Hello! My name is Summer, and I'm trying to raise funds to get my pup to the vet.
… Summer Kelley needs your support for Help Kaida Get the
Hey friends. So I had to put Ernie down mere weeks ago, and now my roommate's dog Kaida is suffering a great deal. We want to the emergency vet this weekend and spent all our collective money getting her a week's worth of meds, of course she would take a turn over Thanksgiving weekend, that's the way of the universe!
Please help. Summer's gone through too much in the last couple years. her mother was murder, then her grandmother passed from grief not long later. Kaida is hurting and it aches all of us to watch it, but we cannot afford to take her in. I spent all my Christmas present money to get her the temp meds from the emergency vet, broke after spending a thousand dollars putting Ernie to sleep.
Summer is waiting for her inheritance from her mother after the murder -- it's been over two years and the process has been ongoing. There really is no safety net when someone gets unexpectedly murdered and there is no will in place, it's a miracle they haven't lost everything. If you would like to be paid back, she can do that in a couple months when the sales of the property go through, let me know and she will make a note of it or we can talk about it privately.
I know this is a hard time of year, everyone is strapped, which is why we're forced to ask. Thank you and have a happy holiday season.
Sharing again to try to nudge this closer to goal. Thank you and love you to everyone who has shared or donated so far. We spoke with a friend of a friend who is a vet (sadly she is in another state, but she was able to look at Kaida's records and consult) and think we can get by on 650 for the vet appointment instead of 700 by eliminating one test.
Kaida is a good girl and she is suffering, it's just hard to see. Realistically even if all we have to do is euthanize (we hope not), it's still a five hundred dollar bill. Thank you and love to you and your family during the holiday season <3
Will never see eye-to-eye with anyone less than the people who treat their pets like wandering ronin instead of valued family members. Like oh there goes Bronson our uncollared, chipless chocolate lab out of the permanently open back door again. If he comes home in three days after subsisting on garbage we'll be mildly thrilled to see him again but if he succumbs to his natural predator, the 2006 Toyota Camry, that's just the circle of life
In economics we divide the population into income quintiles -- top 20%, bottom 20%, etc
The Biden Economy has been very, very good to the bottom 20% -- I know because I am in that quintile and under the Biden Presidency I have seen multiple SNAP increases, the best COLA adjustments for Social Security in four decades, Medicare now pays my utilities, and because I'm part of the Affordable Connectivity Program, they can now never turn off my internet even if I can't afford to pay the bill.
The problem with the poorest people being the one who benefits the most? Is that it doesn't resonate as a media story. The media is not catering to that bottom quintile -- we don't have the expendable income their advertisers are seeking.
But if you want to elect a POTUS who is honestly helping the people who need it the most, you should be an enthusiastic Biden supporter. It won't make splashy news headlines, you're not even going to find MSNBC going GUESS WHAT THE POORS ARE DOING BETTER all the time because it's really not a sexy story. But it's a real story. A true story.
I'm just really sick of the pseudo-leftist takes that characterize Biden and the Democrats as 'conservative' or assertions that they don't have policy platforms except 'we're not the Republicans.' Such commentary sounds intelligent but only in the way Libertarian commentary sounds intelligent: you have to not think critically at all to some to such absurd conclusions. Democrats are working within a broken system and doing the best they can. You wanna fix the system? Great, I'm onboard, but smearing the only people trying to help is not going to get you anywhere.
AMAZING news: the Reproductive Freedom Act in Ohio has now officially been CERTIFIED to be on the ballot in this November's election. It gathered 495,938 signatures from 55 counties across Ohio. Republicans messed around & women & young people will make them find out.
Okay, but Ohioans need to get the fuck to the polls for our special election on August 8th!!! The Republican fucks are trying to change our simple majority necessary for amendments to 60%. The Columbus Dispatch says "Issue 1 is one of the most significant questions Ohio voters will be asked in generations," and that's no exaggeration. Get out there, and vote no. Early voting and absentee ballot requests are still going on, if you are registered to vote!
We gotta vote no on issue 1 in Ohio on August 8th, 2023.
