evilkitsch:

fewer posts about “why do straight women date men who hate them” and more posts about “why do so many men hate women that it’s genuinely difficult for straight women to find romantic & sexual intimacy with a man who doesn’t hate them”

inthefallofasparrow:

depsidase:

inthefallofasparrow:

depsidase:

glowcowboy:

i love small joys so much!!!! yes i love my coffee in my favorite mug!!! i love the sun spilling in the window!!! i love the wind on my face!!! i love my blanket over my lap!!! i love the clouds in the sky!!!! i am seeking joy in every moment!!!!

supermansbisexualson:

A female character being widely hated is a huge green flag.If my experiences with fandoms and critics have taught me anything,it’s that if that’s how they react to her,that i’m about to meet the most based fictional girl to ever exist

hongzhizhu:

notvaeda:

Legend has it she still flops around ireland👀

@subatomicskud

tockthewatchdog:

i love when people are like, society won’t survive these declining birth rates. if society can be destroyed by female liberation from sexual slavery and forced birth, then it should and must be destroyed by that. also there are 8 billion people on the earth, there used to be like ten people. we had a generic bottleneck at one point where there were about 3,000 people on the entire planet. you’ll survive a couple million women being spared from forced motherhood. maybe we will have to actually invest in elder care as a society instead of just throwing the elderly into what is basically a minimum security prison

thejonymyster:

glumshoe:

the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ has only been actually typed once by a single person, everyone else who has ever used it has just googled “shrug emoji” and copy-pasted it

why repaint the mona lisa

bienenkiste:

Photographed by Tina Tyrell for Sophie Buhai Hair Accessories Fall 2019

omgthatstotallyme:

You know what’s so dang attractive? KINDNESS. PEOPLE WHO ARE KIND AND WARM AND DONT IGNORE YOU AND ARE GOOD FRIENDS AND SMILE A LOT AND LOVE PEOPLE ARE REALLY ATTRACTIVE BUT THATS JUST MY OPINION

ireneradblr:

womanlygravity:

subaruseventhsister:

manhattanrf:

lilac-bloom:

if you’re so “gender critical”, then why are you so insistent on gendered pronouns?

As Shulamith Firestone put it, “[T]he end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.” In this future, we could ostensibly all use they/them pronouns (possibly with the exception of within medical/scientific fields, or when describing sexuality). However, we have not arrived at this future yet, and in order to fight for it, we must be able to name and describe the problem of patriarchy, and the problem is not gender-neutral. Gendered pronouns are useful in many instances, such as describing male violence towards women (ex: he hurt her), affirming women as normal by replacing “he” with “she” in academic texts/ interpolating a male reader into a female point of view (ex: the reader can see examples in her own life), and identifying others within/not within the sex class (“can i bring her along to the meeting today?” may yield a different response than “they” or “he”). Color-blindness is widely accepted as being an ineffective way to solve racism (as well as a racist microagression) so why is sex-blindness different? That being said, there are many situations today where using they/them is perfectly reasonable (such as when describing somebody one does not know, ie “what are they like?” “an ideal candidate for this position will have their own car.”)

As manhattanrf is says, language change without any actual change in society is simply making it harder to say what you need to say and to illustrate what you need to illustrate. It’s erasure.

Beyond that ,there are plenty of examples of languages that are grammatically genderless, including genderless personal pronouns, and yet those societies still manage to make patriarchal distinctions between men and women, and somehow it’s mysteriously always the same pattern of oppression where “he” oppresses “her.”

Notice how Chinese feminists in the 1910s and 20s actually tried to introduce a feminine character into the Chinese, arguing that they needed a word that referred to women so they could simply talk about themselves in their writing.

Or how in France they are currently doing the opposite of English, actually officially validating feminine versions of words because they’re discovering that people don’t remember that a woman might have a traditionally male career otherwise.

Not to be too harsh about this here, but pretending that an English “they” is somehow the solution to gendered opression is historically ignorant and linguistically imperialistic.

