#The Richer Woman

[tricoufamily]

was pose shopping for this is the fall and saw this set i didn't need that was too cute not to download anyway.............cries and screams

[egginfroggin]

A tiny, tiny, clever ninja.

I was listening to Tales of Symphonia music, have a tiny Sheena.

(Program used: Krita; time taken: about 1 hour)

[pericci]

Thanks gang!

[puppet-purgatory]

thank you for being the most sane person in all this. the random vitriolic hatred for watcher makes me uncomfortable with the community. calling a company ‘greedy’ is insane. we live in capitalism. we need money for things. and i don’t think they were selling ads very well. they’re trying to be dropout and time will tell if it works (i think in a year people will either have forgotten or be enjoying YouTube shorts they post like dropout). thank you for keeping up the puppet content too. ❤️

yeah this is a move that's going to hurt them on a couple fronts, even if they walk a lot of it back, but like... some of the shit i've seen being said like "go back to your basement" and "we only ever wanted GHOST FILES!!! nobody wants the food/travel/gaming" is not only fucking Rude but it's straight up just............ A Lie. and That's what upsets me.

Whether the fandom is all teenagers or not, they're definitely acting like it. it seems like nobody Actually wanted them to do what they were passionate about in the first place. Suddenly food/travel videos are "wasteful" and "unnecessary"; well, if you've been paying attention, Steven Lim has been studying/practicing the culinary arts for years. that's what he's passionate about. it's what he wants to make and share with us. the fact people are So Ready to write off 1/3rd of the founding members' content is very telling.

ive never been super into shane and ryan Themselves, but they've been doing what they love and sharing it with all of us for Free up until now. I respect them as creators. I can afford to pay them a few dollars a month, so I will. I've already told friends I'm willing to share my acct with them, because they also understand it's hard to be any kind of creator in this climate, especially one that doesn't make the stuff the Algorithm is programmed to prioritize.

In a year, I hope youtube shorts is Gone, actually- that's how much i hate the shortform content mill. thanks for the nice message. i have a couple professor wips i should probably work smore on

[philologique]

the way it didn't even occur to this person that they could just. not have a pink nursery

[bethanydelleman]

In Mansfield Park, Jane Austen teases but does not actually complete a marriage between a very rich woman and a clergyman. (Mary and Edmund). This marriage doesn't happen, but the next book she wrote seems to say it would have been a very bad idea.

In Emma, we are told the first Mrs. Weston regretted marrying down despite being in love:

They lived beyond their income, but still it was nothing in comparison of Enscombe: she did not cease to love her husband, but she wanted at once to be the wife of Captain Weston, and Miss Churchill of Enscombe.

Emma talks about how almost any marriage would be "down" for her:

“I have none of the usual inducements of women to marry. Were I to fall in love, indeed, it would be a different thing! but I never have been in love; it is not my way, or my nature; and I do not think I ever shall. And, without love, I am sure I should be a fool to change such a situation as mine. Fortune I do not want; employment I do not want; consequence I do not want: I believe few married women are half as much mistress of their husband’s house as I am of Hartfield; and never, never could I expect to be so truly beloved and important; so always first and always right in any man’s eyes as I am in my father’s.”

Which may explain why Emma was so disgusted by Elton's marriage proposal. He would take her into a far worse home than the one she has grown up in. Which Knightley also notes: 

"A man would always wish to give a woman a better home than the one he takes her from..."

Emma seems to suggest that marrying down is a bad thing for women, even if one is in love. I can see how this would be a problem for women, because even a dowry of 30k can't equal the income and comfort of an estate like Hartfield. Emma would sacrifice far more marrying someone below her than Darcy ever could.

I don't think we see any women in Austen marry down except... the heroine of the next novel, Anne Elliot.

So I guess marrying down is a bad thing for women unless you marry a sexy (and very successful) sea Captain named Wentworth!

