medievalpoc:

Hiya,
I’ve started a new tumblr to share free/open nonfiction ebooks made available by the publisher.
Lascasbookshelf.tumblr.com
The first few titles include
as well as some titles that deal with 20th history
I’d be grateful if you could let your readers know
Cheers
This is an absolute GEM of a tumblr! Thank you so much for letting me know and sharing these FREE BOOKS with everyone!! I have added links in above.

GEM!

Feminist

smartinalina:

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

FLAWLESS

It was easy a long time ago in history, and now too, to disregard the “evil” actions of others as them being possessed by something, by a demon. This removes the person’s own accountability for the action and, like a girlfriend who blames her boyfriend’s cheating on the other woman, allows the actions to continue. But our history is built on that, on blaming our own fucked up actions on others, especially on unseen and unconquerable forces. On giving each other a break for the fucked up things we do. So it is hard, very hard, to move away from that historic mold. The mold of un-accountability, you could call it.
This manifests itself in a lot of different ways. Although it is now rare to find a person who blames their actions on witches or the devil, it is very common to blame people’s actions on “they just lost it”. A man beats his wife, rapes her even, and he “just lost it”, “was just overcome with emotion”, “just couldn’t control himself”. This form of lack of accountability is WIDELY accepted in our culture. Unbelievably so.
But no, that is not how it works. Abusive men do not “just lose it”. Abusive men, just like everybody else, have a line of actions they will not cross. Lundy Barcroft’s amazing book Why does he do that? chronicles it well. When you think about it, all of us have a “line” that we will not cross for our actions. Go out drinking, and most people have a limit. Fight with your boyfriend, and there’s some things you would never say out loud, even if you think it. You may argue but you would never put your hands on them, no matter how angry they made you. Well, abusive people just have that line further. Or they have a line, but consciously choose to cross it. Regardless, it is a conscious choice to harm someone. And it is made after years of conditioning that certain acts and ways of thought, such as misogyny, are acceptable.
This is not coming from the actions of a demon, from some evil we cannot name, from some evil that no one else possesses. No. This is coming from a manifestation of the terrible systems we already have in place, such as patriarchy and imperialism. These people just take it to heart. I would love to say that they take it further than most, but that is untrue. All around the world, violence against women is a norm. This isn’t an evil demon of possession, this is a culturally influenced act. An act that you DO have the power and accountability to say no to. Culture is an explanation, not an excuse. Everyone is still accountable for their own actions, including abusive ones. And I believe, in order to eradicate abuse, we MUST hold ourselves and our loved ones accountable for when we wrong.

It was easy a long time ago in history, and now too, to disregard the “evil” actions of others as them being possessed by something, by a demon. This removes the person’s own accountability for the action and, like a girlfriend who blames her boyfriend’s cheating on the other woman, allows the actions to continue.

But our history is built on that, on blaming our own fucked up actions on others, especially on unseen and unconquerable forces. On giving each other a break for the fucked up things we do. So it is hard, very hard, to move away from that historic mold. The mold of un-accountability, you could call it.

This manifests itself in a lot of different ways. Although it is now rare to find a person who blames their actions on witches or the devil, it is very common to blame people’s actions on “they just lost it”. A man beats his wife, rapes her even, and he “just lost it”, “was just overcome with emotion”, “just couldn’t control himself”. This form of lack of accountability is WIDELY accepted in our culture. Unbelievably so.

But no, that is not how it works. Abusive men do not “just lose it”. Abusive men, just like everybody else, have a line of actions they will not cross. Lundy Barcroft’s amazing book Why does he do that? chronicles it well. When you think about it, all of us have a “line” that we will not cross for our actions. Go out drinking, and most people have a limit. Fight with your boyfriend, and there’s some things you would never say out loud, even if you think it. You may argue but you would never put your hands on them, no matter how angry they made you. Well, abusive people just have that line further. Or they have a line, but consciously choose to cross it. Regardless, it is a conscious choice to harm someone. And it is made after years of conditioning that certain acts and ways of thought, such as misogyny, are acceptable.

This is not coming from the actions of a demon, from some evil we cannot name, from some evil that no one else possesses. No. This is coming from a manifestation of the terrible systems we already have in place, such as patriarchy and imperialism. These people just take it to heart. I would love to say that they take it further than most, but that is untrue. All around the world, violence against women is a norm. This isn’t an evil demon of possession, this is a culturally influenced act. An act that you DO have the power and accountability to say no to. Culture is an explanation, not an excuse. Everyone is still accountable for their own actions, including abusive ones. And I believe, in order to eradicate abuse, we MUST hold ourselves and our loved ones accountable for when we wrong.