Language change without any actual change in society

is simply making it harder to say what you need to say

and to illustrate what you need to illustrate.

It’s erasure.

In patriarchal societies, gender neutral language is generally interpreted as male-default language for positive things, and female-default language for negative things. It therefore serves to further increase sexism and reinforce stereotypes. Eg, say ‘doctor’ and people will assume a male doctor, say ‘prostitute’ and people will assume a woman in prostitution. Whereas using gendered language, if I say ‘I went to see my new doctor today - she’s much better than my last one,’ the word ‘she’ in that sentence serves to challenge the unconscious stereotypes held by the listener.

brideoffires-deactivated2023042:

Saying that the Targaryens achieved nothing when they united the perpetually warring seven kingdoms, built the Iron Throne, built King’s Landing into the populous city it is in the main timeline, created the institutions of the Kingsguard and Archmaester, regularized taxes and duties on imports to prevent abuses by high lords upon the smallfolk, codified the laws of Westeros into a standardized source, abolished the lord’s right of first night, passed the widow’s law to abolish the disenfranchisement of widows, passed the rule of six as a gradual reform of faith-based normalization of abuse of women, built the Kingsroad and multiple other roads that helped foster inter regional travel and commerce, and at least attempted to change the deep-rooted structural ills (patriarchy and exploitation of smallfolk—and yes they did this, and ignoring the Targaryen kings and queens who did so won’t help your cause), over their three hundred year reign, aka the longest period of time that the kingdoms have been united, is funny. Prior to their conquest the kingdoms were fractured and war torn and after the conquest the kingdoms are once again fractured and war torn. That you don’t get 300 pages detailing the wars of succession and power for the other great houses that you do with with the Dance or Conquest, or side novels portraying some of the rebellions that lords and petty kings had to put down that you do with the Blackfyre Rebellions, doesn’t mean that those houses and kingdoms were any less plagued by problems of rebellions and wars and dynastic crises.

And it’s especially funny to say this considering the current timeline of ASOIAF. Jon Snow and Bran Stark have TARGARYEN mentors. Doran Martell thinks allying with the TARGARYENS is his family’s ticket to getting revenge. Arianne was supposed to marry Viserys III and Quentyn tries to marry Dany and steal her dragon. Victarion and Euron both want to marry Dany. Varys and Illyrio, both Blackfyres, are at the heart of several political schemes in the series. Jon Connington is the foster father of sorts to Young Griff, and he wants Young Griff to marry Dany. Rhaegar is Jon’s biological father and the basis for most of your takes that Jon is the ~true~ chosen one and that Young Griff is a ~real~ Targaryen and that both of them should rule. Half of the characters in the series are fighting for a throne the Targaryens built—Robert himself had to use his grandmother Rhaelle as a justification for his claim to the throne (guess his conquest wasn’t enough!). Rhaegar name drops the title of the series and Aegon I conquered Westeros because of his dream of The Long Night, the one Rhaegar refers to. Dany brings dragons and magic back into the world. She is one of the two most magical characters in the series, next to Bran, according to GRRM. Tyrion thinks Dany is his ticket to life and safety and manipulates Young Griff to sail West to begin fighting. Euron obtains a dragonbinder and wants to use it to claim one of Dany’s dragons. The Citadel and magical characters in the series use glass candles, a Valyrian instrument. Jon, Brienne, and Jaime all wield Valyrian steel, forged by dragon fire and blood and Valyrian spells, and there are families in Westeros, like the Tarlys, who have ancestral Valyrian steel swords, like Heartsbane. Dragonglass is also forged by dragon flame. Stannis literally sits in Dragonstone.

The Targaryens are integral to the text and the source of multiple moving parts of both the magical and political storylines. Half of your faves are propped up by things the Targaryens created or achieved and the story would be colorless and pedestrian without them. This attempt to turn Targaryens into irrelevant failures is pathetic, to say the least.