#you have always more in common than that which divide us with other women

[butchazepam]

10 months off t. Just 8 to go to match the time i was on 🙂

[princessbellecerise]

Sweet Like Sugar

──── ✧*･ﾟ*✭˚･ﾟ✧ ────

summary | In which you’re Coryo’s sugar baby

warnings | smut, sugar daddy!coryo, slight public sex

this is an eighteen plus fic. minors do not enter

divider by @princessbellecerise

You’re not sure what to say at first when Coryo proposes this idea to you, but you have to say that you’re shocked

You’re nothing more than a district girl, having been raised in not quite poverty but not abundance either

You’ve never had anything other than the bare minimum, so when Snow offers to give you the world and to take care of your family as well?

Well, it’s obvious what you choose

Quickly, you end up being transported from your district to the Capitol in no time. While your family is given a high rise apartment and grocery deliveries every month, you’re given your own space; a house not too far from his own mansion

Snow likes to keep you close, as he does with all of his prized possessions

And first things first, you’re spoiled

There’s no one in Panem that has more than you, no one that has more jewels, clothes, makeup, etc. Not even Coriolanus himself

He takes such good care of you, making sure that you want for nothing and that you have everything you need

He’s surprisingly generous; but you both know that it doesn’t come without a cost

The world outside of the capitol is a harsh one; one that you desperately don’t want to experience again. You’ve seen people starving to death or being maimed by wild animals in your district and you do not wish to live that kind of life. You’re content, comfortable with how you live so any price he states, you pay

Usually it comes in the form of Coryo being on top of you, a hand around your pretty little neck while he fucks you on his desk

Or, sometimes it’s in his room, with your face stuffed into his luxurious pillows as he fucks you from behind

One way or another, he uses you like you use him. Whenever and however he pleases

You don’t mind of course, loving the way you’re bouncing on his cock one minute and then the next he’s buying you a diamond necklace

He likes for you to get dolled up for him, so he can show you off and make everyone around him jealous

He sees the way they look at you, and the way other men and even women envy him. He knows that they’d give to have you but they can’t. They can’t afford you

Sugar daddy!Coryo that always makes you call him ‘sir.’ He tell you that it’s the proper way to address him as he is the president, but really he just likes the way it sounds coming from your pretty little lips

Often times, he’ll call you nicknames such as ‘Doll,’ or ‘Pretty Girl’

They’re fitting seeing as you’re always dressed up, whether that be in fancy dresses or silk night gowns that he’s specifically picked out for you to wear

Sugar daddy!Coryo that takes you out for fancy dinners, only to end up fucking you in the bathroom like he’s a commoner. He always hates when he looses his self control like that but fuck—sometimes you just look so good that he can’t help but to stoop to that level

Sugar daddy!Coryo that kisses you desperately in some random bathroom stall, that has you pressed up against him and can’t stop rambling about how hard he is

Coryo that has you stepping out of that expensive dress in no time, even tearing it a little so he can reveal your pretty cunt

You’re always wet for him, always so eager and that’s what Coryo loves

He loves the feeling of you wrapped around him, moaning his name and begging him to let you cum

Of course, before it even reaches that point, he also has you on your knees, sucking him off to try and relive some of his desperation

Even after everything, Coryo likes to think that he’s a gentleman, so of course he lays his jacket on the floor so your knees won’t be hurting

It’s the least he can do because fuck—you always have him cumming in no time, and again once he’s fucking into your tight cunt

He never cums inside of you, always on your tits or in your mouth

He just loves the way that you look up at him, pretty face coated with his seed. He always take a few seconds to admire you before cleaning you up, making sure you’re presentable once again before finally settling down at your table, thirty minutes later

And of course, before he takes you home for the night, he also makes sure to fuck you one last time in his fancy limousine, windows fogging up and all of Panem having no clue what’s happening behind those tinted windows

[sarahjacobs]

happy late labor day let's talk about how unionism in the newsies film and broadway production are represented differently.

broadly speaking, there are two different ways to organize labor. there are business unions, also referred to as trade unions, the more conservative mode of labor organizing that has been recuperated into capitalism. why it's deemed as a lesser threat is obvious once we consider its historical exclusion of women, people of color, and so-called "unskilled" workers, as well as its long collaboration with government and businesses at the expense of workers, especially the more radical ones. its ultimate prize is short term gains, such as higher pay, typically via the contract; long term transformative/revolutionary political projects are absent in its aims.

revolutionary unions, on the other hand, are explicitly hostile towards capitalism, with the end goal of instituting socialism always in mind. as one of their newspapers reminds us, "momentary phenomena must not blind us to our ultimate aim."

hard promises has some pretty clear cut references to the latter kind of unionism — mayer quotes and names eugene debs, who in 1905 established the industrial workers of the world (iww), a well known revolutionary union.

its hostility to all proponents of capitalism can be seen by its assessment that —

MAYER: The problem is, Jack, that the working class and the hiring class got nothing in common.

this sentiment comes from the iww's preamble to its constitution:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

in the iww's eyes, the world can be divided in two, the capitalists and the workers, between which "there can be no peace."

as for the business unionist's point of view —

When rightly considered, the interests of employer and employed are identical. In the first place both make their living out of the same business or undertaking. . . . [A]ny business is a partnership to a certain extent.

[This union wishes to] prevent unnecessary clashes between employer and employed.

— which states that workers and capitalists have common interests and should work together.

ironically enough, these excerpts were drawn from eugene debs himself, the essay "employer and employed." it was penned in 1884, before his involvement in the pullman strike and his subsequent prison sentence later that year, which reformed him into a socialist.

from debs's 1902 essay, "how i became a socialist," on the topic of his time as a business unionist:

. . . [N]o shadow of a "system" fell athwart my pathway; no thought of ending wage-misery marred my plans. I was too deeply absorbed in perfecting wage-servitude and making it a "thing of beauty and a joy forever."

the key issue of business unions is that they don't know their enemy. what's desired is a more "[perfect] wage-servitude," a more prolonged and humanitarian and fair suffering.

newsies live, too, doesn't know its enemy — i've already talked at length about how fierstein mistakenly places the heart of the struggle in a generational divide rather than the structure of capitalism itself. and because the "shadow of a 'system'" is absent, what we end up with, in both business unionism and broadway's take on newsies, is a labor struggle rife with conciliation and contradiction.

DAVEY: We're done being treated like kids. From now on they will treat us as equals.

KATHERINE: "For the sake of all the kids in every sweatshop, factory, and slaughter house in New York, I beg you… join us." With those words, the strike stopped being just about the newsies. You challenged our whole generation to stand up and demand a place at the table.

throughout newsies live, we see time and time again that there's a disconnect at hand, between the material reality of the conditions that caused the strike and what the writers have them say they're striking against. the oppressive work conditions and horrifically low pay are attributed to them "being treated like kids," and this fight is purported to belong to "our whole generation" — when there's a very real difference between katherine and someone like sarah, why they're working, and the kind of work they can access.

ultimately, the issue fierstein presents is not just a generational divide but one of power not being shared. the rhetoric of wanting to be treated "like equals" and demanding "a place at the table" seem to a) posit that there's such a thing as workers being equal with their employer, and b) voice a desire to share power (the table) with the employer. but an even split of power is impossible when the employer/pulitzer has state power (police, armed strikebreakers, the court) and funds at his disposal in such a way that the workers/newsies are systematically cut off from. the democratization of the workplace is worthless so long as the structures which privilege certain classes are intact.

the proposed solution is that the "[older] generation step aside and invite the young to share the day," as roosevelt puts it. this looks an awful lot like the partnership that debs so exalted in "employer and employed," and i think this connection becomes especially apparent in how negotiations play out.

on broadway, roosevelt has an almost overwhelming presence in the negotiating room. this is a bizarre choice because not only is it a missed opportunity to showcase the strengths of the characters we actually care about, it's also a noticeable departure from 92, which brings roosevelt in primarily to handle the refuge.