(Source: messydeath)

mulders:

Men Stop Threatening To Kill Your Daughters Boyfriends To Prove Your Masculinity and Show That Your Daughter Is Your Property 2k14

French princess Isabella was only 12 years old in 1308 when she sailed into the court of English king Edward II as his wife. And he, the 24-year-old freshly crowned monarch, was very much in love  …   just not with her. The person Edward was in love with was a young knight named Piers Gaveston. That Edward had a lover wasn’t shocking, nor was it a big problem that his lover was a man. The problem, as the English court saw it, was how “immoderately” Edward loved the glamorous, arrogant Gaveston— enough to risk his entire kingdom and the lives of thousands of soldiers. When Gaveston was around, Edward was worse than useless, barely able to hold a conversation, much less govern. When Gaveston wasn’t around, Edward was a wreck.

While Edward and Isabella were married in France, Gaveston stayed in England with his own child bride, Edward’s 15-year-old niece. Less than a month later, Isabella witnessed firsthand just how deep the man’s hooks went into her husband’s heart. During the ceremony at Westminster Abbey investing Isabella with the title of queen, it was Gaveston who held the crown. At the coronation feast afterward, he sat next to the king under tapestries that depicted not the emblems of Edward and Isabella but the arms of Edward and Gaveston. And just to turn the dagger a bit more, Edward handed over the wedding gifts from Isabella’s father— jewels, warhorses, the whole lot— to his one true love. Isabella’s uncles, who had attended the coronation, returned to France in a frothy rage. Which was bad news, given that France and England were perpetually squabbling and barely maintaining an uneasy truce. England was already embroiled in a conflict with Scotland and didn’t need another front to open up. England’s powerful magnates— the lords and earls who really ruled the land— decided that Gaveston was too great a distraction for the king and needed to be removed. But attempts to exile the king’s favorite proved futile. Edward would send Gaveston away and then, a few months later, call him back.

Their frustration with Edward reached a boiling point in 1312; civil war was in the making. Edward and Gaveston traveled the countryside, trying to keep ahead of the lords baying for the latter’s blood, but they couldn’t run for long— England is only so big. On May 19, Gaveston surrendered to the king’s enemies at Scarborough Castle, where Edward had left him ensconced with a battalion. Just over a month later, Gaveston was executed, brutally and without a trial. The king swore he’d have his revenge.

Isabella, meanwhile, was biding her time. She’d become an adult while following Edward and Gaveston around the country; at the time of Gaveston’s execution, she was pregnant with her husband’s son and heir. On November 12, 1312, the 17-year-old queen gave birth to a healthy baby boy. She’d done her duty to crown and husband, and her position was secure. She had also accumulated enough political acumen to manage her useless husband and try to keep the nation from civil war. Edward and his warring lords patched things up long enough to sign a peace treaty, which got them through the first few months of 1313 without killing one another. With Isabella’s mediation, the lords swore fealty to Edward once again, but it was a tenuous peace. The Scots were hammering England’s defenses to the north, and Edward’s most powerful earl (and the man responsible in part for Gaveston’s murder), a man named Lancaster, refused to aid him. Worse, Lancaster was actively plotting against Edward while England was left rudderless, without a real leader.

Isabella remained at Edward’s side, his confidante and advisor. That is, until about 1318, when Edward again became infatuated with a young man in his company. Unlike the foppish Gaveston, Hugh Despenser was shrewd, cruel, and paranoid. He used the royal relationship to seize his rivals’ lands and treasuries. As Despenser hoarded more gold and more land, more and more lords began defecting to Lancaster’s side. Isabella worked to maintain peace between her husband, his magnates, and an irate France, but they all demanded that Despenser be exiled. In July 1321, Edward gave the order; ever the sly one, Despenser went only as far as the English Channel, where he and his father turned to pirating merchant ships while awaiting word from Edward. Meanwhile, the king’s struggles with Lancaster came to a head. Lancaster found himself on the losing side of the battle; he was arrested and executed as a traitor. Edward had his revenge.

Edward may have won a battle, but he was about to lose the war. Triumphant after Lancaster’s death, he hastily called the Despensers back to England and made Hugh his chief advisor. Ever the opportunist, Hugh then started to make moves on Isabella’s property and that of her children. Bad decision.

Hell hath no fury like a woman whose children’s birthright is in danger. Now a seasoned political manipulator, Isabella waited for just the right moment to act, and in 1325 opportunity finally landed in her lap. By then, England’s relationship with France had frayed over land that both claimed to rule. It was decided that Isabella was ideally suited to work out a solution with her relatives back home. So the queen (who had likely planted the idea with Edward and Despenser) made her way back to France, where she spent several restorative months in the bosom of her family. Six months after landing in Calais, she was followed by her son, 12-year-old Prince Edward, on the pretext that relations between France and England would be softened if he were made duke of Aquitaine. And just like that, 27-year-old Isabella held the trump card: the heir to the English throne.

