three seconds of female wish fulfilment of a woman snapping the wrist of a creep without feeling personally kicked in the balls.

[darkshrimpemotions]

This reminds me of something I observed in college while I was doing my honors thesis on women in modern horror films. I watched a LOT of horror during that time as part of my research, and sometimes that was done with my family around.

And my dad and brothers? Were deeply disturbed by the movie Jennifer’s Body. I was flabbergasted. It’s not scary! It’s not even that gory. But they were horrified by it. These men who grew up on 70s slashers were legitimately shook by 90 minutes of Megan Fox eating a few teenage boys, mostly off-screen.

Similarly, my all-male reading panel for my thesis? Were so disturbed by my synopsis of the film Teeth that they couldn’t even talk about it. One of them said he couldn’t look at his wife for a week after reading it.

Again, grown-ass men who study and teach media for a living. Who definitely watch and enjoy horror movies. One of whom was a huge Tarantino buff. We watched and read worse in his intro to mass media class! But one movie about a girl whose vag could bite was enough to haunt him.

Then of course you have things like the Gone Girl backlash–men yelling that Amy Dunne is evil and women clamoring to assure everyone that they know she is not someone to emulate–the backlash against Carol Danvers, and, more recently, the griping from MRAs against the upcoming film Hustlers, which is about strippers scamming their Wall Street clients.

My conclusion? Most men–at least most straight, cisgender men, who are both my sample population and most of the ones whining that Carol is a “villain”–are perfectly fine with, and desensitized to, media where men do violence to women (horror movies), or men do violence to men (horror and action movies). They’re even sort of fine when women do violence to women (“ooooo cat fight!”).

But they get intensely uncomfortable when women are depicted doing any kind of violence to men, especially in films that tilt the balance of power to the other side of the m/f gender binary beyond a single moment or scene.

So woman as flesh-eating monster with men as her preferred cuisine? Woman who responds to unwanted sexual contact by biting it off? Woman who frames her cheating husband for murder? Woman whose response to harassment–behavior that many of the loudest whiners know is both creepy and reflective of their own thoughts/actions–is to break something?

Too scary. Unacceptable. Disturbing. These men hate being presented with the idea, even in fiction, that their position of power is socially constructed, that it could easily be flipped the other way. It terrifies them.

In feeling that terror, they experience a tiny modicum of what living, existing, moving, being perceived as a woman in the world is like.

And they flinch every time.

[tzikeh]

Here have a newspaper comic from 1993

[marzipanandminutiae]

my father, who is not a misogynist by any means and therefore surprised me by revealing this, DESPISES Saffron from Firefly (conwoman who seduces her predominately male targets)

in a series with multiple instances of men beating, humiliating, and occasionally killing female sex workers, including at least one main character and several sympathetic side characters. and two other main female characters being threatened with rape at various points

but the worst character, to him, is a woman who preys on men’s attraction to her

[escuerzoresucitado]

[dhaaruni]

For the record, Andrea Dworkin is a lot kinder to other women than anybody gives her credit for. She’s disappointed and resigned, but she doesn’t lash out and I genuinely think that her ideological opponents wish she did so their vitriol against her was justified.

[happinessasthebaddest]

⛓️‍💥

[wishingforatypewriter]

I've been reflecting lately on the idea that it's important to regularly evaluate what you actually like about a piece of media—and if you even still enjoy it—because that is going to determine how you can actually engage with it positively. For example, if you really like the worldbuilding of a series but don't actually care for the writing, you might have more fun making a bunch of OCs and letting them loose in your setting of choice than engaging with canon. But if you like the themes and characters in a piece of media, you might have a better time creating and consuming more canon-compatible fan works. And if you think a work is perfect as it is, then engaging in transformative works might not be something that interests you at all. It might even make you upset to see folks deviating from canon. All of these things are okay, as long as you're not antagonizing other people. But you just have to be real with yourself.

[jareckiworld]

Cat Johnston —The God of Hayfever (textiles, epoxy clay, paint, wood, 2024)

[sometiktoksarevalid]

[latinamericane-deactivated20250]

oscar isaac, john boyega and daisy ridley attend the european premiere of star wars: the rise of skywalker on december 18th, 2019 in london, england.

[sartorialadventure]

Daisy Ridley in Vivienne Westwood:

With John Boyega, in a  blue Agbada, a robe traditionally worn by men in West Africa, with gold detailing. A Fila, a traditional Yoruba cap, finished the look:

[city-of-ladies]

"Like most people remembered in memorial brasses, Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge were well born, both daughters of gentry families with properties in Sussex, Kent, and beyond. Their homes were close by, and like others of their status, they were probably raised at home until adolescence and then placed for several years in another elite household; they would certainly have known each other in childhood, and they easily could have lived for several years in the same household.

