conservatives will claim that all immigrants deserve to be mistreated bc a couple of them have committed crimes, but when feminists point out which half of the population commits around 90% of violent crime they have a meltdown…

Many people I know are sharing an ig post with the text "There is no trans debate. There are trans people and then there are fascists who wish to dominate and eliminate trans people" presumably in response to the uk ruling that the legal definition of woman is an adult human female. I feel really frustrated about how black and white the trans discussion is. On the trans activist side, the view seems to be that you either fully support whatever trans people say or do or want, no questions asked - which makes you one of the good ones - or you're a fascist who wants to eliminate trans people from the face of the earth. The whole narrative that "there is no trans debate, only trans people" is so dishonest too. There wouldn't be a debate if the trans rights movement wasn't pushing to change society -both in terms of legislature and social conventions- in a way that impacts absolutely everyone and especially women. Nobody is debating the existence of trans people. The debate is about what trans people demand of others. The debate is about making sure that changes in legislation are fair to everyone and that the effects of legal changes have been considered. If we cannot have a clear definition of what a woman is, there can be no women's rights. There can be no equality or liberation for women if we don't know who they are and what they need. There can be no legal protections for women if anyone can be a woman. It's infuriating how the trans activist side absolutely refuses to consider any point of view other than their own. Wanting open and thorough discussion is not hate. Questioning things is not hate or fascism. And it drives me crazy that I know that if I were to point out any of this in the most polite way I could to any of those people I know in real life they would think that I must be one of the fascists who deny that trans people exist and want them exterminated. It's all so tiresome.

One of the most effective ways of making females stronger protagonists in society is to prioritise them in our choices and to live a consciously gynocentric life, whenever practicable. Are you voting? Looking for a tattoo artist? Need a plumber, a gardener, a builder? A voiceover artist for your video? A DJ for your party? Security staff for your business? Find a sister. Give her your time, give her economic power, help her achieve her dreams. Choose women, it is a small act in your daily life but with massive impact. We’ve got to do this for each other, because I don’t see anybody else giving a fuck.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssssssssssss

"This woman, nicknamed ‘Piper’ by the University of Central Lancashire archaeologists who uncovered her in 2014, was buried in grave 116 in a sixth-century early medieval cemetery in Oakington, Cambridge. More interesting than the pipe, which was a pure accident of directional drilling, her grave was richly furnished. She had a brooch on each shoulder, wrist-clasps, and a large ornate cruciform brooch, indicating she had been buried in a peplos dress over a long-sleeved dress and wrapped in a pinned cloak. She also had a collection of glass and amber beads. These items in her grave indicate that she was a wealthy and important woman within her community at Oakington.

The more I researched this dig, which was overseen by archaeologists Dr Faye Simpson and Dr Duncan Sayer, the more the site was revealed to be a remarkable insight into early medieval gender and society. Piper was not the only high-status woman in the Oakington cemetery. In fact, there were a large number of furnished female burials, which acted as focal points throughout the cemetery, and very few male ones.

Duncan Sayer has called the Oakington dig suggestive of a ‘female-dominated matriarchal group’ in early medieval England. What’s more, around thirty percent of the 124 graves were those of infants. The high number of infant burials is disproportionate, indicating that women were in this area specifically to give birth within this matriarchal community.

During the past week there has been much excitement on social media and in the press about the findings of a recent DNA study, which provide evidence for matrilocal societies in Iron Age Dorset. Matrilocal societies are groups in which women stay within family groups, marrying outsiders, while male family members join different groups. Such societies would naturally revolve around generations of women. The Oakington site might provide a comparable example, though centuries later, of a similar kind of female-dominated group."

Damn I’m turning superstitious…usually I disregard these 🤷🏾‍♀️

Well crap… can’t hurt though

it took over 10 years but we fucking got em!

As I am headed toward fifty, I realize I am a traditionalist. Not a patriarchal one, the real one.

Read more at The First Church of Matriarchy.

Mother of the sacred fire,

Hear my words,

Deliver my desire.

Hekáte, Queen of Witches,

Plentiful provider,

Deliver my wishes.