Within weeks, Isabella showed her hand. “I feel that marriage is a joining together of man and woman  …   and someone has come between my husband and myself trying to break this bond,” she said in a statement. “I protest that I will not return until this intruder is removed.” Edward was gobsmacked. “On her departure, she did not seem to anyone to be offended,” he supposedly remarked. Isabella’s plan was ingenious and subtle. Her husband was a useless king, but she couldn’t say so without looking like a traitor. So she cleverly shifted the blame to Despenser and cast herself as the dutiful wronged wife. Isabella also knew that Edward was unlikely to be a worthy leader even if Despenser were removed. Lucky, then, that she happened to have an alternative ready to roll and under her control: her son, the prince.

Isabella had spent the last six months getting all her ducks in a row. Not only did she have France on her side, she had also won the loyalty of a faction of disaffected Englishmen to legitimize her rebellion. They were led by Roger Mortimer, one of the nobles who had led the revolt against Edward. Two years earlier, Mortimer had made a daring escape from the Tower of London and turned up in the French court. He and Isabella met up in Paris; he became not only her captain, but her lover as well.

To get her son on the throne, Isabella needed military might, so she and Mortimer engineered a marriage between young Edward and the daughter of a French count. In late September 1326, Isabella and Mortimer set sail for England with her daughter-in-law’s dowry— 700 soldiers— along with a pack of mercenaries paid for by Isabella’s brother, the king of France. Isabella was, without a doubt, at the head of this operation; one fourteenth-century image shows her leading the troops while clad in shiny armor. Popular support for her as a romantic, righteous figurehead had been growing since word of her rebellion spread; that support, and her ranks, continued to swell after she returned to English soil. Edward had fallen out of favor not only with his lords and magnates but also among his people, who had suffered famine and war while he was occupied with avenging his lover’s death.

The end came swiftly. On November 16, the king and his companion were caught trying to make it across open country in Wales. Hugh Despenser was brought before the queen and her lords and sentenced to death. He was dragged through the streets, stripped naked, and hauled 50 feet in the air by his neck. He was then disemboweled while alive and castrated— punishment, it was rumored, for his intimate relationship with the king. As if all that wasn’t enough, he was beheaded, too.

The king was confined to Monmouth Castle as a prisoner of Henry of Lancaster, brother of the rebellious earl whom Edward had executed four years before. But Isabella and Mortimer still had one problem: with Despenser gone, the dynamic duo no longer had reason to challenge Edward’s fitness to rule. So, clever Isabella argued that, by fleeing to Wales, Edward had abandoned England and his right to rule it. Prince Edward was, therefore, the rightful king. The relieved bishops and lords of England agreed. Now all that remained was to convince Edward to resign the throne in favor of his son. Faced with overwhelming opposition, he agreed, and Prince Edward, just 14 years old, became King Edward III on February 1, 1327. Isabella, as the mother of the underage ruler, and Mortimer, as leader of the deposing army, now held authority in England.

The situation was unprecedented— it was the first time the country had ever had a living ex-king. And there was also the issue of Isabella’s marriage: Edward may have been an ex-king, but he was not her ex-husband. With Despenser gone, she had no legitimate reason not to return to him. Moreover, Edward’s very existence posed a threat to the new regime, especially since it appeared he wasn’t completely without supporters. Indeed, by September 1327, three plots to free him had been foiled. So the queen and her captain hit upon a more traditional means of ridding themselves of this troublesome ex-king: murder.

The story is probably apocryphal, but later chroniclers morbidly insist that Edward II was murdered by the violent application of a red-hot poker up his backside. However death occured, on the night of September 21, 1327, the 43-year-old relatively robust former king conveniently died. He was buried with all the ceremony accorded to a dead monarch, his wife and son weeping and kneeling before his gilded hearse.

But young King Edward III, it seems, had learned a trick or two at his mother’s knee. Though Isabella and Mortimer were content to run things in England indefinitely, Edward wasn’t about to sit idly by and watch them do it. In late 1330, just three years after Isabella and Mortimer seized power, the 18-year-old king outflanked them. Mortimer was arrested as a traitor by a group of nobles loyal to the crown; he was hung on November 29, 1330. Isabella had but one choice: accept the death of her lover and an enforced retirement, surrendering her vast estates to her son. Ever the realist, she did so within a week of Mortimer’s execution. Isabella lived the rest of her life in quiet obedience to her son, dying in 1358. The “She-Wolf of France,” as she came to be called, was buried as she requested: with a silver vase containing the heart of her husband, the man she’d kicked off the throne and probably murdered.