Since 1912, Ohio has used a simple majority to pass a constitutional amendment. Issue 1 would raise that threshold to 60% of the vote.
Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose admitted last month “[Issue 1] is 100% about keeping a radical, pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution.”
WOMEN OF WISCONSIN: Get ready to vote tomorrow in one of the biggest elections in modern U.S. history that no one's ever heard of. The swing vote on the State Supreme Court is up for grabs, where a victory for liberal JANET PROTASIEWICZ will almost certainly overturn the state's total abortion ban
Here's an article going into more about what's at stake:
After Roe v. Wade fell last year, a trigger law from the year 1849 - over a decade before the start of the American Civil War that ended Chattel Slavery - banned abortion in the state. Despite a Democratic Governor ready to sign a repeal, the Republican controlled state legislature has opposed it, and a 4-3 conservative State Supreme Court slow walked the legal challenge.
However, one of the 4 conservative justices, Patience D. Roggensack, is term limited, and the state elects SCOTUS judges by a vote so the race tomorrow will effectively determine control of the now deadlocked 3-3 court. A win for Judge Janet will give liberals a majority for the first time in 15 years, ensuring a liberal majority court will now have the final say on the legal challenge to the 1849 abortion ban, and in almost 100% likelihood, throw it in the trash.
AND THAT'S NOT ALL
Wisconsin is victim to the worst Republican gerrymander in the country, where the maps are so rigged that Republicans only need 40% of the vote to control a majority of the state legislature, while Democrats need a 60% supermajority! Watchdogs have called it one of the most dangerous affronts to democracy in the Developed World. The conservative State Supreme Court has done nothing to address this, but a new liberal court majority is very likely to lead to a legal challenge against the maps. If overturned, Democrats would go to having a fair chance of winning a majority in the state legislature and turning the state fully blue like Michigan and Minnesota recently did. It would ensure that not only the monstrous 1849 abortion ban would be overturned, but Republicans would struggle to get back the legislature to ban it all over again. Right now all they need is the Governor's Mansion.
Janet's opponent, Dan Kelly, is a hardline conservative backed by the three biggest anti-abortion groups in the state. He was part of a scheme to throw out Joe Biden's victory in Wisconsin in 2020 by sending an alternative slate of electors to vote for Donald Trump instead. He is a mad man, and is very likely to uphold the 1849 ban as well as the maps.
Ladies, however you can, GET OUT AND VOTE FOR JANET!!!
Actually Steven Moffat is basically just this sentiment given human form.
A version of this happened with The Magicians, tbh. Though instead of expectation: men, reality: women it was expectation: smug nihilists, reality: mentally ill queer folks.
Arguably Game of Thrones.
If we broaden it outside of television...I think Star Wars falls into this, at least the sequel trilogy. Maybe the MCU as well. And I can't help but think of every band that's ever complained that their fanbase is mostly women. 5 Seconds of Summer comes immediately to mind.
In general, most white male creators seem to have this massively entitled mindset where they want--and think they deserve--the time, attention, and enthusiasm that creative fandom (i.e. the side of fandom more dominated by women) is known for.
They want our eyes for ratings, our word-of-mouth for free publicity, our metas for social media buzz, and our spending power for merch and cons. But they don't want us. And they don't really want the responsibility of telling a story to a thoughtful, engaged audience, regardless of that audience's demographic makeup. They just want to be praised for whatever schlock they cough up.
And like any other spoiled brat, they will break their toys before they share them.
It goes all the way to the top for kids shows. Toy sales will crash a show. Makes sense, but if those toys are gendered for boys instead of the female viewers, they won't usually switch up the marketing and move them to the girl aisle. They cancel the show outright.
Mind you it is perfectly possible to make the switch in marketing, but execs would rather throw it all out than have something that doesn't perform well with male viewers. For example the Rey merch was not expected to be popular, for some reason, there had to be public outcry to get merch of one of the main 3 protagonists. A PROTAGONIST. The fact that she wasn't a huge part of the 1st launch says a lot already.
And what happened when female fans got too invested in the Sequel Trilogy? The entire writers room didn't necessarily lash out, but they sure forgot how to behave.