Goddess of the Moon,

Sacred rites,

Deliver my fortune.

women need to become more comfortable just saying “i don’t really care about that”

Why Hype Erodes Communication

Modernreaders often wince at the flowery language of Jane Austen or Shakespeare, imagining their prose as the overgrown garden of English expression—ornate, indulgent, and in dire need of a trim. By contrast, today's language feels lean, efficient, even minimal. But this is a charming delusion. Austen may have taken a hundred words to describe a dinner party, but at least each word meant what it said. Shakespeare could pen a sonnet about love and still make more sense than most quarterly strategy memos. What has changed is not so much the length of our sentences but the weight of our words. Where once prose aimed to illuminate, modern managerial language too often aims to impress, seduce, or evade. Today, the inflation isn't ornamental—it's strategic. We have swapped the elegance of metaphor for the opacity of jargon and called it progress.

In an age when transformational is the adjective of choice for everything from coffee machines to calendar invites, the question must be asked—what's left for the truly radical? Semantic inflation, a term borrowed from the domain of philosophy and linguistics, refers to the diminishing value of words through their overuse or misuse. Like economic inflation that reduces the purchasing power of money, semantic inflation erodes the communicative power of language.

Management communication has become ground zero for this linguistic drift. Executives no longer solve problems; they solution them. Teams don't meet challenges; they activate cross-functional paradigms. Organisations are no longer just busy; they are hyper-agile ecosystems of change readiness. Much like counterfeit currency, such language undermines trust and obfuscates intent.

Hype is not merely irritating managerial fluff. It is corrosive and organisationally dysfunctional. In its place, there is the opportunity to replace performance with sincerity and achieve clarity, restraint, and meaning.

The Inflation of Noise

The logic of managerial language is not one of utility, but of display. Organisations are no longer sites of deliberation but stages for performance. Managers don't say what they mean—they perform what they must signal. Enter: neologistic inflation.

A neologism (literally a 'new word') is not inherently suspect. Language evolves—good thing. But when coined for rhetorical overkill or pseudo-novelty, neologisms become parasites on the body of conceptual clarity. The term solutioning is an illustrative case. It arises from a need to differentiate the consultant's deliverable from the mundane act of solving a problem—because solving sounds old-fashioned, and heaven forbid a consultant appear pedestrian.

While buzzwords operate as markers of group identity, symbolic capital, and the perception of strategic sophistication—but not the reality—this halo effect comes at the cost of clarity and workgroup coordination. An effect that is not trivial. Language in organisations is a tool for coordination and trust-building. When language is inflated, it ceases to function in that capacity. Miscommunication increases, misunderstanding proliferates, and cynicism festers—eroding organisational culture. When an employee hears that their team is 'activating a solution pathway to stakeholder alignment', what they experience is not galvanisation but linguistic vertigo.

Orwell, writing in Politics and the English Language, warned of prose that is a 'mass of Latin words fall[ing] upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details.' The corporate equivalent today is a quarterly update filled with terms like 'scalable engagement architecture' and 'mission-centric alignment'. The more words are used to obscure action, the less action is understood.

This culture of communicative inflation shares DNA with what Scruton called 'cultural decadence'—a turning away from meaning in favour of aesthetic display. In managerial life, this aestheticism becomes its own telos or objective: the PowerPoint deck is more important than the strategy; the vision statement more sacred than its implementation.

In short, hype reorientates communication away from shared understanding and toward symbolic management. It is not meant to say something true, but to show something desirable—to show success! The tragicomic result: language that dazzles but fails to inform.

The Disappearance of Accountability

To understand the ethical damage inflicted by hype, it is first necessary to consider how communication relates to accountability. Language structures attention. What we name, we notice. What we inflate, we distort. In this sense, hype is not just semantically lazy—it is ethically evasive.

Take, for example, the term 'proactive'. Its popularity stems from a kind of syntactical gymnastics that turns the simple act of engagement into a virtue-signalling halo. Being active used to suffice; I made plans, anticipated events, and delivered outcomes. But to be proactive? That sounds like I have developed a sixth sense for managerial prescience.