SEITZ: And the [trolley] strike's about to be settled. Governor Roosevelt just put his support behind the workers.

it's this line, also a new addition, that indicates the increased role of roosevelt is due to a lack of trust in worker power. or, put more simply, the writer's belief that the government needs to — and should — step in, in order for workers to get any wins; otherwise, labor and capital would be at a standstill. but we should always be skeptical of the government because the employer’s monopoly on state power/violence shows that government is in and of itself a kind of class relation. even when the government places restrictions on employers, it often restricts workers as well (ie taft-hartley act).

the increased emphasis on government intervention undermines revolutionary unionism's argument for and commitment to direct action, or action undertaken to address a problem, without the help of authority figures like union bureaucrats, government officials, and so on… direct action is everywhere in newsies — the newsies tearing up papers and overturning wagons, their various methods of dealing with scabs, and the decision to make their own newspaper in light of the total press blackout.

what drives direct action is an understanding of where the power is located — in the people. the film's negotiation scene understood this well —

true power doesn't lie in pulitzer, or even strike leaders. it's in the rank and file, in solidarity and withholding your labor, in direct action.

the broadway scene lacks this kind of analysis, which is why its take on negotiation falls flat for me. another difference is that jack says they win when in fact, they only win concessions, while in 92, they win all of their demands. this raises a lot of questions for me. was there any discussion beforehand in which the newsies collectively agreed what they were willing to give up — if they were willing to concede anything at all? or did jack make a unilateral decision on behalf of the newsies? on a doylist level, why was this change made in the first place? it can't be for realism. jack getting offered what essentially amounts to a promotion at the end is incredibly unrealistic when we consider how common it is for companies to retaliate against workers after a strike ends, ie the workers who were charged with felony vandalism and conspiracy to commit a crime, all for chalk on a sidewalk while picketing.

concessions are part and parcel of business unionism. using "employer and employed" again to draw comparisons —

[The boss should listen] with respect to the demand and affords relief if he can or a reason why if he cannot.

Both sides ought to give and take. . . . [B]oth sides ought to be willing to compromise.

Capital should extend its hand to labor and labor should grasp it in a friendly manner.

this last tidbit mirrors an earlier negotiation, where jack and les argue over how they should split earnings between them. they go back and forth (70-30, 50-50, 60-40 and that's final) until they agree and spit shake; someone comments "that's disgusting," and jack replies that it's "just business."

this mirroring implies a sense of partnership — after all, the spit shake is what marks the beginning of jack, les, and david being business partners — therefore implying equality. but david and les are more equal to jack than jack and pulitzer could ever be.

additionally, jack's final offer to les is 60-40, a split which favors him. similarly, the offer to the newsies favors pulitzer. what business unions and newsies live fail to understand is that labor and capital are enemies on uneven ground. labor has more to lose, so concessions will always disproportionately hurt the workers. they're the ones who truly have to count pennies, not pulitzer. and, well, maybe the speech the historical kid blink gave at a rally puts it best —

I’m trying to figure out how 10 cents on a hundred papers can mean more to a millionaire than it does to a newsboy, and I can’t see it. We can do more with 10 cents than he can with twenty-five.

[nothorses]

hi! this is a question about pansexuality that i fear asking. tbh i don't really care what anyone identifies as. everyone's part of my community to me. i am trying to wrap my head around bi v pan stuff as someone who is neither. i know bisexuals who are critical of the pan label because to them it distinguishes bisexuality as starkly Not being pansexuality. when definitions of bisexuality have included "attraction regardless of gender, or to all genders (and including trans and nb people)" for many bisexuals since like the 70s which is how i see pansexuality defined a lot of the time

i know that bi and pan have always been concurrent labels and they have a lot of overlap and that some ppl use them interchangeably. and i truly don't care that ppl id as pan. but i do feel weird seeing it juxtaposed to definitions of bisexuality that aren't inclusive of all bisexuals? (ie that bisexuals aren't attracted to ALL genders, just two or more.. when many bisexuals Are attracted to all genders! part of bisexual history is that people have been fighting to let others know Bisexuality is more inclusive than the literal like latin meaning of bi = two). i don't know where to stand on this divide. i love pansexuals and the pan label and the right to self determination in identity but i do understand the argument that it feels hurtful in a biphobic way to say it is inherently a distinct sexuality from being bisexual when it's. like. many bi and pan ppl would define their sexuality in the exact same way other than a difference in specific label. i feel like people hate this opinion lmao!!! please help! even if you hate my opinion too i literally feel like i need guidance KDBDBS

Tbh I think there's a lot of historical context to this whole convo, and I don't think you're alone in being confused. And honestly given the amount of info you have, I think you're in a pretty respectable spot about it. (And I say "historical" here in the sense that I am. 25. and I'm mostly talking about the things I have either seen firsthand, or read about/heard about from others.)

So like- when I was a Young Queer, it was very common for people to define "bi" as meaning "men and women" (or even "cis men and cis women"), and thus "pan" rose to popularity as an alternative to essentially mean "everyone, including trans and nonbinary people".

This was like, early 2010's? And I'm talking about other Young Queer spaces and interactions. And you kind of have to remember that in that time, it was kind of radical to tell people not to call things "gay" if they didn't like them. Joking that people were trans (usually in terms like "lol Justin Beiber is a lesbian") was common even in progressive spaces. I was stunned when a friend of mine asserted that they were just gonna stop using the r-slur, like, at all.

So I can kind of understand why "pan" might have felt like a needed thing at the time. I think it felt like a kind of shorthand for "I'm cool with trans people", and at least from my perspective, that was something you very much needed to state back then.

I think there are a lot of people my age who, if they don't still understand "bi" and "pan" that way, at least kind of "get" where that definition is coming from. And yeah, it's ahistorical as hell! "Bi" has always been inclusive of trans people. Not to mention people have been defining it all sorts of ways for a long time now; there are a ton of definitions out there, and how the word is defined often depends on who you ask.

But then you ask: if we know "bi" is and has always been trans-inclusive, why does anyone still need the word "pan"? And I think the answer is... complicated. And extremely personal, tbh.

This happens with queer language all the time; as terms are cycled out in favor of new ones, people who've been using them hang on regardless. Sometimes they don't know the language has been updated, but usually it's more than that. Usually they have more of a personal relationship with the word, and the community, that they can't just give up in favor of a new word.

Maybe some people who do understand that "bi" is not actually a transphobic term also still view "pan" as shorthand for "I'm cool with trans people", and that's important to them. Maybe they grew up with that word, formed relationships under it, and came out with it. Maybe the pan community impacted them in some profound way, and rejecting it over shifting definitions just doesn't feel right. There could be any number of reasons.

The other part of this is that much as people have come to understand the original definition of "bi" more widely now, the definition of "pan" and "bi" both have taken on multiple definitions as well. I've seen a lot of definitions that seem to exist just to differentiate the two. For example:

Bi: attracted to multiple (but not necessarily all) genders Pan: attracted to all genders

Bi: attracted to all genders, but in different ways, or with preferences Pan: attracted to all genders essentially the same

Bi: attracted to multiple (or all) genders Pan: attraction regardless of gender

I've also seen people use "bi" as the umbrella term, and "pan" as a more specific label beneath it (often with one of those pairs of definitions).

And you mention that "bi" has a lot of different definitions and understandings- so does pan! How a person understands those words, particularly when they identify with them, is going to be deeply personal and very likely very different from the next person. I think a good rule of thumb is to assume that whoever you're talking to may just have a different definition and understanding of the word they're using than you do, and try to ask them about it if it concerns you.

[cloudburst-ink]

Tagged by @hedgewyse . It took me awhile to get around to it but I did finally! I originally stalled because I've only ever been actively involved in two ship communities. But then I remembered... the third one. Which I've never been involved in, but it's still important. 💀😂

three ships

Kim Khimhant Theerapanyakun / Porchay Pichaya Kittisawat

It's the passion. It's the obsession. It's the angst. It's the fluff. It's the flirting. It's the hidden smiles. It's the stalker4stalker. It's the complete and utter lack of communication skills. It's the sweet pathetic boys. It's the bittersweet ending. It's the fanfiction in fanfiction. It's...

... alright well a lot of it's just me simping over Jeff Satur.

Magnus Bane / Alexander Lightwood

This was my first ship. I wrote my first full novel length fic in this fandom, and I even have a tattoo about it! They will always hold a special place in my heart as the ship that sailed me back into my passion for art and writing.

Reylo

So um, here's the thing. I'm not in the Reylo fandom. I enjoyed the movies well enough, but didn't have any particular interest in them beyond "oh, that was fun to see in theaters, I enjoyed it."

Many years ago, however, before I was involved in fandom at all, a friend of mine sent me a link to a Reylo fic on AO3 that she was obsessed with. It's the only Reylo fic I've ever read.

Long story short (I'll elaborate in another post sometime if I'm ever asked), it ended my impending marriage and changed the course of my life.

I have no idea what the fic was called or whom it was written by.

One day I should track that author down and thank them. I mean obviously other factors played into it, I'm not completely unhinged (well, debatable), but it was the spark that lit the flame.

So anyway, these two will always be important to me even though I'm not part of their fandom. 🖤

Honorable Mentions

I'm currently obsessing over KimVegas, KimArm, and ArmKimChay. If you notice a common denominator, shhh no you don't. ✨ I just didn't feel right using them in the three because they're all just extensions of my KinnPorsche the Series / KimChay addiction. 😅

first ever ship

I generally consider Malec to be my first ship, as they were the first ship I was active in any fandom community for.

However, they're probably not really my first ship.

I was baited into fandom as an adult by a friend who lured me into watching The Vampire Diaries. I kind of shipped Delena, but assumed they wouldn't end up together because he was the second / bad boy love interest and that's just not how the formula goes.

Little did I know 😌 that universe is far too much of a clusterfuck to care about formulas and industry norms.

Anyway I did write an Elijah/Hailey fic and post it on FFnet when I first started writing again after years of no artistic endeavors whatsoever. It's still there, but I choose to pretend it isn't. Straight smut is not my forte. 😅 And it's... well, you can tell I was a bit rusty. 😂

last song

👀🤫😇

last movie

I tend to gravitate more toward TV shows than movies, so I think the last one I watched might've been over the holidays. It's a pretty great musical--Mrs. Santa Claus gets fed up with being taken for granted, takes the sleigh on a joyride, and gets temporarily stranded in early 1900s New York. While there she protests for women's suffrage, fights for the rights of child workers, helps to reunite a family divided by an ocean, and repeatedly demonstrates the spirit of acab.

Yeah, you heard me. It's socialist acab Mrs. C here to sing dank tunes and fight for your rights.

Highly recommend 10/10.

It's also on Youtube for free last I checked.

currently reading

The Prince's Poisoned Vow by Hailey Turner.

currently watching

The latest season of Miraculous Ladybug 🥺

currently consuming

I've been making a lot of duck soup lately. I'm a bit of a duck addict, and there's something so satisfying about making use of the whole carcass and watching it slowly turn into rich, wiggly stock and then the most wonderful soup with duck meat and bok choy and bamboo shoots and noodles. ✨

currently craving

a quiet, vibey cafe to write at, and some peaceful time to spend there. the gay donut shop i used to write at shut down. 😭

-----

I'll tag... @staykimchay and @justanothervariant if they haven't done it yet.

[haggishlyhagging]

The situation in NYRW probably would not have deteriorated so rapidly were it not that the Atlantic City protest flooded the group with new members. According to Baxandal, the sudden growth was “too much for us.” The fluid, unstructured meetings to which the regulars had grown accustomed no longer worked now that there were fifty to one hundred women crammed into the tiny SCEF office. The "mob meetings" that fall were, by many accounts, unwieldy and frustrating, made infinitely more trying by the sectarian left women who began frequenting NYRW meetings in the wake of the protest. Their relentless attacks on radical feminists as "man-haters" convinced many in NYRW that the leftist newcomers were more interested in disrupting the group than in building a women's movement. In fact, many NYRW members believe that these women had been instructed by their leftist groupuscles or possibly by some agency of the government to obstruct NYRW. Barbara Mehrhof, who joined the group immediately before the pageant action, claims that "there was always a provocateur who would get up and berate us for being so self-indulgent [as] to talk about our situation as women." To Patricia Mainardi it seemed that

“As the movement grew, so did the number of women whose commitment to the women's liberation movement was more tenuous. Your feeling was that these were people who were there to stop anything from happening. I would not be the slightest bit surprised [to discover] that there were agents and reactionaries there.”

No doubt, some of the left women who showed up that fall at NYRW meetings had been ordered to direct or, failing that, to subvert the group. Much of the left felt that the growth of the women's liberation movement could only weaken the left. Nor, according to Mainardi, did it require much finesse or skill to obstruct a NYRW meeting:

“It was a problem made worse by a superdemocratic structure where we would have to listen to the [left women] forever. And, the next week somebody new would come in. You'd have to say, ‘the floor's your's. Bore me again.’ . . . If you were committed to letting everybody talk, that's what you got.”

Dissatisfaction with the meetings was considerable, and by mid-December a number of women proposed dividing the group into smaller groups. The majority of women voted to reorganize into three groups which would be randomly configured by lot. However, not everyone was concerned about the group's swollen size. Hanisch contends:

“Almost all the founders wanted to keep the large group, or split along lines of the people one wanted to work with, if such a split was necessary. . . . [But] people were afraid it was ‘elitist’ to want to work with certain women with whom they shared a common political direction.”

Indeed, Anne Forer recalls that "nobody had the nerve to say that they didn't want to do it by lot, that they wanted to be with their friends." Rather than challenge the division by lot, many women simply ignored their lot assignments. But, as Forer observes, it made little difference whether or not women were abiding by their lot assignments because at that point NYRW ceased to exist as a single organization. Mainardi suggests that splitting by lot was "an attempt to avoid splitting on ideological grounds." Moreover, it was probably a way to prevent members of the old guard from grouping exclusively with each other—a scenario that would have formalized the hierarchy, which, despite their efforts, already existed, and that would have concentrated all the power in one, or possibly, two groups. A number of women also suspect that left saboteurs played a role in the reorganization of NYRW.

Many women believe that the division had a deleterious effect on the group. Although the meetings may have been less chaotic after the split, they lacked the vitality of the big meetings. Hanisch wrote that the split divided the “original militants into several groups where we were less effective.” Peslikis argues that it "reinforced sectarianism because [NYRW] was the one place where any woman in New York was welcome." Mainardi maintains that although “people had different positions before [the split] . . . they were at least talking to each other.” Another woman who was active in the group claims that "it was a movement at that point; but when it broke up into groups, you became this little group that didn't relate to anything."

But while there may have been a movement in New York, it was a seriously fractured movement. There were tensions between politicos and feminists, WITCHes and more traditional leftists, advocates of consciousness-raising and proponents of action, pro-woman radical feminists and advocates of the conditioning thesis, and, finally, those who defended the "quiet women" and those who wanted to talk at will. NYRW survived only about six months after the reorganization. After the formation of the radical feminist action group Redstockings in early February 1969, NYRW was reduced to an umbrella group for the growing number of feminist groups. But at least some of the women who formed Redstockings had been dissatisfied with consciousness-raising as early as November 1968, suggesting that the problem was less the reorganization than proliferating political differences. While the decision to reorganize undoubtedly hastened NYRW's demise, left obstructionism, the group's cumbersome size, and, perhaps most important, the growing polarization between politicos and feminists were already destroying the group. But, as Mainardi points out, there was a silver lining to this cloud. For "in falling apart [NYRW] seeded itself."

*********

From the beginning, the women's liberation movement was internally fractured. In fact, it is virtually impossible to understand radical feminism without referring to the movement's divided beginnings. Radical feminism was, in part, a response to the anti-feminism of the left and the reluctant feminism of the politicos. Radical feminists' tendency to privilege gender over race and class, and to treat women as a homogenized unity, was in large measure a reaction to the left's dismissal of gender as a "secondary contradiction." Moreover, the politico-feminist schism was so debilitating that it seemed to confirm radical feminists' suspicions that difference and sisterhood were mutually exclusive.

-Alice Echols, Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America: 1967-75

[blackbirdv98]

No somos histéricas, Somos HISTORICAS.

This was something I did last year, noticing the lack of changes in this broken system and the lack of interest from the government, I decided to post this here.

(Si abres el enlace puedes leer el artículo en español. Lo publiqué en inglés aquí porque no me he topado con muchos hispanohablantes y en inglés puedo llegar a más personas)

I'm a photographer, not a journalist but I live here, I'm mexican and since I was 14 I got used to always telling my mom where I was and when I arrived safe at any place.

Why? Because as a woman in Mexico, you know you are in constant danger.

So this article is timeless even if I took the pics and wrote it last year.

I really hope you enjoy it and I beg you, please share this post for all the girls and women that never arrived home. Don't let them win. Don't let their names be forgotten. Let the world know what is happening here.

Don't let them die in vain.

Atte. Una Mujer Mexicana.

-------------------

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 in Mexico City, approximately 90 thousand women marched towards the capital's Zócalo for Women's Day. Divided among various contingents, from schools to more than one batucada, thousands of women, teenagers, little girls, elderly women, as well as relatives of victims of femicide and disappearance, marched towards the Zócalo, supporting the different protests, but each of them had a common goal: To feel safe in a country where, as a woman, you have to be brave to go out on the streets. And while it was not a movement exclusive to the CDMX, it is the movement I have portrayed here. 

Many of the signs and banners were accompanied by choruses and shouts. Among the most common were: "They took them alive, we want them back alive!" and "If they touch one, they touch us all!", among others. There were also signs with photos that read "until we find you, mom" or "give me back my sister" or "may my daughter's death not be in vain". And crossing the generation gap, little girls shouting at the protesters: "those gals do represent me!"

The protests were varied. While many demanded equality and equal pay, most of what could be read on the signs were calls for attention to the femicides that, statistically, have been increasing during this six-year term compared to previous years.

According to data disaggregated by gender from the Executive Secretary of the National Public Security System, which gathers the complaints filed in the Prosecutor's Offices of the 32 Mexican States, explains that, only in the first half of the year 2022: 2,831 women have died violently, 50,000 were physically assaulted, 2,000 were raped, 497 were victims of trafficking, 120 were kidnapped and there were 258,700 calls to the emergency service for being physicaly violented.

By the end of 2022, 948 femicides had been committed nationwide, 3,000 disappeared, equivalent to 2.6 women murdered and 8.37 disappeared per day. Most of them between 15 and 19 years old. Of course, these are the registered cases,there are missing cases that were not reported or that the authorities did not register the complaint correctly.

A couple of years before, in 2018, 898 femicides were registered and in 2021 they rose to 978. The state that, without a doubt takes the first place, is Estado de México with 120 Almost twice as many as in the CDMX with 54 femicides until September 2022 and just like the previous figures, impunity reaches 95% leaving most of the cases without culprits.

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 in Mexico City, approximately 90 thousand women marched to the capital's Zócalo for Women's Day. Divided into several contingents, they marched towards the Zócalo with a common goal: To feel safe in a country whose president is more concerned about the press seeing the palace burned and not the obscene number of femicides that occur every day in the country. A country whose president cannot recognize that he is afraid of women who are definitely angrier than the opposition for a problem that he has ignored since the beginning of his six-year term. 

A country where being a woman has become a death sentence.

CDMX, Mex.

March, 2023

[theriu]

Ok but like, what is a Mennonite?

Great question! I’d first like to preface that I am far, far from an expert on this; I go to and was raised in a Mennonite Church, but we are a little odd because we’re the only Mennonite church around (you often find several in a community) and we don’t uphold the typical dress code of head coverings and skirts. Also my mom was the daughter of an army chaplain, so because of her experiences growing up and being around people of many Christian groups combined, we are pretty comfortable with many denominations. Here are some basics, though:

Mennonites are part of the Anabaptist movement, which is largely noted (among other things) for believing that people should choose baptism as adults as a sign of their commitment to Christ, rather than be baptized as infants.

We do still do dedications, which is where the parents and baby go up front at church and oil is put on the baby’s head and the congregation verbally commits to helping raise the child to know the Lord - basically showing they plan to be a good and supportive church family for this new member and the family.

Another notable difference is peaceful noncombatance. Mennonites generally hold that using force is wrong and that we shouldn’t join the military because it divides our allegiance between God and our country. This is another one that my church, at least, is more relaxed on - at least one of our members is a police officer, and my brother wanted to join the national guard (he couldn’t due to a minor but chronic medical issue). Also, as mentioned, my grandpa (who was not a Mennonite) was an army chaplain. I support my brothers and sisters in Christ who choose military service, but I also respect those who feel they should stay apart from it (and count myself one of them).

Fun Fact: Mennonites and German Baptists and other Anabaptist denominations are often confused with Amish because we are all Anabaptists and we all have a tradition of the women wearing head coverings and old-fashioned-ish skirts/dresses. However, the Amish came after the Mennonites, and Mennonites aren’t against using electricity or owning technology and such. I wont speak further on that because I am even less of an expert on Amish customs. (I mentioned German Baptists because I see them frequently around where I live; I know little of their differences from Mennonites except their head coverings are typically a cute boxy shape instead of the flat lace circle traditional Mennonite women wear.)

These next ones are, I think, pretty common across many or most denominations, and they are what I consider the core tenets of faith in Christ:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God and part of the Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one God but are also distinct persons).

Jesus came to Earth as both fully man and fully God, He lived a sinless life and died on the cross to pay the debt of our sins so we could be reunited with God, and He rose from the dead to defeat the death that is the just punishment for our sin.

The Bible is the Word of God and it is true and good for guiding, teaching, comforting, and correcting.

We all have free will, and while God desires all people to be saved, the gift of salvation is freely offered, and we must choose to take it. We are saved by accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior and asking forgiveness of our sins, accepting his payment of our debt.

We cannot “earn” our salvation through good works, but genuine faith in Christ should lead to doing good works as a demonstration of our love for Him and of His love for others.

The Holy Spirit is the one mediator between us and God, and we can ask the Holy Spirit to pray through us when we don’t know how to express what we want to pray. God always answers our prayers, even if the answer is “No” or “Wait,” and we can trust that His answers are for our good and His glory, even when we can’t see how from our limited perspective here on Earth.

I think that’s a decent summary, but let me know if you have questions or are interested in the Bible verses that support the different points. And thanks for asking!

[tooshytoexistproperly]

Thunderfall Official Lore Post - 1

This is the first lore post of many, believe me. I have plenty of worldbuilding to lay out on the table! This is likely the first of two I'll post before Chapter one.. (of course that's not cemented as a timeframe, but it's a loose estimate.)

If you have any questions, or smth, feel free to comment or toss an ask in my inbox, and I will reply if/when I can.

So, with all that laid out in the open– without further adieu, enjoy!

@jakersdaboss (other names can be added, just ask 💜)

⚡️===================== ===================== ===================== ============= ⚡️

(Vibrutian official height ref + gender size differences)

The giants of Vibrutas, the Vibrutian’s, were a primarily closed off race (atleast to any other intelligent life-forms besides themselves), until Earth’s satellite dishes shot a myriad of signals and messages into the vaccum of deep space.

They are not a friendly sort, or most of them prefer not to be. They are divided up into a multitude of cultures, and some pay tribute and thanks to different deities from their homeworld. (Which will be explored in a different post, once I sort out the details.)

Vibrutian’s have sexual dimorphism displayed in their race; with the females usually being bigger, and having brighter coloration, and the males being smaller and having duller colors. Of course that is not to say that sometimes, in some cases, men could have more vivid coloring, and Women could be more de-saturation; but it isn't common.

Most, if not all Vibrutian’s have very sharp canines, since they are primarily carnivores, Although omnivores are quite common too for the more rustic folk that prefer to live off of farmland. But, they have a unique little quirk; the more predatorily inclined vibrutian’s, have their teeth needing “maintenance” every couple days, or they will get dull. So to prevent this, they usually gnaw or chew on hard objects to sharpen them.

They have bioluminescent markings that span most of their bodies, and change as they get older, becoming more and more intricate with time. These markings are capable of flashing on command, which has made another sub-communication for their kind; and the markings shift between colors depending on how they feel. Like..mood lights!

They are extremely vocal, and often more than not, have special sounds they reserve for being affectionate with a partner, ex- trilling, purring, or even a low growl. So, a growl that a human could perceive as aggressive, is actually more of an "I love you!" sound for them.

Vibrutian’s have complex language all their own, but when speaking to other lifeforms they usually just use a small translator that they can clip onto their helmets or uniforms. But these translators don't tend to be used often..

Minor addition, there are several kinds of dimorphism in their species.. Ex: rare eye-colors, the women actually have lower pitched vocalization than men do, and some markings are more common in certain genders than others.

They have INCREDIBLE hearing, a great sense of smell, and stellar night-vision! Their ears are extremely sensitive though, and a loud noise can easily stun or incapacitate a Vibrutian.

They're fantastic trackers and usually always find what they're after, which is how humans were rocketed to the brink of extinction so quickly.

Their pupils and markings reflect what kind of behavior they will have, but their pupils also contribute to their rarity, as some pupil types are rarer than others. For example, there is one pupil type that is so rare, it's considered a mere legend.

Their teeth also have a lot to do with the individual giant’s behavior; Dulled, rounded canines are mostly for less predatory, and less aggression prone giants, or perhaps those more adapted to eating plants than meat. Sharper, curved or jagged canines are more common in the aggressive sort.

Vibrutian’s are one of the biggest races that exist in the world of Thunderfall; and their heights vary depending on the age of the giant. Adults are in the ranges of 100–120, Teens are from 90—100, etc.

Last but not least, a deeper lore teaser: They are very reverent of the moon, even when it is not the same one from their homeworld.

[horizon-verizon]

I love the Targaryens, but I never really got the impression that they thought women were equal to men. Don’t get me wrong, Andal culture is extremely sexist and patriarchal, but the Valyrians/Targs were not written like the culture of the Dornish/Rhoynar who do believe women are equal to men. I think the Targaryens definitely gave their women much more freedom and respect than Andals did to their women, but in the end, men were still considered the final authority.

So I think the Targaryens were more progressive than the Andals but less than the Rhoynar. Aegon I did conquer Westeros alongside his sisters, but in the end, it is only him that is referred to as the conqueror, while his sisters are not. I also got the impression that Aegon was the one who made all the final decisions even though Visenya was the eldest. So that’s my opinion what do you think?

I think both similarly and similarly: there's the fact that both Valyrian women and men flew out to Valyrian outposts to control them. It wasn't a total democracy nor did Valyria think women were perfectly equal to men, but they were leagues better and more "progressive" than Westeros.

I would not use the word “progressive” as an absolute or an accurate term for Valyria because:

Valyria developed into a slave-state and practiced enslaving people

the 40 dragonlord families seemed to have lead the entire society (there were nonddragonriding noble and common families), thus making this an oligarchy

It’s still through the man that a child inherits their surname, as we know Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya’s mother, Valaena, was a Velaryon. The Targ family also was inherited by its men, and Aegon I had to marry his oldest sister in Targ tradition and perform his duties. Then there is the fact that Valyrian men (mostly the sorcerers) can have multiples wives (polgyny); nothing is being said about women having multiple husbands (polyandry)

and so "progressive" puts a modern political value on an ancient people and that implies that the Valyrians and early Targs were studious and aware of patriarchal and other systematic oppressions--trying uproot society from the ground up for altruistic deeds (maybe the women after Aegon I conquerors Westeros, but that’s part of the group, not the whole). 

Again, I’d just say the Valyrians were better in this one regard--gender. The Targs and Valyrians are still more about power than altruism or perfect equality, like 90% of every other person/group in power in this system and world. Until Dany, of course. What makes the Targs-as-Westerosi-rulers different from their ancestors is that they did not colonize nor run an imperialist state; they merely conquered and ran a feudal state.

Let’s also then say that the Targs/Valyrian dragon-riders provide a means of social change in Westeros because their traditions, link to dragonriding, and the looser restrictions on women gives more of its members a bit of perspective and distance. Several notable members always have had this distance partially based on the fact that they are rulers trying to maintain their rule, but also because they are a people who are also foreign in culture and ID to the Westerosi nobles. Really, it’s the Faith of the Seven and the patriarchal traditons of the First Me and the Andals which create that ideological divide.

A Kinda-Digression about Dragons

Dragons are usually associated and stand in for untamed nature and chaos (disorder), or a huge force that ushers in a great change by clearing out what is before. A creature or a force that relentlessly consumes those things in its wake. a challenge that the hero must overcome or get through to obtain  In Greek myth, the serpent Ladon twisted himself the tree in the Hesperides’ Garden of the and guarded the tree’s golden apples. But they also can be the instruments of life giving and strength, as with Chinese dragons who are repsponsible for giving life-saving--or life-ruining--rains, or are made and intrinsically tied to the weather and the elements:

The Chinese dragon, lung, represents yang, the principle of heaven, activity, and maleness in the yinyang of Chinese cosmology. From ancient times it was the emblem of the imperial family, and until the founding of the republic (1911) the dragon adorned the Chinese flag.

They are raw, overwhelming power itself--while also embodying grace and balance-maintenance. 

The fact that women could ride dragons would automatically bump them up in a society that derives its power and identity through dragon-riding, even though only a section of Valyrians actually rode dragons--the 40 “dragonlord” families. this section fought for more influence and dominion over the Valyrian Freehold--the official name for Valyria and its territories. (The Velayrons and Celtigars historically were not part of the dragonriding families in Old Valyria). 

The Valyrians had no kings but instead called themselves the Freehold because all the citizenry who held land had a voice. Archons might be chosen to help lead, but they were elected by the lords freeholder from amongst their number, and only for a limited time. It was rare for Valyria to be swayed by one freeholding family alone although it was not entirely unknown either.

(A World of Ice and Fire,  pg. 13)

We don’t officially know if women could own land in their own right and autonomously and lead their families but it is likely -- dependent on circumstances where the male was unfit or dead and there would be less resistance or room to depose them.

Landholding was and remains a key defining part of being a citizen and having the right to vote when there was some form of voting allowed. Giving military commands and participating in government from the Romans of the Republic to the first leaders of the U.S. and their own ancestors who settled and colonized the Americas. 

Since women rode dragons, they definitely had a part in Valyrian expansion and imperialism (in the way that the Romans were imperialists, not 19th-20th century Europe and the U.S.), which also means that women had similar real, substantive political power as their male counterparts and particpated in govermental activities. The wars & using dragons to win them, after all, made Valyria as powerful as it was and dragons and the ability to ride them--symbolically, psychologically, culturally, etc. would have made the basis of their moral & aesthetic values. Again, they controlled Valyrian outposts as leaders as well.

So I think that Valyrian women could own land (and thus vote) in their own right, otherwise, how can they participate in expansion fully and maximize the use of their dragons?

Jaenara Belaerys rode her dragon Terrax, alone, to Sothoryos and didn’t come back until three yeas passed. We don’t officially know if she was weird even for the less-gender-restrictive Valyrians, or if women enjoyed having power and authority even while absent enough for her to expect that she’d still be welcome back into society. But I lean towards the latter.

Read this thread to start contemplating, if you want.

[graylinesspam]

Happy June everybody!

I've seen some really good discussion on my dash the last >24hrs, about labels in the lgbt community and the use of queer and reclaiming slurs and identifying turf rhetoric.

I'm gonna put my 2¢ into this discussion real quick because I think some of us are missing a big base concept of the LGBT community.

The community is wide and vast and diverse as it should be. And no matter your involvement in it, your label, your age, your race, there is one defining sociopolitical stance that makes us who we are. And that's simply being different.

I know that sounds fucking cheesy but stick with me here. Queerness intersects with so many other social struggles, struggles with class and religion, race and disability. And as any struggle it is a fight for freedom from the preset social structures.

Queerness (and yes I'm using that umbrella term for a reason) is about not being hetero-normative more than it is about anything else. It's about choosing to live your life against the social structures. It's not about the specifics of how everyone does it so as much as it is that you do. Trans lesbians and cis-Ace guys are always going to have more in common than they will with any hetero-normative person.

Don't misinterpret me, this isn't a 'straight people are the enemy' argument. This is an argument against rigid definitions and labels. Because the structure itself is what we're fighting. The structure that tells us that one man marries one woman in a Christian ceremony and they settle down into a white picket fence three bedroom home with their two and a half kids. And they better be white and conventional attractive and fit perfectly into their assigned gender roles. (and everyone else can suffer)

That is the enemy.

When you try to bring those kinds of structures into the community you fundamentally undermine the entire purpose of it. There are no good gender roles here. There are no roles of any kind. The strict definitions you're trying to assign to each label are hurting your community. Labels are a good tool for identifying people who may have similar life experiences as yourself. Or as a medium to communicate with straight people, but they are not lines we draw between ourselves.

We cannot survive divided. We must support and protect each other. That's the point of the community.

No more discussions of who can use what labels, no more fighting against 'slurs' that people have been using since before you were born. No more excluding sex and attraction and kink. And no more relying on it either. Sex cannot be a taboo in our community. And it cannot be the aspect from which we define ourselves either.

No more morally policing people who are just trying to live their lives, no more stepping on each other and throwing 'gross and weird' queers under the bus so you can virtue signal as the "Good gays".

No more telling people who they can be based on their genitals or their sexuality. No more telling lesbians to cut men out of their life because that's how we 'fight the patriarchy'. No more telling trans people how they should transition. No more allying with people based on their bodies, their looks, their health.

Asexuality is queer because it's a fundamentally different experience to build a relationship that isn't based on heterosexual attraction. Since sex is the basis by which straight people seem to couple, by not doing that, by connecting through other factors, you differ.

Queer men, or trans women, or others born male are welcome in our community because they are fundamentally choosing to be different from the role they were cast in by the social structure. Now does that include a lot of work unlearning their societal programming? Absolutely. But I welcome my brothers and sisters regardless of their gentitals.

And let's not for a minute pretend that queer 'males' are any more dangerous to us than terfs and the distructivly sexist (and blatantly racist and classist) roles they try to pigeonhole women into.

Other alt communities are our allies. Anyone fighting moral conformity. Anyone fighting racism and sexism and ableism and classism.

If your way of trying to obtain the life you want to live consists of trying to look good to the oppressors so they give you a pass, then your doing it wrong.

Use a hundred different labels to describe yourself. Use neopronouns. Base your relationships off of how well you can support each other. Practice your religion in a way that fulfills you and your identity. Cut off your shitty family. Or don't. Keep your elders close so that you can learn everything you can about how the world has changed, then figure out how to change it more.

Society as it stands will crumble in our collective grasps. We just have a break a little bit of it everyday.

(that being said, general advice, educate yourself on lgbt history, talk to our elders, educate yourself on intersecting struggles. Rascim, ableism, and classism. All of that is required reading babies.)

(((Do not come into the notes saying some shit like, Yeah, everyone is our ally except____. At best it'll be fucking obvious that we don't align ourselves with seriously bad people like pedos or something, and at worst you'll say someone we specifically do ally with and I'll be forced to publically shame you.)))

[magnoliamyrrh]

okay enough of the rants im logging off last thing ill say is that identity politics is largely a disease 👍 its point with the extremism its been taken to in part due to cia postmodernism being to wreck class conciousness though the wokeificstion of fragmentory policies and identity👍 bipartisan politics also serve to divide the country (all countries) incresingly so that people cant come together👍 having the worlds most stupid useless fragmentory identity politics discussions doesnt help it keeps us from coming together and focusing on real shit 👍wars pit the resources and labour of the working class against each other for the benefit of the rich 👍"im iranian youre american, you and i have more in common with each other than our governments with us, and our governments are more similar etc etc."👍 if racism stopped and if sexism stopped and if classism between the working classes (which, everyone has forgotten what the term "working class" means, its not abt economic bracket, low, middle, and higher class can all b working class yes including the doctor whose making a lot of money bc it is the exhange of labour for wages) stopped the working class could stand united not divided aginst the system 👍differences in race, class, and sex have Always been used to pit the working classes against each other, and to give people a sense of "well at least were better than Those people" (opressed middle class disdain for lower class, opressed mens disdain for women (at least they have power over someone!), opressed peoples disdain for other opressed peoples)

i may bitch and complain about kinds of people on here bc its a way for me to get my frustrations out, but ultimately i do think it is vitally important to have hope and to try to bring unity between people. ultimately i think it is unity which is the only way this planet, species, and every other species on this planet may see a better futute. ultimately, more than anything, i think despite everything we, for everyones sake, have to understand the deep interconnected nature of everything, have to truly understand that one cannot be free without all, and have to try to build bridges.... it is very easy both as both members of the opressive and opressed class (and yes most ppl occupy both in some way) to fall into disdain, fear, and wants of separatism. ive done it plenty myself and at times i still do. trying to "be better" is absolutely exhausting. but. i do truly believe that we have to try. i do not believe hatred is forever. not classism not racism not sexism not abelism not anything. it is not a curse people are doomed to from birth. people can change, we all can. we at least have to try

[hesitationss]

it should be said that when protecting against both state actors and non-state actors against doxxing, it is important know your enemy. and not just generally, because the police in every city has their own tactics.

more details and info.

(these are loosely based on the experience of various comrades in other cities) in mtl they are prone to tear gassing protesters, this doesn't really happen in ottawa, toronto, or vancouver, etc. mtl is prob the most outwardly aggressive cities toward protesters and i heard j Trudeau's riding is an absolute shitstain with little social resources LOL

in toronto and other cities in ONT, protest arrests are the primary way in which they identify protesters so it is ESP important in that city to have a lawyers number on hand, to hide your identity, and to avoid arrest. they also do this really insidious thing where they move protesters from one precinct to the next in discreet civilian black vans when people protest outside of their buildings. they do this so that they can announce that the prisoner in which protesters are seeking to be released is no long at that location. they will be buying time for HOURS to do this. it's a divide and conquer strategy. it's meant to disrupt protest and organizing but it's primary purpose it to ID + impose restrictions rather than actually incarcerate anyone.

winnipeg has the second highest police budget in canada, they have a helicopter that they fly over a predominantly indigenous community every night, and they frequently racially profile so that they can beat any native man or women or child without impunity. they do not use tear gas, because they don't need to. they can mobilize white supremacist communities to commit crimes instead. i learned in like 2018(?) that most of the employed police in winnipeg are undercover and that many of them have never even been seen in uniform (since they're duty is as plain clothes officers) i also learned from s worker community members that it is a common occurrence for police to send reports of all the details of their surveillance something that not even my communist student organizer friends at one of the universities didn't know in terms of their deep level of surveillance. the police their are more likely to straight up steal from you too.

in vancouver, the police show up in huge numbers to intimidate. their mayor is sponsored by fucking white supremacists ?? and i have heard about SO many bad faith actors within the movements like more so than the average chauvinism issues... the police presence in vancouver is actually insane. like a public park without protests happening are filled with officers looking to hit homeless people. vancouver police are notorious for wrecking property and acting violently in hopes of baiting protestors and then lying about who did the damage. the entirety of north vancouver is so racist that you will get kkk level hostility there.

also if you are worried about doxxing, similarly with stalking, it is always going to be someone who knows you or has access to you in some way! like yeah you can lock down your social media and be relatively anonymous. but the ppl who are most likely going to fuck with your life by is going to be like a bad faith actor/devil's advocate, zionist, or white supremacists you went to school with or has worked with you in some capacity... and the scary thing is that it is all too easy for these people to access your full name, email, phone number, and address. like there is so much to think about in terms of security and privacy but mostly you need to know what you are up against, and figure out the best preventative and safety measures.

[mcatmemoranda]

Leukocytes or nitrites present 75% sensitivity and 82% specificity; all you need for simple cystitis

Culture positive if >10^5 CFU or 10^2 CFUs with symptoms; necessary for pyelonephritis/complicated UTI

CT will show obstruction, calculi, gas-forming infections

Men: STI, prostatitis, urethritis

Tx: Macrobid 100 mg x5 days, Bactrim DS bid x3 days

Pyelo: FQs, CTX, zosyn, cefepime if low risk for MDR

Meropenem, IV FQs, CTX, zosyn, cefepime for high risk MDR

Recurrent UTIs: pyridium, post coital abxs, urogyn referral, daily ppx with Bactrim, Macrobid, or Keflex

Pyelo f/u: PRN, urology, or urogyn f/u

Highest prevalence among uncircumcised males <3 months

In peds pts, enterococcus is not a contaminant in the urine culture as it typically is in adults

You want to avoid renal scarring; any other organism other than E.coli has increased risk of causing renal scarring in kids

US recommended in kids <2 years with first febrile UTI, any age with recurrent UTI, any age with fam hx of kidney/uro disease, poor growth, HTN, failure to respond to tx

Voiding cystourethrogram for anatomical eval and for reasons listed above

Simple cystitis tx:

Infants: cephalosporin; Keflex 50-100 mg/kg qd divided bid x5 days. Allergy? Can use Bactrim, Augmentin, rarely ciprofloxacin

Pts 1 month to 2 years: IV CTX, gentamicin; cefdinir 14 mg/kg qd divided bid x10 days

If no improvement in 48-72 hours, change abxs and pursue imaging

For infants, you need to do f/u imaging if not done in hospital

Pregnant women have acute cystitis, not simple cystitis because pregnant women are not simple

Abxs in pregnancy: beta lactam, Macrobid (not in first trimester), Fosfomycin; duration of therapy is 5-7 days

Bactrim avoided during pregnancy. Cefpodoxime is another one safe in pregnancy.

Pyelo in pregnancy: consider intraamniotic infection and placental abruption; it’s not an indication for delivery. Can tx with IV CTX or zosyn.

You have to recheck UA after treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnant pts; 30% don’t clear it

Macrobid and Bactrim should be avoided in pregnancy; Macrobid more so in the first trimester; avoid Bactrim throughout pregnancy

Febrile neonate: tachypnea, irritability, cyanosis, poor feeding; <1% of term infants have UTIs. Limited data for preterm infants.

Term infants tend to get E. coli. In preterm infants, coagulase neg staph and Klebsiella are more common; really small premies can have candida.

