Hey, real talk though? If you’re in the USA, right now you need to call your representatives. 11.8 million people could lose health insurance because of this, as well as a lot of other shit going down, so speak up.
Go to 5calls.org, put in your location, and make the calls.Do it after business hours if you’re worried about actually to a person, but do it.
We’re running out of chances with this, please please do this now, while it’s still possible to stop this.
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from dismantling a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., ruled that Trump violated federal law when he appointed Pete Marocco the new head of the U.S. African Development Foundation, or USDAF, because Marocco was never confirmed by Congress. As a result, Marocco’s actions — terminating most of the agency’s employees and effectively ending the agency’s grants — are void and must be undone, the judge found.
Congress created USADF as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries.
Lawmakers would eliminate a $7,500 tax credit for households that buy or lease new EVs, as well as a $4,000 credit for consumers who purchase used EVs.
The legislation, which Republicans are trying to get to the president’s desk by July 4, would axe tax breaks for consumers who buy or lease EVs after Sept. 30.
Lawmakers would eliminate a $7,500 tax credit for households that buy or lease a new EV, and a $4,000 credit for consumers who purchase a used EV.
“If you’re interested in driving an EV — either new, used or leased — now is the time to act,” said Ingrid Malmgren, senior policy director at Plug In America, a nonprofit advocating for a quicker transition to electric cars.
“This is going to be the summer of the EV, because come the end of September those credits will be gone” if the legislation passes and remains unchanged, Malmgren said.
I hate to be all “cis good” on main, but if it weren’t for the cis queer women that welcomed me into womanhood idk where I would be
Shout-out to cis queer women that welcome trans women because that was genuinely a foundational part of developing confidence in my femininity
There’s this huge media storm that, even when it’s supposed to be “trans positive” still paints this atmosphere of separation between trans and cis women. This has been the opposite of my experience. I’m grateful for the solidarity between all women <3
There are gonna be young cis women who are gonna delight in helping you find out what sort of clothes you wanna wear, how to look after your skin and hair, helping you on the path to learning the difference between like, what you feel you *should* present like vs what is actually comfortable and authentically you.
There are going to be menopausal cis mums who are on the same brand of estrogen patch as you who are gonna join you in griping about getting them to stick and swapping tips for when you get dispensed the big patches but your dose is half that.
There are going to be infertile cis women who share your pain and anger at the concept that ‘able to bear children’ is seen as the only 'real’ way to be a woman.
There are gonna be intersex cis women who understand what it’s like to have your body’s default state not line up with societal expectations.
There are gonna be queer cis women who will stand with you at Pride, who will welcome you to our family, our community.
I want to reblog this a thousand times. I’ve seen all of this, and it is so beautiful and pure and we all need it for survival. I love women, I love the solidarity we all have, and I love what we can all do for each other <3
The notes on this post are a set of the most beautiful stories I’ve heard about welcoming and solidarity between all women, cis and trans.
Please keep sharing these. They truly are a joy, and are giving me a lot of hope <3
reblogged this earlier but actually have something to add. the barely 20 year old cis girl who came up to me in the train station to ask me if she could stand with me. who told me all her friends left and she felt nervous waiting alone. who waited with me and told me to get home safe as we got on the train together. the fact that you felt like I was a safe and kind woman you could lean on a little?
Probably the single most affirming social experience I’ve had with a stranger. The fact you chose me of everyone in the train station means you saw me in a crowd and picked me out and said “That’s a girl’s girl.”
Shout out to the group of middle aged cis moms I met at the liquor store when I was looking for wine. The one that said “oh honey, you just wiped off your makeup.” And gestured at her upper lip after I wiped the sweat off my face with a handkerchief from my purse.
I was having a lot of dysphoria about my upper lip hair suddenly having color to it (medicine side effect it seems). So I was internally wondering if they’d ostracize me since they’d clocked me.
One of the women goes “oh it’s okay, I have PCOS too. Don’t let it bother you.” And suddenly I’ve got 3 women chatting with me and lamenting how they have to “shave almost every day at this point” and just cackling. The store worker joined in, saying she plucks constantly, and her “transgender friend has to shave 2 or more times a day!”. They all had these genuine reactions and “oh no, poor girl” and other comments.