(Isabella Knightley might be a counter example, except we don't know what John inherited or if they are getting Hartfield when Mr. Woodhouse dies)

[the-travelling-witch]

i saw so many great edits of the natlan characters that i almost got jump scared by the official art

[spiderfreedom]

not gonna effortpost about this today because I gotta get work done but real short

I notice this argument being used all the time: "you can't make a definition of 'woman' that does not exclude some people that we call women. therefore, the only good definition for 'women' that includes all people we call woman is 'people who identify as woman.'"

and the thing is, philosophically, "you can't make a definition of {thing} that does not exclude some examples we also call {thing}" is something that applies to almost every category! it's literally a whole philosophical problem of "what is the definition of a chair?" didn't we have a whole meme about how nobody can even agree on what a sandwich is?

it's not something unique to women, tables, horses, sandwiches, salads, or anything else. it is a problem of language itself.

you can apply the exact same argument to other categories: "how do you define 'blackness' without excluding some people we call 'black'?" if you're american, maybe you will use the one-drop rule, in which case halsey is black and anyone who had a single black ancestor four generations ago. but is that actually how we use the word black? does that capture something meaningful about being black in america? how about being black in the world?

let's go further: "how do you define 'transgender' without excluding some people we call 'transgender'?" within the transgender community, there is no real agreement on what it means to be transgender! beyond a vague sense of "identifying as the gender society assigned to you", but even that can be challenged. if a cis (female) woman takes testosterone, starts hanging around trans women, calling herself a trans woman, is confused for a trans woman by the people that she talks to, experiences oppression on the basis of being perceived as a trans woman... can she be considered a trans woman, despite being female?

ultimately "how do you define things" is a philosophy of language question more than anything else. perfect definitions that encapsulate sets neatly do not exist, because the terms we use are socially contingent. when people came up with the word 'table', they didn't also create a logically rigorous definition for it. they just said 'well, this thing here is a table.' and then people argue about the edge cases. because also, nobody actually agrees on the members of sets of every single word!! just like how we all have different ideas of what is and isn't a sandwich!

that's the other thing, people already disagree about what words refer to. someone who has the 5ARD intersex condition has testes but may be raised and socialized as girl because their parents think their genitals kinda look like a vulva. is this person a 'girl/woman'? people are not sure... which makes sense... because it is an edge case. is a stool a chair? is a hotdog a sandwich? is an open sandwich a sandwich? the further you get from the 'prototype', the more people are going to be disagree.

so the entire question 'what is a woman' is just an exercise in confusing philosophy of language framed as saying something very meaningful about the social category of woman. it is not! it is a problem of language that we cannot define 'woman' or 'chair' or 'salad' or 'horse' or 'gamer' in a rigorous way. it is nothing inherent to women, chairs, salads, horses, or gamers.

(but what about science?) good question, what about science? science tries to operate differently from the way laypeople talk about things. scientists take common words, like 'energy', and give them different, more rigorous definitions in order to try to figure something out about the world. for laypeople, 'energy' is something vague and diffuse. for physicists, 'energy' is the force that causes things to move, and its behavior is described by certain mathematical models.

similarly, laypeople may take 'woman' to mean 'a person with breasts and vulva/vagina', but a biologist may have a more rigorous definition of 'female': 'producing large gametes.' this is useful because it helps us see commonalities between creatures that may look really different, like flowers, bedbugs, asparaguses, cats, and humans - all very different creatures where sex looks different, but still have a distinction between 'producing large gametes' and 'producing small gametes' - there's no intermediate gamete. biologists have a different word for what people/animals look like, and that is 'phenotype.' when a parent looks at a child with 5ARD condition, they see the child has no visible penis and thus 'looks 'looks female.' a biologist would say that the child's sex is male (because they have the reproductive equipment to produce sperm, and none of the reproductive equipment to produce ova) but that their phenotype is ambiguous. sex is a binary variable, but human development is a long process where are a lot can happen, and so sexual phenotypes are not variable.

so already we're pretty far from the lay definition, because laypeople don't have the same idea of what sex is as scientists do, and don't distinguish between someone's sex and their appearance - for them, the sex is the appearance. who is right? it depends on what you want to do. scientists want to discover meaningful things about nature, and their definitions are far more useful than the layperson's for that purpose. which definitions are useful is also socially determined - we may feel sympathy for the child with 5ARD, told they were a girl their whole life, but who learns that they have testes. should we continue to treat this child as a girl/woman, or should we encourage them to view themselves as a boy/man? that is a social, cultural, legal argument, not a scientific one. the biological truth is the same regardless of the social, cultural, legal arguments, but there may be a compelling case to act differently. that's on us as humans to decide!

