#women improving the world

[fourteenfifteen]

does anybody remember. hella varal

[seawitchkaraoke]

just love all the jumpers honestly, something about yeeting yourself really far or really high apparently just gives you insane charisma too like why do i like all these athletes so much after seeing them jump for 10 seconds, they're awesome

[jaker-shit]

Hrnnngh sometimes the most beautiful women come through at my job. Every time i see them i fall in love with the short, curvy, Indian woman with autism. The tall ginger with big, beautiful dark eyes and a boyish smile. The tall brunette with flawless latte-color skin and a butterfly tattoo on her chest. The short goth with impeccable mascara and cute, trendy coats. I love women so much its gay

[giantkillerjack]

I can't believe Janelle Monae is the new Mona Lisa! Couldn't have happened to a more deserving gay!!

[withoutalice]

I know it's not that deep but saying "ew pregnancy" isn't really funny. yeah pregnancy can be hard and involve lots of bodily fluids but it's not fucking "body horror" and "disturbing" its natural. if it's not for you personally it's not for you - end of story.

[lemonhemlock]

https://twitter.com/Targ_Nation/status/1611158240359759872?t=bfo77HLITj21KBLCUKx6fA&s=19

Seeing all those likes took years off my life

i don't even know where to begin............

"centrist bs" - the concept of left and right doesn't exist in a medieval setting ...................

where was this energy when cersei was committing abuses left and right and placing her bastard children on the throne? why didn't "the modern audience" "almost unanimously stand by the side of the woman being usurped of her throne" back then? 😵

but this isn't even about one side being more wrong than the other or both sides being awful or war being horrible as a rule or the smallfolk always paying with their lives and livelihoods when the high lords play their game of thrones

that entire tweet is predicated on not grasping the basic principles of the polity they are operating within 😫 you cannot define usurpation based on absolute primogeniture when that society relies on male primogeniture for inheritance, in that context it literally means the opposite

words don't somehow gain whatever meaning you want based on what you think is fair, same how laws don't materialize into existence just because you say so. any kind of law is a social construct, doesn't exist outside the confines of society and requires a certain kind of framework in order to be accepted & enforced. if proposed laws are not accepted by the majority and cannot be enforced, they only exist on the astral plane

there aren't even any proper institutions in westeros. literally the only ones i can identify are the crown and the small council, which serves as a kind of proto-government. there's no parliament, there's no proper justice system, no magna charta. the only courts that seem to operate are Faith-based courts and your liege lord's judgment. medieval-style legal systems and law enforcement are headache-inducing as a rule anyway, but feudal monarchies generally involve constant negotiations and power leverages between kings and their vassals

a more apt characterization of the Dance would be what exactly and how much can the targaryens get away with now that they've decided to impose themselves as rulers of a unified westeros. so far, they had to accept the religion of the land (aegon the conqueror was anointed by the high septon) and were forced to renounce polygamy. they got to keep practicing incest as a result of jaehaerys' successful doctrine of exceptionalism. see? negotiation. now the question remains - are they going to respect succession laws like a normal person (i.e. Andal Law) or are they going to resort to this ridiculous circus every time a targaryen monarch dies? because at the point of the dance, there had hardly been a straightforward transition of power since the conquest

for the internal coherence of this fictional world to be maintained, the nobles should be pushing Andal inheritance rights like crazy, because their own succession is decided on the basis of that and they would be directly interested in not fucking it up for themselves or their descendants by having weird precedents set by the royal family. a lot of these lords, if not most, have bastard siblings/children of their own, as well as elder sisters/daughters. it doesn't make sense for them to threaten their own stability for the sake of rhaenyra of all people, who isn't even good at her job and has done absolutely nothing to endear herself to them. what could they possibly gain by supporting her?

the question of the monarch imposing a law is much more believable in a centralized state, which westeros most definitely is not. imposing laws can also be done via force, of course, as long as """the state""" retains the monopoly on violence. the targaryens' v effective military superiority has so far been conferred by dragons. but rhaenyra's side isn't the only one that has dragons anymore. the opposing faction, i.e. the side who'd perpetuate Andal law, also has them now, as it happens. ergo war.