Both would have been expected to marry in their late teens or twenties, although a few well-born daughters (about one in every twenty) did not marry, by choice or happenstance. Only a handful entered nunneries; the rest, supported by modest bequests from their parents, passed their lives as dependents within their families. Usually identified as “maidens” or “singlewomen,” they paid their own way in both coin and family service.

Contemporary records offer no further information about Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge, and like other maidens, they were quickly effaced in family memory. Everything we know comes from the memorial itself. The brass offers two clear indications that both were never-married: no husbands are mentioned in their inscriptions, and the uncovered heads—and, in the case of Elizabeth Etchingham, long f lowing hair—of their effigies were conventional signs of maidenhood. Elizabeth Etchingham was likely born in the 1420s and died by her mid-twenties; Agnes Oxenbridge was also likely born in the 1420s and was in her fifties when she died, almost three decades after Elizabeth Etchingham.

Although Elizabeth Etchingham’s burial in her family church in 1452 was unremarkable, the internment in 1480 of Agnes Oxenbridge next to her, rather than in her family mausoleum at Brede, was exceptional.

The heads of both families must have agreed to the unusual arrangements of 1480—Thomas Etchingham II (Elizabeth’s brother) accepting the burial of an Oxenbridge woman in his family church, and Robert Oxenbridge III allowing his sister to lie away from their family vault. But it is unlikely that either brother instigated this unusual commemoration; instead, Agnes Oxenbridge herself probably requested it, as was then the custom, in a deathbed will that no longer survives. Of course, Agnes Oxenbridge’s instructions could have been ignored, modified, or poorly implemented, so the actual execution of the Etchingham-Oxenbridge monument relied on a collaboration involving the man in whose church it was to be laid (Thomas Etchingham II), her survivors (especially Robert Oxenbridge III), and the London workshop that got the commission (denoted as workshop F by students of brass styles). As a product of so much collective effort, this memorial brass to two women must have been a scandal to no one at the time.

It nevertheless presented some creative challenges. First, the designers had to determine how to place the two effigies, given that most joint monuments commemorated married couples. Elizabeth Etchingham was assigned the conventional spot for husbands (the left, as viewed by observers), perhaps because the brass was destined for her family church, because her family was of more ancient origin, or because her smaller effigy presented less insult to husbandly prerogatives. Second, the designers had to distinguish a young, nubile maiden from her middle-aged counterpart. They used hairstyle and height to this end, differentiating the smaller maiden with youthful f lowing hair from her larger, coifed, and middle-aged companion.

Third, the designers had to express the relationship that caused these two women to be remembered together, and their decisions here are especially revealing. The design suggests that no one—not Agnes Oxenbridge in pre-mortem requests, not Thomas Etchingham II and Robert Oxenbridge III acting on her behalf, and not the artisans in the workshop—shied away from representing the two women as an intimate couple. Indeed, the monument seems to have been designed with special emphasis on their warm affection. This affection was suggested, of course, by the simple fact of their joint brass, for most brasses with multiple figures remembered married persons—a motif generally understood as celebrating the closeness and fidelity of marriage. But the designers of this brass pushed beyond mere joint commemoration in stressing intimacy, for Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge were also deliberately shown facing each other, moving towards each other, and looking directly into each other’s eyes.

Most contemporary joint effigies showed couples facing the front, much like bodies laid in tombs, but Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge were portrayed in semi-profile, turned towards each other. New and not yet standard, this pose derives partly from design developments extraneous to the specifics of this 1480 monument—particularly the patterns favored by workshop F and a desire to show in effigies the complex headdresses of the time. But the pose had an affective purpose too, for as Paul Binski has noted of other brasses, “the turning of figures on their axis enabled the intimacy of marriage to be expressed.” The designers of the Etchingham-Oxenbridge brass evoked intimacy by adopting this inward turn, and they emphasized it even more by eschewing two features common in other brasses of workshop F—a so-called “jaunty” leaning of the figures away from each other and a draping of women’s gowns in deep, immobilizing folds. 

The effigies of Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge lack these distancing features and show, instead, the two women moving towards one another. As if to seal the affective power of the composition, the designers show Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge gazing directly into each other’s eyes, even though most married couples in contemporary brasses stare past each other into the distance. Their brass unmistakably evokes more intimacy and mutual affection than do most contemporary monuments of husbands and wives."

Bennett Judith M., "Remembering Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge", in: The Lesbian Premodern

[silurisanguine]

Linktree will be feeding your images with DALL-E, Open AI from 5th July 2026.

Warning to anyone using Linktree.

From the 5th July, they'll be feeding all imagery you use on your landing page into DALL-E by OpenAI.

I deleted my account just now, because there was no way to turn this off or opt out.

[silurisanguine]

Update with some alternatives-

Carrd.co. Free alt with paid features.

Bento.app Currently free, integrated with bluesky

Everlink.tools Closest to Linktree, has some paid features.

Omg.lol Currently $20 a year. If paying for Linktree features this is a great upgrade.