Young Justice
Paul Dini: Superhero cartoon execs don't want largely female audiences
#WhereIsRey (initial)
#WhereIsRey (ongoing)
The older, male generation of 'Star Wars' fans may be losing interest in the franchise, but female fans are stepping up.
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker was designed to be the opposite of The Last Jedi
#SONS OF ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!#LITERALLY SONS OF ANARCHY IS THE BIGGEST EXAMPLE OF THIS LIKE EVER#kurt sutter wrote that show for MEN and ended up with an overwhelmingly female audience#because he's actually a good writer and knows how to develop characters well and wrote excellent female characters#but once he realized that his audience was almost entirely women he literally took it out on tara and gemma in the show#but like tara specifically#he resented her character for being a huge draw for female viewers so he tore her development to shreds and killed her#in the most brutal gut wrenching way possible#kurt sutter you will pay for your crimes#i actually wrote a manifesto about this on one of my old blogs i should try to find it sldkjsldfjsdljf#long post (via@m-oonknight)
OMG YES. I LOVED Sons of Anarchy, especially the women and then I got to season 6 and it was like - everything was just tossed in the trash? And like, why did Sutter hate that Tara drew tons of attention? That should have been a good thing! He should have been like "Hey folks, this girl's getting us more viewers, let's put her in more scenes!" It just doesn't make sense to me. MEN don't make sense to me.
The 100 too. I'll never forget how Jason Rothenberg would attacked female fans on Twitter and mock them in interviews, and then post links to male fan discussions on Reddit to praise and thank them. In his goodbye letter to the show he SPECIFICALLY thanked Reddit and it was so disgusting.
Star Trek from TNG on was also a boy’s club, even though the TOS fans were mostly women. Women, in fact, who literally created modern fandom with their zines. But after TNG it was all, “Women don’t understand Star Trek, only smart men hur dur.”
Nothing quite like being a passionate female fan of something and knowing all the people in charge would happily walk over you to get to a casual male fan. Like this isn’t a female versus male fans conversation. But it is a ‘sexism rules in the industry discussion’. They hate us.
I don’t care if you are the richest whitest woman in America or if you’re a big pile of vulnerabilities and marginalizations that would make an activist salivate, I am supportive of your right to access abortion when you need it. No matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic or how problematic or unproblematic your identity is currently considered to be, I still want you to be able to access abortion when you need it. I don’t need you to have the right story to have rights.
No matter how many times I try, I still can’t wrap my mind around the idea that some people think that the only rights we have are the ones established in the Constitution at the time it was written and so we have to forever live our lives like people did in ye olden times. And this philosophy is, like, the most conveniently flexible one ever because of course it doesn’t mean that gun owners can only have a musket, but it does mean that women can get told what procedures they can have done by whoever happens to be in elected office in the state they live in at that time. It’s just so C L E A R L Y not really about what they say it’s about and they all act like we can’t see right through them.
There is no mention of the procedure in a four-thousand-word document crafted by fifty-five men in 1787. This seems to be a surprise to Samu
"Within a matter of months, women in about half of the United States may be breaking the law if they decide to end a pregnancy. This will be, in large part, because Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is surprised that there is so little written about abortion in a four-thousand-word document crafted by fifty-five men in 1787. As it happens, there is also nothing at all in that document, which sets out fundamental law, about pregnancy, uteruses, vaginas, fetuses, placentas, menstrual blood, breasts, or breast milk. There is nothing in that document about women at all. Most consequentially, there is nothing in that document—or in the circumstances under which it was written—that suggests its authors imagined women as part of the political community embraced by the phrase 'We the People.' There were no women among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were no women among the hundreds of people who participated in ratifying conventions in the states. There were no women judges. There were no women legislators. At the time, women could neither hold office nor run for office, and, except in New Jersey, and then only fleetingly, women could not vote. Legally, most women did not exist as persons."
"About as wholly speculative as the question of who leaked this decision is the history offered to support it. Alito’s opinion rests almost exclusively on a bizarre and impoverished historical analysis. 'The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, and therefore those who claim that it protects such a right must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text,' he argues, making this observation repeatedly. Roe, he writes, was 'remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text' and suffers from one error above all: 'it held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.'"
"Women are indeed missing from the Constitution. That’s a problem to remedy, not a precedent to honor.
"Alito cites a number of eighteenth-century texts; he does not cite anything written by a woman, and not because there’s nothing available. 'The laws respecting woman,' Mary Wollstonecraft wrote in 'A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,' in 1791, 'make an absurd unit of a man and his wife, and then, by the easy transition of only considering him as responsible, she is reduced to a mere cypher.' She is but a part of him. She herself does not exist but is instead, as Wollstonecraft wrote, a 'non-entity.'
"If a right isn’t mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, Alito argues, following a mode of reasoning known as the history test, then it can only become a right if it can be shown to be 'deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.' As I have argued, the history test disadvantages people who were not enfranchised at the time the Constitution was written, or who have been poorly enfranchised since then. Especially important is the question of who was enfranchised at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, in 1868, the nation’s second founding, since many arguments defending abortion rights (and many other rights, too) turn on the equal-protection and due-process clauses of that amendment. Here, too, Alito is baffled to discover so little about abortion and women. Referring to the advocates for Jackson Women’s Health Organization and to amicus briefs like one signed by the American Historical Association, Alito writes, 'Not only are respondents and their amici unable to show that a constitutional right to abortion was established when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but they have found no support for the existence of an abortion right that predates the latter part of the 20th century—no state constitutional provision, no statute, no judicial decision, no learned treatise.'
"He might have consulted the records of the U.S. Senate from the debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, when Jacob Howard, a Republican senator from Michigan, got into an argument with Reverdy Johnson, a Democrat from Maryland. Howard quoted James Madison, who had written that 'those who are to be bound by laws, ought to have a voice in making them.' This got Johnson terribly worried, because the Fourteenth Amendment uses the word 'person.' He wanted to know: Did Howard mean to suggest that women could be construed as persons, too?
"mr. johnson: Females as well as males?
"mr. howard: Mr. Madison does not say anything about females.
"mr. johnson: 'Persons.'
"mr. howard: I believe Mr. Madison was old enough and wise enough to take it for granted that there was such a thing as the law of nature which has a certain influence even in political affairs, and that by that law women and children are not regarded as the equals of men.
"Alito, shocked—shocked—to discover so little in the law books of the eighteen-sixties guaranteeing a right to abortion, has missed the point: hardly anything in the law books of the eighteen-sixties guaranteed women anything. Because, usually, they still weren’t persons. Nor, for that matter, were fetuses.
"I don’t happen to think Roe was well argued. I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s early analysis—that grounding the right in equality rather than privacy might have been a sounder approach. I’m not even a hard-liner on the question of abortion; I find it morally thorny. But, when Samuel Alito says that people who believe abortion is a constitutional right 'have no persuasive answer to this historical evidence,' he displays nothing so much as the limits of his own evidence. 'The page of history teems with woman’s wrongs,' as the nineteenth-century abolitionist Sarah Grimké once put it. It does not teem with women’s rights. To use a history of discrimination to deny people their constitutional rights is a perversion of logic and a betrayal of justice. Would the Court decide civil-rights cases regarding race by looking exclusively to laws and statutes written before emancipation?
"At the close of the opinion, Alito congratulates both himself and the Court that, with this ruling, they are enfranchising women. 'Our decision . . . allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office,' he writes. 'Women are not without electoral or political power.' True, women are no longer without electoral power. But they were without it for almost the entirety of the history on which Alito grounds his analysis of the Constitution and its provisions. You don’t need a leaked document to learn that."
Hey, we’ve already got it started in Florida, just come join me we’re almost Λορεμ ιπσθμ δολορ σιτ αμετ, ηασ ει vιδισσε δισπθτανδο cομπλεcτιτθρ, σιντ λαορεετ ιντερπρεταρισ εαμ ιδ.
everybody is so bored while stuck inside bc of covid-19 that i just got an ff.net alert that a fic from 2009 i was following updated with a new chapter for the first time in FIVE YEARS
