this is my first network, so i got a feeling this is going to get exiting!
☆ must be following me
☆ multifandom or supernatural blog
☆ reblog this as many times as you want to
☆ i will start picking out people each week, starting thursday!
if you get accepted
☆ must be following at least five members of the network.
☆ you must send me a sentence or two and a icon you want to use!
☆ maybe we will use skype, so an account for that
☆ follow at least 5 blogs of the network
☆ need to have a link to the networks page somewhere on your blog.
☆ probably more followers<3
☆ a link in the networks page
☆ my love and help with polls etc.
☆ updates will be found in the “tricksternetwork” tag.
☆ if you want to, you can tag a post with “tricksternetwork” with why you want to be chosen, but it wont necessarily increase the chances!
THIS IS NOW RE-OPENING AND I WILL START ADDING NEW PEOPLE STARTING NEXT SATURDAY.
Yet some would say, why women’s history at all? Surely men and women have always shared a world, and suffered together all its rights and wrongs? It is a common belief that whatever the situation, both sexes faced it alike. But the male peasant, however cruelly oppressed, always had the right to beat his wife. The black slave had to labor for the white master by day, but he did not have to service him by night as well. This grim pattern continues to this day, with women bearing an extra ration of pain and misery whatever the circumstances, as the sufferings of the women of war-torn Eastern Europe will testify. While their men fought and died, wholesale and systematic rape—often accompanied by the same torture and death that the men suffered—was a fate only women had to endure. Women’s history springs from moments of recognition such as this, and the awareness of the difference is still very new. Only in our time have historians begun to look at the historical experience of men and women separately, and to acknowledge that for most of our human past, women’s interests have
been opposed to those of men. Women’s interests have been opposed by them, too: men have not willingly extended to women the rights and freedoms they have claimed for themselves. As a result, historical advances have tended to be “men only” affairs. When history concentrates
solely on one half of the human race, any alternative truth or
reality is lost. Men dominate history because they write it, and their accounts of active, brave, clever or aggressive females constantly tend to sentimentalize, to mythologize or to pull women back to some perceived “norm.” As a result, much of the so-called historical record is simply untrue. For example, Joan of Arc was burned not for heresy but for wearing men’s clothes, as were other women right up to the
eighteenth century. Florence Nightingale was never called “the Lady with the Lamp,” but “the Lady with the Hammer,” an image deftly readjusted by the war reporter of the Times since it was far too coarse for the folks back home. Far from gliding about the hospital with her lamp aloft, Nightingale earned her nickname through a ferocious attack on a locked storeroom when a military commander refused to
give her the medical supplies she needed.
We also need women’s history because so much of women’s participation is frankly denied in the ceaseless effort to assert men’s “natural” superiority at all costs. Who knows now that the owner of the Round Table was not Arthur but Guenevere, or that generations of battling queens in India and Arabia helped to make their countries what they are today? And these distortions did not only occur in our
misty, distant past. Who ever hears of the all-female crack combat battalions in this century’s two World Wars, or knows what part women played in the discovery of quasars and DNA? What of the women’s space flight program in NASA’s glory days of moon landings, an initiative suddenly and ingloriously shut down without explanation, although the women’s results were at least as good as the men’s?
Reminders of women’s centrality to the human race are also crucial; they combat the persistent sense that discrimination against women is still somehow okay. In January 2000, Time magazine hailed Gandhi and Winston Churchill as two of the three “Persons of the Century” for their wisdom, leadership and all-around worth. The accounts of the two “great” men freely acknowledged that Gandhi had habitually abused women and that Churchill was a ferocious, lifelong
antifeminist, without any sense that this diminished their greatness at all. Substitute “blacks” for “women” and “racist” for “antifeminist,” and it is clear that both men would be candidates for disgrace, not for election to the pantheon of the great.
actual Harry Potter
the awkward moment when the actor playing harry potter is a better representation of book harry potter than movie harry potter
And that’s the moment Sherlock realized how much he underestimated Molly Hooper.
I love how she just pushes it out. Like she doesn’t back down and go “oh sorry nevermind” even though you can totally see how uncomfortable she is. She needs to tell him that she understands, and open up that channel of communication with him. So he knows he has someone
Fuck so cute man
if you think about it, molly’s words could be applied to herself as well
Molly is a queen and haters can step to the left
Benedict Cumberbatch edits, 10/??? More.
Yep this is my John Harrison part of the photoshoot.
Does the Doctor use John Smith because it’s such a common sounding name, or is John Smith a common sounding name because the Doctor continually uses it?
what … what have you done … . .WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?
"I feel I owe you another explanation, Harry," said Dumbledore hesitantly. "You may, perhaps, have wondered why I never chose you as a prefect? I must confess… that I rather thought… you had enough responsibility to be going on with."
Harry looked up at him and saw a tear trickling down Dumbledore’s face into his long silver beard.
page 844, Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix