not about love

[ohsexyhalder]

[whencyclopedia]

HAPPY International Women's Day!

Here are some strong, inspirational women from history!

[johannastarlance-deactivated202]

"Henry V and his French Bride"; "Honeymoon", by J.C. Leyendecker

[aprendizdefeiticeira4ever]

[everythingfox]

(via)

[machiavellianjanearchive]

Solomon Alexander Hart / William Shakespeare

[machiavellianjanearchive]

“When Katherine of Aragon exclaims in William Shakespeare and John Fletcher’s King Henry VIII, with equal parts fury and despair, ‘you turn me into nothing’ (3.1.14), she describes more than the consequences of her impending divorce. Her personal loss of identity marks a larger cultural shift in Reformation England as queenship itself suffers an identity crisis. Katherine of Aragon’s reign (1509–33) marks the end of the medieval queen in England. What does that mean for Anne Boleyn, who, then, must be the first Renaissance English queen? English queens consort after Katherine of Aragon have neither a role model nor defined position to guide their early attempts at ruling as Henry’s queen. Indeed, the title ‘queen consort’ introduces a kind of anachronism into our consideration of Renaissance queens’ roles. While descriptive of their marital status, ‘queen consort’ does not appear as a formal title until Henrietta Maria (r. 1625–49); Katherine of Aragon was queen, not queen consort. Untethered from its medieval moorings by Henry’s divorce of Katherine and decapitation of Anne, queenship itself suffered a schism because of the part it played in the English Reformation. Not coincidentally, early seventeenth-century English dramas about Henry VIII revisit this schism in queenship as England welcomed a new queen consort, Anne of Denmark (English r. 1603–19), the first since Henry VIII’s reign ended. These plays expose the dismantled position of the Renaissance English queen at the historical moment that medieval queenship fails and highlight the unstable and reduced position that future English queens would inherit.”

Gaywyn Moore, “You Turn Me into Nothing”: Reformation of Queenship on the Jacobean Stage

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

[is-the-post-reliable]

requested by anonymous:

RATING: RELIABLE

The above is from this article from The Guardian.  The images are from MYA Network. The caption on their website reads:

Source: ‘When a sperm and egg get together, the body creates tissue in order to support the developing pregnancy.  Here are photos of that tissue from 5-9 week pregnancies.  This is called the gestational sac, and it’s like the “house” for the pregnancy. Inside this sac there are cells that have the potential to become a fetus but there is no visible embryo at this stage. We rinsed off the blood and menstrual lining (decidua) for these photographs.’

The published images sparked a lot of debate, leading to the story being picked up by other news outlets. For example:

Source: ‘Last week, the Guardian published images of pregnancy tissue after abortions in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. The small size and appearance of the tissue were shocking to many. We have all absorbed, knowingly and unknowingly, the pervasive anti-abortion narrative that a pregnancy resembles a tiny baby starting in the earliest weeks. Though an early embryo can be seen under the magnification of ultrasound, it can take months for it to be perceptible to the naked eye.’

Source: ‘People have responded in disbelief, citing the (magnified) images they’ve seen on ultrasounds. […] ”Think of the illustrations on pregnancy and medical websites. The Mayo Clinic, one of the preeminent medical organizations in the country, shows week-by-week illustrations of embryonic and fetal development without any context of scale, like the rulers in the MYA photos.’

As stated in the article, whilst people talk about a ‘heartbeat’ at 6 weeks, there is no heart developed at this stage - only a group of cells that will become part of the heart.

Source: ‘But what exactly do we mean when we talk about a “fetal heartbeat” at six weeks of pregnancy? Although some people might picture a heart-shaped organ beating inside a fetus, this is not the case. Rather, at six weeks of pregnancy, an ultrasound can detect “a little flutter in the area that will become the future heart of the baby,” said Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami. This flutter happens because the group of cells that will become the future “pacemaker” of the heart gain the capacity to fire electrical signals, she said.’

It should also be noted that the images show an embryo, not a fetus, until the 9th week.

Source: ‘In human pregnancies, a baby-to-be isn’t considered a fetus until the 9th week after conception, or week 11 after your last menstrual period (LMP).’

The co-founders of the MYA Network responded in a New York Times article.

Source: ‘Many people, even those who support abortion rights, did not believe the photos were accurate. Some insisted we had deliberately removed the embryos before taking the photos. The images weren’t consistent with those often seen in embryological textbooks, magnified on ultrasounds or used in anti-abortion propaganda; these enlarged images are not what you see with the naked eye after an abortion. A Stanford gynecologic pathologist has validated our photos, but many people could not believe the pictures were presented unaltered.

[yorkshirelarrie]

put in the tags:

your first concert

your last concert

your next concert

your favourite concert

[thoughtportal]

propaganda of the forced birth movement

https://myanetwork.org/

[lunosphere]

Anastasia Trusova, “Lace over the river” Acrylic on canvas / 60 x 70 cm / 2022

[daysandmoons]

[A Mars orbiter mission that has your name. A pop star that's the same age as you. Dreams that never came true. Love stories that ended. People who drifted away from you. From our best memories to our most horrible experiences that make us want to curse at our destiny... These are all unique pieces of our lives.]

[loveofstrings]

People get so defensive over porn/bdsm/prostitution/surrogacy/exploiting women's bodies and their argument is always "she consented to it". They never think about the "consumer", or the type of person who would benefit from such a thing in these scenarios.

If a man wanted to slap his girlfriend and she was fine with it, you shouldn't just turn a blind eye and go "well she agreed to it", you should be asking why he would want to do such a thing in the first place. Even if she agreed to it, it doesn't make him any less worse of a person.

With bdsm, the question is "why does he get off on hurting a woman?" "Why does a woman in pain turn him on?" "Why would he willingly beat her?"

With surrogacy, it's "why would someone put a woman through the pain of pregnancy and childbirth, risk her getting pre-eclampsia, a perineal rupture, a prolapsed uterus, post partum depression, and dying just for a biological child, one who isn't even hers?" "So it's ok for you to not want those 'unsightly' stretch marks and scars, but you're fine pushing them onto another woman?" "Why is it ok to take advantage of a woman in poverty, where it isn't even a choice at that point?"

With prostitution, it's "why does he want a woman who won't say no to him or his abusive fantasies, a woman whose pleasure and comfort he doesn't have to care about?" "Why is it ok to make a woman have sex she doesn't want, ok to punch/slap/choke her just because he paid for it?"

With porn, its "why do you enjoy seeing a woman being raped/beaten/degraded, even if it is "simulated"?" (Rape or "forced" is one of the most common porn categories) "These are still real women, why is it so easy for you to dehumanize them for a fantasy?"

[todaysbird]

the sparkling violetear is a hummingbird species distributed through portions of western south america. like other hummingbirds, they primarily feed on nectar, though they will also occasionally feed on small insects. unlike most other hummingbirds, there are few differences in plumage between the sexes; however, females are notably larger and often have a white dot behind the eye. they are common throughout their range, and they are the largest species of ‘violetear’ hummingbirds.

[theadhdgoblin]

[lentilsoupforthesoul]

quilt by Chinami Terai

[tiktoksthataregood-ish]

[fluffygif]

Fluffy 🤍💞💗