So: I submitted an entry to a national newspaper’s Future View section (in which they ask for younger people’s opinions on current events). This one was specifically in reference to the Trump administration’s ICE policies; I submitted a response saying that I think they are heinous and often illegal, etc. etc. All done, all good…. Until I mentioned it to my mom off handedly and she basically freaked out, telling me that expressing any political viewpoint could completely ruin my future career as someone headed for the social services and academia. I know she’s a huge worry wort by nature, and I doubt they’ll publish what I sent in anyway, but it’s kind of gotten into my head, so….
Reblogged paulinedorchester
CITATION STYLES THUNDERDOME
Hey @jstor I need to know where the real authority on citation styles would land in this poll.
No all of the above option?
Reblogged
i’m going to start flagrantly lying about corsets to counteract all the historical costuming people being weird about them
corsets killed hundreds of women each day
corsets were responsible for the irish potato famine and the great chicago fire
It’s actually false that historical low life expectancy is due to infant mortality, it’s because corsets killed thousands of women a week.
not many people know this but it was corsets that caused the schism of 1054. masterminded the whole thing.
The explosion was because the Hindenburg was wearing a corset.
there wasn’t even a jack the ripper their corsets just did that
I think my favorite type of attempted “hot” take that is actually colder than dry ice is the “There’s no such thing as [insert something that there very much is such a thing as]” declaration. Like thank you so much, it was actually very considerate of you to immediately let people know that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and everything else you say about the subject should be ignored 👍
I hate wading into generational disc horse but I absolutely love reading about how people of prior generations *think* that Gen Zers (and digital natives in general) grew up. Apparently we were sitting at home on our phones all day everyday (except for when we went to school—where we never interacted with our peers or teachers), not allowed to go outside without an armed convoy and three layers of bubble wrap.
#this whole thing reminds me of how my dad was once like#“I had the coolest teenage years ever 😎you wouldn’t imagine the crazy stuff I got up to.#you kids never do anything anymore.’’#and I mentioned this to my mom who was like ‘’??? his mom told me he was home reading or watching tv from the moment#he got home from school. WTF.’’#generationology
Historical figures I think should show up in "The Gilded Age" for no other reason than they were alive in the 1880's:
+ Emma Lazarus (whom Marian could meet, perhaps via her charity/social advocacy work).
+ Ida B. Wells (she should at the very least get a reference in passing at some point in the show. She didn't live in NYC, however, so her showing up might be a bit of a stretch.)
+ Samuel Gompers (he could show up and scare George 👻)
+ Anthony Comstock (terrible person, still very influential in the 1880's).
+ Ernestine Rose (who Marian could also meet her via charity/social work).
+ Harriet Tubman lived in New York in the 1880's and they really have no excuse not to have her show up at some point.
+ Susan B. Anthony and/or Elizabeth Cady Stanton (should also at least get referenced in passing, but they should really show up since the latter lived in NYC during this time period and the former had deep ties there).
+ Clarence Darrow (although the 1880's may be a little while before he hit his peak prominence).
(Who am I forgetting?)
#my point is that there were a lot of interesting people living in New York in the 1880's#and a lot of other people who may not have lived there but would at least be known of by the characters#and this show is barely scratching the surface.#i would be content if even two of these people showed up at some point though.#history#the gilded age
It's still bothering me how badly Julian Fellowes completely screwed up the timeline for Peggy's family, given the new information in S3E3. If her father was free and able to move north only after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 (at the earliest; it's possible that that wouldn't have been the case until the Civil War was over entirely in 1865), and assuming that it took him like 5+ years to undergo his pharmacy education and start his business (which it probably would have), then that puts Arthur and Dorothy's marriage around the late 1860's at the earliest and more likely the early 1870's. (I get the sense that her parents never would have agreed to her marrying someone poor and newly free, so he would have had to be at least somewhat well established by the time they married.) But that is literally impossible since Peggy is written as being in her twenties in 1882-1884, making her birth sometime before 1863, way before her parents could have even imagined meeting.
Reblogged
the thing about bertha and the Duke is that if bertha had been handed the same chance that she is handing gladys now she would have absolutely without hesitation taken that chance, grabbed it with both hands and made it her own. She's operating under the assumption that gladys has (or will develop at a later point in time) the same ambition that bertha, and arguably everybody else in the family, possess. And maybe, because of her analytical and self possessed nature, and her "everything will turn out for me as I want it to be" outlook on life (which is probably the thing that will become her downfall) it just doesn't even occur to her that her daughter doesn't share the same social aspirations that the rest of the family shares, that have acted as a foundation and amplifier of bertha and georges relationship from the beginning and have accompanied her and invaded every facet of her life in the past 20 or more years. This ambition has become so engrained in her that she just can't fathom why anybody (gladys, george, larry) would NOT do the things she's doing to reach her rightful place.
Yep, she lacks theory of mind for Gladys for sure. What she's doing would be very benign, or even noble, if Gladys was the type to want marry 'up' (as many people did at the time), and there genuinely are a lot of good points to be made for why the marriage is to Gladys' practical advantage.
As a side note: I have the (potentially unpopular?) opinion that Bertha really is doing this with basically altruistic motives, that it really is just for Gladys' sake and not, as some people think, purely to improve her (Bertha's) own social standing in New York. If it were just to improve her own standing and she truly didn't care about Gladys' happiness at all, that would be a different matter, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to be much more because she wants Gladys in particular to have long term power and security, which was an understandable goal at the time.
Reblogged
The real reason they don't want to release him is that they don't want him to tell the world what he saw and what is really going on in these places. Every detainee must be released and everyone involved in this must face justice for their crimes. "I was only following orders" is not an excuse.
Keep calling your representatives and keep protesting. This cannot be allowed.