In an organisational context, such terminology leads to the appearance of competence, without its substance, and fosters managerial hyperbole; a tendency to speak as though action is being taken when only performance is occurring. It is the verbal cousin of risk displacement: shifting the burden of clarity from the speaker to the listener under the guise of strategic cleverness.

Ethical communication requires what the ancients called parrhesia (παρρησία)—candid speech. It is an act of courage, not linguistic theatre. Yet parrhesia is difficult in an organisational environment saturated with impression management. This is particularly evident in public sector organisations and NGOs, where linguistic inflation often masquerades as inclusion or ethical urgency. I must ask whether the adoption of terms like 'co-design ecosystems' genuinely enhances participation or merely flatters the consultants who coin them.

Ethical discernment requires clarity in the naming and framing of actions. Mislabeling managerial actions—for example, calling a layoff a 'transition to operational excellence'—does not merely mask pain, it impedes ethical deliberation. Euphemism does not soften the blow; it anaesthetises accountability. Only through discernment can we redeem the necessary ambiguity of life.

This is the ethical cost of hype. It disconnects speech from reality and shields actors from the consequences of their decisions. Hype becomes not just a linguistic trend but an institutionalised habit of avoidance. When managers are no longer accountable for what they say—because what they say has no anchor in meaning—they become unaccountable for what they do.

Restoring Semantic Integrity

What, then, is to be done? The cure for hype is not a linguistic purge—though I am tempted to fantasise about a compliance filter that red-flags every use of synergy or proactive. Instead, the antidote lies in reviving a culture of linguistic discipline, one that values clarity, restraint, and meaning over novelty, noise, and neologism.

Organisational scholars should, at the very least, cease rewarding empty linguistic spectacle. Peer-reviewed journals must resist the seduction of terminology that promises the radical but delivers the banal. There is no shame in calling a solution an answer.

Trainers, too, have a role. Managers must be taught that communication is not decoration. They should be shown Orwell's famous rules for clear writing and taught to fear verbs that disguise rather than disclose.

Ultimately, clarity in language is clarity in thought—and clarity in thought is the foundation of ethical action. If management is, at its core, an ethical enterprise—then its language must reflect that ethical seriousness. Otherwise, organisations risk becoming places where people do not merely fail to understand one another—they forget what understanding was ever supposed to mean.

Good night, and good luck.

Source: Why Hype Erodes Communication

Oh how happy I feel knowing a smart woman somewhere took down these clowns!

Queen of Hounds,

Guardian of the Gate,

Protect us, blessed Mother Hekáte!

women changing their last name to their husband’s should not be normalized anymore

Babies taking their fathers name after their mother carries them for months and then does an hours or days long labour to give birth to them and then doing most of the child work should not be normalised anymore.

Babies taking their mother's name and family line should, infact, be normalized.

Gosh trans people are really the number one issue on these people's minds at all points in time. How is it possible that a billionaire is using his money to influence the American governments and JKR and trans people are still a fucking talking point.

*man does some bullshit*

"oh if JKR could do the same bullshit she would! You see, trans people..." Like are we actually just writing baseless lies about women now? trans exclusive is really the worst thing a woman can be huh

Mexicans are being sent to concentration camps and the only thing they can think about is themselves. It’s actually fucking sick.

Try not centering yourselves for five fucking minutes.

Yeah and let's not forget that the lady who is no longer a billionaire because she donates so much money to charity is somehow worse than the current nazi in the us government.

It's sad and pathetic

"Books are Teslas"

As a book lover, I've never had a stronger urge to commit murder.

𝒯𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓈 ℐ𝓃𝓉ℯ𝓇𝓃ℯ𝓉 𝒫ℴ𝓇𝓃ℴ𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓅𝒽𝓎 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒫𝒶ℯ𝒹ℴ𝓅𝒿𝒾𝓁𝒾𝒶 𝓇ℯ𝓈ℯ𝒶𝓇𝓍𝒽ℯ𝓇 ℋℯ𝒶𝓉𝒽ℯ𝓇 𝒲ℴℴ𝒹