this situation is absolutely not similar in any way to today's democracies where laws are voted by parliament and the rest of the country have no choice but to abide by them or else the police come knocking on your door and hand you over to the our modern justice system, where your punishment is set by objective specialists & not decided by crazy stunts like trial by ordeal or the whims of your liege lord

tldr: there is no incentive for westerosi nobility to break andal succession law for rhaenyra, since it would be legal self-sabotage by setting a precedent that could come to bite those very same people in the a*se. rhaenyra is NOT an only child - by having trueborn brothers, the only way she can ascend is by breaking the laws & customs of the land. ergo disgruntled lords will inevitably flock to alicent's sons to form covert alliances & subversive power centres that, in time, will erupt in open rebellions. real-world historical examples attest to this happening with or without the consent of their respective figureheads (eg. lady jane grey) - i.e. it doesn't matter if aegon/aemond/daeron play happy families or not. in turn, the only way rhaenyra can prevent this is by executing her brothers/their male descendants. the greens don't want to die => the only way of achieving security for them is by claiming the throne.

alternatively, rhaenyra's life is not in danger as long as she bends the knee, as no-one in-universe would take her claim seriously with 3 living brothers. rhaenys also bent the knee to viserys after losing an election and is still alive. i'll say it again: it is not in the lords' best interest to support rhaenyra in the first place. if we are to go by any logic - what would they gain, should they flock to her? they would destabilize the line of succession for themselves for a (pretty terrible) queen, a reviled king consort and a bastard heir. but, as far as advantages and favours are concerned, what would they be, specifically? in order to outweigh the above-mentioned disadvantages?

you should all blame viserys for getting remarried and fathering sons, because had rhaenyra remained an only child or had only sisters, none of this would be happening & she would have become the first ruling queen of westeros

[theriverdalereviewer]

everyone jumping to team kamala we will never experience true freedom in this country

[aeide-thea]

ugh

saw a post with a quote that basically tidily summed up the rebuttal i'd half-started drafting to someone's post about how homosociality in tolkien ~queers amatonormativity~ [spoiler: on the contrary, male homosociality has been engaged in a three-way handshake with both misogynist heterosexuality and amatonormativity for literal millennia, and far from undermining them, more typically serves as essential reinforcement], so i was like, great, now i don't have to actually write that essay, i can just reblog this instead and tag it #tolkien! :)

but then, like a conscientious idiot, i went and dutifully looked up the book it was from, because i think it's irresponsible to cite excerpts whose context you aren't familiar with; and very predictably it turned out to be by a r*dfem and to make all sorts of claims abt so-called 'phallocratic culture' that i dislike, both as a trans person and ally myself and also as a logical thinker who can tell perfectly well from, you know, lived experience of our society that having a penis doesn't in fact confer ready social acceptance, never mind dominance, on people who don't otherwise look or act the part of a Proper Man, because ultimately what we reflexively defer to is a particular vibe, produced by a combination of physique and affect and other things besides, which may imply the presence of a penis but neither actually reveals nor necessitates one…

so like. ugh. probably i'm gonna have to write my own essay after all. :/

[curly-cottage-girl]

Is the Church responsible for women’s constant suffering? This is not a gotcha or a troll I just read and hear so many different things (not just from “cultural Catholics”, but from magisterial documents and official sources and well educated practitioners who are infinitely more knowledgeable in history and doctrine than I will ever be) in regards to “women’s role in society” and sometimes I become.. concerned. Almost everything I’ve read and heard about Catholic doctrine and ideals (from Catholics and magisterial documents, not from atheists or anti-Catholics or feminists) makes it seem like the Church would prefer that women.. not do anything. (Insert renowned female saint or queen here) would be an exception to the rule, everything I’ve read makes it seem like in an ideal Catholic world, women should not strive for anything besides either being a nun or a mother (not that these are bad things, they’re the backbone of society). And sometimes this troubles me. Sometimes I wonder if the anti-Catholics are right. I mean yes the Church seems to respect women more than the secular world…. but that’s a very low bar.

Hey anon! Thank you for the question :)

Unfortunately, I am not a theologian, and also my brain is fried lol, so I’m not going to be giving that detailed of an answer, sorry…..

Basically, the long and short of it as I know it is that the Church itself (actual dogma, etc) is absolutely in no way, shape, or form trying to keep women “hidden” in that way. But yeah, things are super confusing when you add actual humans and they’re opinions/cultures/biases/etc. into the mix, which, you know, surprise surprise. There are definitely other Catholics who have views on that topic that seem a little off to me (though often times a lot of the difference is just the way we view things/define terms. Not always though.)