I felt included. I never mentioned that I was transgender.. I just carried on, they helped me pick out wines, gave me some tips on undertones for makeup to cover facial hair stubble, and I got the shop worker to pull out some elderflower liqueur to add to a small sample of a Pinot Grigio (and got more people to try it and add it to their rotation. Seriously, try it sometime. It’s incredible).
The random solidarity and genuine reactions I’ve received from other women has been very validating and honestly so welcome.
having anti punitive justice morals sucks because you want to say “man that guy sucks he should get hit with hammers until he dies” but you also want to make it clear you don’t think anyone should be put in charge of the ‘hit people with hammers until they die" machine.
Republicans are building a concentration camp in the Everglades, with plans to build more in other states.
They are “deputizing” militia lunatics and sending them out to terrorize our communities.
They just gave ICE a bigger budget than the USMC. FORTY BILLION DOLLARS.
They keep talking about deporting people who are American citizens, people who have done nothing wrong, who have broken no laws. In some cases, they’ve already done that. They’ve talked about suspending habeas corpus and declaring martial law.
They are telling us, in word and in deed, that they are turning their rage and violence directly onto American citizens. RIght now, they are laser focused on terrorizing immigrant communities, but this will not stop with the communities they are terrorizing right now. They are going to go after journalists, professors, influencers who don’t fall into line, and more.
They are building a police state, in plain sight, and they are telling us exactly what they are going to do when they are done.
For the past several years (and perhaps longer) in the P&P fandom I’ve seen a lot of people who want to rehabilitate Mrs. Bennet: like, sure, she’s uncouth and seems greedy, but it’s because she cares so much about her daughters’ futures; her situation is actually really stressful and uncertain and she’s powerless to change it and her husband makes fun of her, and so it’s natural that it would cause her to be anxious all the time; maybe she doesn’t have the intelligence or social awareness to understand that her behaviour is actually harming her daughters’ prospects, but at least her heart is in the right place.
I’m usually not the type of person who argues that fandom is actually being too nice to a female character, but in this case I don’t buy the counter-narrative (which I think is popular enough at this point to be fanon / a narrative in itself) about Mrs. Bennet.
For one thing, she was never really powerless in this situation. These people are rich even for gentry. Mr. Bennet’s income was always good, at 2,000 pounds per annum (even though I can’t believe he isn’t neglecting some practices that could raise it higher). Mrs. Bennet had 4,000 pounds from her parents and a further 1,000 from Mr. Bennet. Invested in the 4 per cents (for example), this is 200 pounds per year in pin money that Mrs. Bennet could spend without touching the principle of her dowry, and without affecting Mr. Bennet’s income. This is more than some people’s entire yearly incomes.
The picture of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet that we get in P&P is not of people who are helpless against their circumstances, but of people who are extraordinarily neglectful. We’re told that:
Mr. Bennet had very often wished, before this period of his life, that, instead of spending his whole income, he had laid by an annual sum, for the better provision of his children, and of his wife, if she survived him. […] When first Mr. Bennet had married, economy was held to be perfectly useless; for, of course, they were to have a son. This son was to join in cutting off the entail, as soon as he should be of age, and the widow and younger children would by that means be provided for. Five daughters successively entered the world, but yet the son was to come; and Mrs. Bennet, for many years after Lydia’s birth, had been certain that he would. This event had at last been despaired of, but it was then too late to be saving. Mrs. Bennet had no turn for economy; and her husband’s love of independence had alone prevented their exceeding their income.
We also know that the “continual presents in money which passed to [Lydia] through her mother’s hands,” plus her allowance and food, amount to about 90 pounds per year. Rather than saving up from the beginning in case the entail is not broken, rather than beginning to save once it’s clear a son will not arrive, rather than making Jane’s dowry the full 5,000 from her mother (which would be something) and saving up for the younger girls’ dowries thereafter—which is what would be typical, and that’s why Lady Catherine was so shocked that all the girls were out at once—Mrs. Bennet’s housekeeping, dress, the girls’ allowance, presents of money over and above their allowance, plus whatever Mr. Bennet is spending money on (and other expenses relating to servants, carriages, maintenance &c. which are unavoidable), add up to their entire income. The only reason why Mrs. Bennet doesn’t overspend even that is that that’s where Mr. Bennet puts his foot down.