Hematogenous spread can occur in premies.

Neonates: UA, culture, blood culture, lumbar puncture; imaging, voiding cystourethrogram

Broad spectrum abxs in babies: Ampicillin and gentamicin for 10 to 14 days

CTX can increase serum free bilirubinà increased jaundice

Kids can have impaired renal growth that resolved

Catheter Associated UTI = CAUTI; no need to screen unless pt is symptomatic

Pyuria is not enough to diagnose UTI in pts with indwelling catheters; you need a culture, which you compare to previous culture. Percutaneous nephrostomy tubes, stents – get urology involved. Tx with broad spectrum abxs until you get culture results. Tx 7-14 days. Levofloxacin x5 days if not severely ill; 3 days for pts under 65 w/o upper UTI sxs

For transplant pts, there’s more resistance to cipro and Bactrim

For transplant pts with simple cystitis: FQs, 3rd gen cephalosporins x10-14 days; zosyn, meropenem, cefepime if complicated and call ID

Do not screen (these are guidelines, not what we always do): peds pts, functionally impaired adults, long term care facility pts, diabetics, pts w/ renal transplants, pts with spinal cord injuries

[colorisbyshe]

bi anon! would you say bi women (and women aligned nonbinary people, yknow) tend to experience attraction to men differently than straight women? for a long time i didn't think i liked men bc i was comparing my attraction to men to straight women's attraction to men, which was very different. but from what I've seen, the way bi women love men aligns quite well w the way i feel about men (like ideal relationship dynamics and roles, and liking/preferring gnc men and/or men who are also bi). obvs bisexual people aren't a monolith, but is this a fairly common experience? sorry if some of this doesn't make sense, I'm kinda scatterbrained!

I think the answer is "Sometimes yes, sometimes no."

I think most people experience their attraction differently and I think most people experience their attraction in the same way. I think attraction can impacted by many things--mental health, individual experiences, what people you are surrounded by, and culture. I think LGBT culture and specifically bi culture counts as "culture" in this respect, so, yes, that can impact how you experience attraction.

But do I think bisexuals wholly experience their gendered attraction differently than straight people or gay people? No.

How you are attracted to men will be impacted by many, many things. I think being bisexual can definitely be part of those many, many things.

I'm going to use the word "often" a lot but please just assume each time I use it it is followed by "(but not always, not even necessarily most of the time)".

Often, bisexuality is tied to questioning gender norms and conventions tied to that. Why is X feature attractive in men? Why is Y feature not valued in women? Often, this can be replicated in feminism and thus reach straight women.

Often, bisexuality means approaching relationships outside of gender conventions. You may not be looking at a man as a provider, a patriarch, a father (to your children, not talking about ~daddy). That may change how you are attracted to him. Again, this can be replicated with feminism.

Often, bisexuality means questioning why you find one feature attractive in one gender but not any other. This may mean realizing, "Oh, if I find hairy men hot, maybe hairy women are hot too." Or, "Hey, women with long hair are beautiful, why not men?" Often, straight people don't have this point of access to breaking down things this smoothly.

Often, you are not consuming the same media, talking to the same circles. Straight people often divide up their friend groups by men are friends with men, women are friends with women, and they aren't having the same revelations that mixed gender, mixed sexuality groups are having. Like my exposure to men that gay men find attractive has ABSOLUTELY changed my attraction.

And sometimes it is as simple as that--what you are exposed to changes your attraction or your perception of attraction or your willingness to maybe give {blank} a shot and you'll look at {blank} with fresh eyes.

But each individual person is going to respond to this exposure a different way. Most of my friends at this point I have known 20-10+ years. We all have WILDLY different tastes despite having a lot of the same life experiences, often in our more formative years (childhood, teens, early 20s).

I've met straight women with better (from my perspective) taste in women than my bi friends or gay male friends. Fuck, I've met straight women with better taste in women than my bi friends or lesbian friends. I've spoken to gay dudes with identical taste in men with me and I've met gay dudes whose tastes is so bad it maeks me question them as people. I've had identical taste to straight men when it comes to women.

Do I think it's more likely bi people will have taste that coincides with each other, prioritizing the same things? Depends on a lot of things--what are their politics, what media are ethey consuming, what do their real life friendships look like, what ar ethey being exposed to? The more those latter things overlap, the more their bisexuality and attractions will present the same. Bisexuality increases the likelihood that SOME of those latter things are more similar than not but... it isn't a sure thing.

[molecularhomosexual]

the backlash about shelby’s post is ridiculous (it’s transmisogyny, so i guess it is more common happenstance than it is ridiculous)—but there’s such stupidity in the backlash about thinking of gender as social technology as a white concept, and a conservative concept.

put aside the aggressive bad faith in not at all talking to the person you’re engaging with, to be so quick to enter into a relation of defending yourself as a threat that you make no eye contact with the person making the post, to hardly acknowledge their capacity for thought. you’re telling me that trans poc cannot afford to think of gender as social technology because it’s white? lo and behold, what should have saved me from my oppressed status as a woman of color is to think of gender as inherent!

thinking of gender as a social technology would also help us talk about the field of power for gender altogether (not sure how far shelby wanted to go with this thought). there are social-technical machines in place that help enforce what gender ought to be for the specific bodies, and they enforce unequally across lines of race, class, ability.

to say that being homosexual or transgender is a matter of a social technology can pinpoint the ways that these two are always in a process of cooptation and “rehabilitation” by dominant forces (think of the assimilative pressure to gender/sexual norms at all times, or the assimilative pressure to keep “gross, kinky bdsm shit” in the bedroom, private, unable to affect the world)—and on the flipside, it lets us talk about these terms as a way of indicating practices with other bodies, discourses that we utter towards each other, a whole assemblage of bodies and desires through which traverses forces of dominant power and forces of resistant power—maybe the dichotomy i would use just as a matter of taste would be technologies and counter-technologies, though i don’t think this terminology dichotomy is essential to the point.

along the lines of being able to critique dominant forces of gender and sexuality by thinking of them as social technologies, it would also give us a language for talking about something like maria lugones’ critique and genealogy of the modern/colonial gender system: how gender is marked on bodies during colonial domination, how norms of gender are unevenly applied across the settler/colonized divide (e.g. white women are positioned as pure and innocent, but black women are positioned as aggressive, even “masculine”, deviant, suspect).

there is no way of talking about this if we think of gender and sexuality (and race, for that matter) as qualia, difficult-to-describe subjective experience that has no clear correlate to social practices. there *is* a way to talk about this if we acknowledge settler colonialism as the creation of whiteness and racialization (thank you fred moten, and every interlocutor you reference in every essay of yours, and forgive me for rushing this point too quickly)—whiteness as racialization is yet another oppressive technology, which marks the flesh of other bodies as racialized. there is a way of talking about this if we notice that settler-colonialism put forward specific organizations of gender for the colonized, that didn’t always match the gender matrices of the colonizer, or at the very least of those who are posited in the colonizing process as “civilized”.

so please, i would love to hear more about how a concept that can help us think through the whiteness of settler-coloniality is actually a white, western concept that doesn’t serve tpoc and woc. and please, please keep in mind, imaginary counter-argumentator, that i am one of the trans women of color you profess to care for and defend in your instinctive reaction against these concepts, so i would appreciate you extending that care and defense to me! uwu