But the Church holds that both men and women have the same vocation options: marriage, religious life, and consecrated single-hood. This third option generally lends itself to doing more work or ministry out in the world, since you don’t have an obligation to your spouse/kids or religious community and bishop/superior. Anyone who tells you that this isn’t an option for women is plain wrong. And even if those female saints seem like the “exception,” they wouldn’t be saints if their life’s work went against the church (and also, the male saints have similar roles/lives to those of the female saints — some are more active, some more contemplative, etc).

So yeah….. sorry I can’t be more helpful :( I think this is just… a very multifaceted and complicated problem, but one that is more on the human level rather than the magisterial. But while there are definitely some Catholics that have…..iffy opinions, I also know a LOT of faithful Catholics who absolutely are not like that and don’t think that women shouldn’t be in society, etc.

As an addendum, here is Pope St. John Paul II’s letter to women given at the UN: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women.html

[crabcrabcrabmeat]

rewatching zeta will fix me

[crookedkingdom]

god i missed them

[imbellarosa]

i thought about not writing anything bc I'm late to the discourse game this time round and bc I've been so unplugged for so long that I don't get anons asking me things anymore but then I was talking to @twopoppies and like actually - I have shit to say

the first thing i have to say is that the British economy is overwhelmingly failing the working class. Teachers, train workers, and the fire service have all voted to go on strike in the last month. and the reason that this is happening is twofold: the first is that the MPs are self-absorbed dicks. The second is that the UK pulled out of one of the largest single-market economies in the international community, which hit every sector of the economy bc new taxes tariffs trade agreements erc. So like - don't talk to a Brit about what their utilities are doing. The third reason that these towns are dying though is because of the practice of outsourcing labour to cheaper countries/cities/communities. This is why people began to blame immigrants for the decline of the working class. Which like - if a Brit wants to come and teach my kids and write my PhD, they can pry it from my cold dead hands.

That's a really roundabout way of explaining that if you don't live in a larger city, you're gonna have loads of poverty in the area. And that - for the most part - your distance from London is directly proportional to the poverty rate. I work in *small British coastal town* in a *large comprehensive school* (that's like a US public school), and my kids are about 13-16 years old. The 16-year-olds are doing their GCSEs (like GEDs) in the spring, and loads of them don't believe that they can do it. Out of the Y11s that I know, I know maybe one or two that have concrete plans to go to university. Most don't believe that they can succeed, and are unwilling to go anywhere far from home. A comparable region of the world would be Appalachia in the US. The school I teach at is right across the street from council estates, and some of the kids have never left the town - even though there's a 2 hr train that takes you into London. Loads of their lives are really tough. I obviously can't give specifics, but I've definitely had days I can't shake off at the end of them.

This is all to say that out of the hundreds of kids I know, I don't know a single one that's gonna win a Grammy in 15 years time. Or a Pulitzer, or an Oscar or a Tony or an Olivier or a BAFTA. and this is absolutely not because they're not capable of doing it - they 100% have the capacity to succeed and the talent to be amazing. We just don't have the resources to nurture that talent in a way that would make them competitive to the people in the first ring of the ladder to success. I have a kid who wants to be a detective, and another teacher (!) told me 'well that's just not realistic. kids like him don't get into the programs he'd need to get into to do that'. That's just the reality of life for them. To them, I'm the anomaly. I'm the one who made it out! I left a tough home and a rough couple of years to become a PhD student and a young woman with a stable job, a guy who agrees to watch my cat, and loads of good friends. And I'm DEFINITELY not winning any Grammys hahaha - but by their metric their TEACHERS are some of the most successful or educated people they know, and they don't see themselves as those people.

We do our best for these kids, but it 1000% makes sense that someone from a background like this would say that the kind of success and fame and resources it takes to be an international pop star doesn't happen to people like him. Because it's a million to one. For every Harry Styles, a million David Smiths (not a real kid) don't make it out. So maybe shut up, have some empathy and celebrate an unlikely success? Or like. Eat cake if that fails.

[reasonsforhope]

"The first modern attempt at transferring a uterus from one human to another occurred at the turn of the millennium. But surgeons had to remove the organ, which had become necrotic, 99 days later. The first successful transplant was performed in 2011 — but even then, the recipient wasn’t immediately able to get pregnant and deliver a baby. It took three more years for the first person in the world with a transplanted uterus to give birth. 

More than 70 such babies have been born globally in the decade since. “It’s a complete new world,” said Giuliano Testa, chief of abdominal transplant at Baylor University Medical Center.

Almost a third of those babies — 22 and counting — have been born in Dallas at Baylor. On Thursday, Testa and his team published a major cohort study in JAMA analyzing the results from the program’s first 20 patients. All women were of reproductive age and had no uterus (most having been born without one), but had at least one functioning ovary. Most of the uteri came from living donors, but two came from deceased donors.