so yeah I'm just tired of hearing the same damn arguments over and over again. "what is a woman? is someone with CAIS a woman? is someone with 5ARD? what if we take a young non-intersex male and give them female hormones?" like this will never take us to where we want to go because it's a philosophy of language question disguised as a scientific one. the real question is, what are we talking about and which definitions will help us in that? if you believe that female people are exploited on the basis of their female bodily functions, then obviously you want to bring attention to that by using the word 'female'! if you want to focus on feminine socialization, then it may be useful to bring up cases of people who may not technically be female but were still raised as them, like Erika/Erik Schinegger, a male (possibly with 5ARD) who was raised as a girl and believed he was a girl for most of his youth.

trying to make a single catchy response to a question of what is 'x' is never going to satisfy everyone, because it cannot, because language is imperfect and real life is messy. scientists try to cut nature at the joints, but their cuts may not look like laypeople's! (and don't get me started on scientists disagreeing on what is a joint and what is not, metaphorically.)

and at its worst, when chasing an ironclad definition, you get bizarre answers that seem detached from reality, like saying 'people with CAIS condition are genotypically male and have underdeveloped testes, so we should treat them as males'. they may be reproductive males, but they have a female phenotype, and are raised as girls, and are literally unreceptive to testosterone - to treat them as 'men' on the basis of developmental or reproductive sex certainly seems to be missing something very important from the picture! see below: a person with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS):

does it really make sense to say this person is a man due to her having testes, which technically makes her reproductively male? is that capturing reality? or are you trying to force reality to fit into your definition because you're afraid that if you cannot create a perfect definition of 'woman', that we will never be able to talk about biology and female oppression?

tl;dr: questions like 'what is a woman' are designed to be time-wasters because they are not actually answerable because language sucks. argue for your operative definition, your context, and move on. and don't be afraid to change definitions based on the context... sometimes reproductive sex is relevant, sometimes phenotype is more important, sometimes socialization is more relevant. this is not weakness, it's recognizing that reality is not so rigid and sometimes you must use a different model to get the understanding you want.

[padme-amidala-deserved-better]

The amount of people saying ‘trump voters don’t know what they voted for’ as if marginalised and socioeconomically derived people are inherently stupid and can’t read, watch, analyse, or if lacking literacy skills, can observe reality is honestly exhausting.

I know a lot of people on here skew towards more privileged backgrounds but have you never interacted with a poor person before? Not all poor people are easily manipulated and indoctrinated, a lot of poor people have had to educate themselves and work to bring others up to speed with them. They’re aware of their situation and their station in life. It’s just so ignorant to act as if people can’t learn or engage because they have a certain background🙄

Now a lot of people ARE deprived of the resources and education to do so but it’s not a forgone conclusion that they will side with the far right.

[judas-isariot]

I think the most insane thing (and truly evil) that happen to me in a lesbian space was on a dating app (it was "hinge" if you want to know).

I liked someone, this person liked me back some days later just to write me (translated)

"You butches disgust me, you are the disgrace of lesbianity. It is because of woman like you that we cannot get right like the other. I hope you filth stay alone or with your fat race"

I was out of word for like 20 minutes in front of my phone, there was so much to impact here Butchphobia, the fact we fight for thoses right too (maybe more), the ownership of lesbianity, the fatphobia, the word "race".

I answer that she should open a book or a fucking website about stonewall or the AIDS crisis and she should find better things to do than waste my time who has value compare to her, then when she see the message, block her.

[barnbridges]

my friend just told me now (4 am) that she thinks if i had been artistically talented i should have done the deigns of all tsh characters. and she's wrong. i would have just drawn marion as an icon and dipped out.

[weedle-testaburger]

maybe i'm just a cynical bastard but dystopian media coming up with dystopian societies and telling me how awful they are basically just makes me go 'no shit sherlock'

[incorrectskyrimquotes]

love making stories around my skyrim saves

[elizabro]

right but the depp/heard trial and the resulting spectacle was really so disgusting. like it got me tempted to make it a point of first-date conversation just to screen out the red flags

[hgsn]

I truly think you can find out a person's actual intelligence by asking them if they supported johnny depp and if they say yes well.

[allthetropes]

some of you folks were NOT listening to the Baroness Schneider when she was talking to Captain Von Trapp and it shows