Mrs. Bennet is actively harming her daughters’ prospects, not even of marriage, but of living respectably if they don’t marry, because she doesn’t have the temperance not to spend all of the income that is allotted to her. It is the role of the woman in a marriage to take charge of the housekeeping, servants, cooking, furniture, and all expenses relating thereto (plus certain attentions to her tenants and any living in genteel poverty in the area, though presumably this will depend on her income and whether there’s a parish church with a parson’s wife who’s doing some of these things). She’s an adult who should be competent to manage these things in a reasoned way without needing to be dictated to.
It is supposed to be the role of the woman in a marriage to take charge of her daughters’ education—and yet Mrs. Bennet did not hire a governess, and Elizabeth says that she didn’t spend much time teaching her daughters anything (it’s not clear to what degree she’s educated herself). Granted, the girls did have masters—but, from the sounds of things, that was only if they requested them. No one was required to learn much of anything, which will probably further harm the marriage prospects of the girls who “chose to be idle.”
I think the “point” of Mrs. Bennet is that she is one half of one type of bad marriage which the novel illustrates, in contrast with the Gardiners’ marriage. These marriages are two possible models for the Bennet daughters to look to. At one point, Elizabeth’s prospective marriage is explicitly compared to her parents’, with her in the role of her father: Mr. Bennet says “My child, let me not have the grief of seeing you unable to respect your partner in life” (emphasis original).
We might wonder whether Elizabeth saw herself potentially in the role of her father, in a marriage that was very intellectually unequal, when she rejected Mr. Collins; or whether she also saw herself in the role of her mother, married to a man who insults and doesn’t respect her, when she rejected Mr. Darcy. Ultimately, she accepts Mr. Darcy after she realises that he is nothing like her father; that he is diligent in attending to his responsibilities, and that he does evidently respect her mind.
This isn’t me defending Mr. Bennet, who is also a bad parent and a bad spouse. I do, however, find it a little disturbing when people suggest that Mr. Bennet is at fault for not controlling or curtailing his wife. His wife is a grown woman. Surely we don’t actually believe that a situation where a man is legally in complete control over his wife, merely because he is a man and she is a woman, is in any way natural, moral, or just? (This also goes for people who suggest that Mr. Bingley needs to get his sister ‘in line’ 😬😬😬.)
Mrs. Bennet should be competent to manage her household and her daughters. Given that she’s not, yes, Mr. Bennet, according to Georgian and Victorian ideas of the role of a man in a marriage, “should” have stepped in and started dictating to her. But I don’t really think that’s what Austen is suggesting went wrong here. The models of good marriages we have—the Gardiners, the Bingleys and Darcys after their weddings—are all ones in which the women were basically sensible people to begin with. In the latter two cases, we are told of particular ways in which the men stand to benefit from some mental quality of their future spouse (Elizabeth’s good humour and ease in company; Jane’s steadiness and determination).
The ideal which some Georgians had of a husband’s role being to shape his wife’s intellect doesn’t seem to be what’s being advocated here. If Mr. Bennet made a mistake, it was in marrying a silly, selfish, ill-tempered woman to begin with, not in failing to browbeat her into submission once he found out that she was silly, selfish, and ill-tempered. The idea is that you should choose your spouse carefully. But that message doesn’t work if Mrs. Bennet is just a woman in a difficult situation who has her heart in the right place.
This is what I’m always saying! Both parents are flawed.
The 200 year old novel doesn’t even suggest that Mr. Bennet is responsible for “controlling” his wife, though I hear that from modern readers (excuse me while I puke every time someone writes that they want Mr. Bingley to “bring Caroline to heel” a similar sentiment). The novel basically says, “He married poorly, he ought to have at least parented properly.” Which he did not!
Mrs. Bennet has had years to prepare for the future, but she’s running around like someone who just learned the final exam is tomorrow. Just because she’s screaming about the problem now doesn’t make her responsible.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[syndicated profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/feed.png){kind=small}
sakon76_tumblr_feed