Fourteen women had successful transplants, all of whom were able to have at least one baby.  

“That success rate is extraordinary, and I want that to get out there,” said Liza Johannesson, the medical director of uterus transplants at Baylor, who works with Testa and co-authored the study. “We want this to be an option for all women out there that need it.”

Six patients had transplant failures, all within two weeks of the procedure. Part of the problem may have been a learning curve: The study initially included only 10 patients, and five of the six with failed transplants were in that first group. These were “technical” failures, Testa said, involving aspects of the surgery such as how surgeons connected the organ’s blood vessels, what material was used for sutures, and selecting a uterus that would work well in a transplant. 

The team saw only one transplant fail in the second group of 10 people, the researchers said. All 20 transplants took place between September 2016 and August 2019.

Only one other cohort study has previously been published on uterus transplants, in 2022. A Swedish team, which included Johannesson before she moved to Baylor, performed seven successful transplants out of nine attempts. Six women, including the first transplant recipient to ever deliver a baby back in 2014, gave birth.

“It’s hard to extract data from that, because they were the first ones that did it,” Johannesson said. “This is the first time we can actually see the safety and efficacy of this procedure properly.”

So far, the signs are good: High success rates for transplants and live births, safe and healthy children so far, and early signs that immunosuppressants — typically given to transplant recipients so their bodies don’t reject the new organ — may not cause long-term harm, the researchers said. (The uterine transplants are removed after recipients no longer need them to deliver children.) And the Baylor team has figured out how to identify the right uterus for transfer: It should be from a donor who has had a baby before, is premenopausal, and, of course, who matches the blood type of the recipient, Testa said...

“They’ve really embraced the idea of practicing improvement as you go along, to understand how to make this safer or more effective. And that’s reflected in the results,” said Jessica Walter, an assistant professor of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, who co-authored an editorial on the research in JAMA...

Walter was a skeptic herself when she first learned about uterine transplants. The procedure seemed invasive and complicated. But she did her fellowship training at Penn Medicine, home to one of just four programs in the U.S. doing uterine transplants. 

“The firsts — the first time the patient received a transplant, the first time she got her period after the transplant, the positive pregnancy test,” Walter said. “Immersing myself in the science, the patients, the practitioners, and researchers — it really changed my opinion that this is science, and this is an innovation like anything else.” ...

Many transgender women are hopeful that uterine transplants might someday be available for them, but it’s likely a far-off possibility. Scientists need to rewind and do animal studies on how a uterus might fare in a different “hormonal milieu” before doing any clinical trials of the procedure with trans people, Wagner said.

Among cisgender women, more long-term research is still needed on the donors, recipients, and the children they have, experts said.

“We want other centers to start up,” Johannesson said. “Our main goal is to publish all of our data, as much as we can.”"

-via Stat, August 16, 2024

[iidsch]

Also not to beat a dead horse (heh) but I still genuinely believe one of the reasons girly games don't exist anymore or have a lot of trouble being successful is because male gamers refuse to play them due to sexism.

Like it's not a secret that women have historically made an effort to leave feminine gender roles and become more masculine (girls playing with male toys, female players in traditionally male-targeted games like FPS, RPGs, etc, women joining the workforce and male-dominated fields like the sciences, women wearing pants and short hair, etc.), but the reverse it's still not true, men don't wear skirts, men rarely work in jobs like cleaning or elementary school teaching, some boys are starting to play with dolls, and guys almost never play girl-targeted games like the Petz series, Cooking Mama, Style Savvy or any horse game.

The rare exceptions like Stardew Valley or The Sims are somewhat gender-neutral. Sure they don't fit the idea we have of a traditionally masculine game but they are far from having the vibe of Barbie Horse Adventures. Girly games that came out recently like Style Savvy? You will have a hard time finding a significant male audience for them. And given that 50% of the population refuses to play these games and that in the remaining 50% there are women who aren't interested in them, it's no wonder companies have no incentive to make them anymore.

And it's saddening to see the lack of girly games, especially compared to how it was before. I played Cooking Mama, a lot of Petz games, Nintendogs, so many horse games I don't remember all, Little Pet Shop, Barbie and Bratz games, Totally Spies, Super Princess Peach... And these are the ones I knew of, there are Tamagotchi games, Hello Kitty games, Monster High games, Winx Club games, the Imagine games, god knows how many pet and horse games, a lot of fashion games, and many many others. What popular girl games do we have today? I can only name Style Savvy, which I know of thanks to a friend, and the upcoming Princess Peach game. We've gone from possibly more than 100+ titles to only 2.