Princesses Behaving Badly: Real Stories From History Without the Fairy-Tale Endings

(via leslieknope)

Where is this miniseries ?

(via persephoneshadow)

(Bolding mine.)

LOVE IT

(via mpreg-tony)

I literally bought the book three seconds after reading this passage. Looking forward to reading it :) 

DAMN!

I’m an OBGYN and I practice at a jail, where I take care of incarcerated women.

People often ask me, how did you come to work with incarcerated women? I was in the middle of my first year residency, delivering a baby. Everything was very familiar about the delivery scene; the nervousness, wondering if everything was going to be okay, helping the woman to push. But the one thing that was different is that she was shackled to the bed; she was a prisoner. And that moment troubled me so deeply that I developed an interest in learning more about these women.

Women make up a much smaller proportion of the correctional population than men — about 9% of everyone who is incarcerated. And 62% of [those] women are mothers to children who are less than 18 years old. Because women comprise such a small proportion, their gender-specific needs have been neglected. That’s particularly salient when it comes to their healthcare.

In theory, women do have the choice to have an abortion if they learn they are pregnant when they are in prison. There are constitutional guarantees — the 8th and the 14th amendments — and a number of judicial precedents, so it’s very clear that incarcerated women should have access to abortion. However, in practice, the people who are making the decisions have incredible discretion and many women lack access to abortion if they choose it.

About 1400-2000 births occur every year to women who are behind bars, and what they get for prenatal care is highly variable. There are standards that require prisons to have prenatal care onsite, but on the ground, some women have to be transported offsite and some women don’t even get prenatal care.

In labor, they usually get transported to an outside hospital. They can’t have any family support members in the room, and only 15 states have laws restricting the shackling of women in labor and delivery. A woman in labor, shackled, is what inspired me to work with this population. It’s inhumane and unnecessary, and it poses a lot of medical risks to the mother and the fetus. It also interferes with our ability to do emergent interventions if necessary.

People think prisons and jails are far away and we forget about the people who get locked up inside; we think they have nothing to do with us. So I hope I’ve given you some things to consider about what it’s like to be a woman when you’re in the grip of the prison or jail system.

From Dr. Carolyn Sufrin’s talk on incarcerated women and reproductive healthcare. Filmed at TEDxInnerSunset. 

Watch the full talk here »

(via tedx)

Why are east Asian women really hypersexualized in western countries? When did this start and is it more present in North America compared to Europe or is it the same? Also, do you think that all woc are hypersexualized to the same extent or do certain woc experience it more than others? Thanks.

@weepingreaper-x

angrywocunited:

Sunny Woan, the author of White Sexual Imperialism: A Theory on Asian Feminist Jurisprudence, stated white sexual imperialism, through rape and war, created the hyper-sexualized stereotype of Asian women. This stereotype in turn fostered the over-prevalence of Asian women in pornography, the mail-order bride phenomenon, the Asian fetish syndrome, and worst of all, sexual violence against Asian women. The hyper-sexualization of Asian women is universal, not exclusively in North America and Europe. Woc are hyper-sexualized to the same extent but hyper-sexualized differently. For example, Animalistic black woman, Submissive Asian woman, Spicy, fiery Latina, Exotic Native woman etc. -G

How does the hyper-sexualization of Eastern European and French women play into this? They come from imperialist cultures, and are perhaps less sexualized than WoC but still a disproportionate amount.

Shoutouts to all the indigenous folks of North and South America who speak their native tongue on a daily basis despite the oppressor’s world is still trying to take away what make each nation and tribe unique.

whitepeoplestealingculture:

I truly salute you.

(Source: takingbackourculture)

oppressed group: *speaks about their lived experiences being marginalized*
oppressors: source?

Russia’s ancient history grew on trees

archaeologicalnews:

image

VELIKY NOVGOROD, RUSSIA — The note, from father to son, was the sort of routine shopping list that today would be dashed off on a smartphone. In 14th century Russia, it was etched into the bark of a birch tree and curled into a scroll.

“Send me a shirt, towel, trousers, reins, and, for my sister, send fabric,” the father, whose name was Onus, wrote to his son, Danilo, the block letters of Old Novgorod language, a precursor to Russian, neatly carved into the wood with a stylus. Onus ended with a bit of humor. “If I am alive,” he wrote, “I will pay for it.” 

The scroll and a dozen others like it were among the finds from this year’s digging season, adding to a collection of more than 1,000 birch-bark documents uncovered here after being preserved for hundreds of years in the magical mud that makes this city one of the most extraordinary archaeological sites on earth. Read more.