The video says at the end that we need less gendered girl games. But if the manliest games can exist, be successful and have women playing them, pink and glitter-filled high-quality games deserve to exist too and be played both by men and women.

[the-joy-of-knowledge]

25 Laws of power for women

Conceal your goals especially the ones that are appealing. Losing weight, reinventing yourself, marrying wealthy. Instead talk about your altruistic goals - to help children, invest in education, this will chase insecure people with vile intentions.

Do not give anyone your source of power: Was is a book that changed your life? a mentor? a movie? Never give up your secret to success. If forced to do say allude to God, the universe, the a random phenomenon

Use the patriarchy to your favor; we live in a world that is, only associate with men who have power, use that power for good.

Never appear too perfect but be selectively vulnerable when needed. Only share something that you will be comfortable saying. You might say “I forget my keys all the time,” “I don’t know how to perfectly park a car “. But never disclose something you are not comfortable with just because you are afraid of being perfect.

Maintain distance in relationships. Friends are the best and you need them. But if you feel that they are becoming too dependent, see them at your own will. But also the reverse could be the case. Your friend may keep a distance, and that is the way of life. You have got to move on from it.

Develop your own style that makes you unique, beautiful, and elegant. Avoid trying to fit in the crowd of people who claim to care less about their style yet have too many opinions about other women’s style

Avoid male friends at all cost, you will have male colleagues, male bosses, male acquaintances, business partners. Keep it that way. You do not want a Truman Capote divulging your secrets to the world. Do not keep a man who does not fit your standard.

You do not have to win at every game. Pick and choose what is best for you and leave room for others. And step down if you have attained that level of success, do not let the society do it for you.

Trust people but remember that we are all humans. So trust with discretion!

Confuse people with kindness; people are not always comfortable with beautiful and intelligent women. That power is too intimidating so confuse them by being genuinely generous, curious, kind, and passionate.

Keep your strong opinions to yourself.. if you support a movement, a way of life, do so silently.

We all have dirty laundry, wash them privately, don’t expose yourself. Remain silent when people try to attack you or shame you. Whatever is not confirmed is not true. You are the only one who knows all the truth about you.

Don’t attract pity or praise: People who pity you do not help you, in fact they might think that you are weak and could mock you at their annual gossipping meeting. And if you are doing things for the sake of praise you are wasting your time.

Choose yourself all the time; never put any one’s feelings above yours.

Trust your own intuition if you feel someone is being malicious towards you, giving you back handed compliments then you should let them go

Never speak bad of another woman. Do not lazy around gossipping. Keep your hands clean and your conscience clear.

Avoid women with low self esteem they will bring you down. For some reason they do not like seeing other women who are doing better than them

Be careful who you seek validation from. Not everyone needs to be pleased. If they are in no way capable of contributing to your life in the ways you prefer, then don’t ask them for their opinions or please them.

Do not compete with other women, if you do you are only putting them on a pedestal. You are making the the standard by which you measure your progress. If you do compete, begin digging your grave.

Do not give unsolicited advice, do not share the inner workings of your mind, If your mouth is very charitable you better start journaling.

Be well-rounded and interesting. It attracts people. It also keeps you busy because you are continually improving and learning. An idle mind is an easily subdued one.

Avoid women who want to live vicariously through you; they want to know who you know, shop where you shop, befriend who you befriend, wear what you wear.

Pay attention to the source of your discomfort; get rid of them. You tell them your dreams and they remind you of all your hindrances. They ask why are you dressed so fancy as though fancy isn’t subjective. They undermine you interests and goals. They will also be quick to bring you down because they are afraid of your potential.

Do not fear power or please power. When we see powerful people we try to hard to befriend them, to be close to them but you need to be comfortable without them. Don’t push yourself in the name of friendship, do not try too hard to be in their inner circle. Your independence of mind is the most important. Instead become a powerful woman, aloof to the presence of power but aware of its importance. Be an ingenious and intelligent and use your creativity to uplift yourself. When you do so it will be hard to ignore you. Even the powerful will become an ally.

Enjoy moments of solitude. Use that time to develop yourself, improve your body, learn new skills, create with your mind, read widely, become more elegant, then launch yourself.

Remember the most powerful women are the most intelligent. Inspired by Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power. Use at your discretion.