in winged words

[i sing of times transshifting]
So, just as an fyi, I’m disappearing off here for two weeks. I may or may not have internet access, and if I do, it’ll be really spotty, so see you in two weeks!

So, just as an fyi, I’m disappearing off here for two weeks. I may or may not have internet access, and if I do, it’ll be really spotty, so see you in two weeks!

houghtonlib:

As Scotland votes on its independence referendum tomorrow, a look back at some items from our collection promoting the union of the two crowns after the accession of James I in 1603.

Disclaimer: Houghton takes no position on the merits of union between Scotland and England, now or in 1603.

Cornwallis, William, Sir, -1631? The miraculous and happie union of England and Scotland. STC 5782.5

Thornborough, John, 1551-1641. A discourse plainely proving the euident vtilitie and vrgent necessitie of the desired happie vnion of the two famous kingdomes of England and Scotland. STC 24035

Hayward, John, Sir, 1564?-1627. A treatise of union of the two realmes of England and Scotland. STC 13011

I am English and therefore don’t really get to wade in on the independence referendum debate because it’s for Scots to decide (not that this has stopped my local news endlessly pontificating on what Scottish independence would mean for Yorkshire people, but you know) BUT as a keen early modernist I am starting to worry about how much James I/VI is flailing and rolling in his grave. My usual position on James I is that I find him endlessly amusing but all I can picture right now is him wailing ‘but, you guysssssss, I worked soooooo hard for this!’ and, to be honest, I’m feeling kind of sorry for the poor (long dead) guy.

(via shredsandpatches)

beatonna:

The University of California’s English Broadside Ballad Archive is also a fantastic project, with a dedicated team making previously hard to find (on microfiche or in archive) broadsides available to everyone, and transcribed to modern eyes and ears.  Amazing.  What we have online is amazing.

beatonna:

The University of California’s English Broadside Ballad Archive is also a fantastic project, with a dedicated team making previously hard to find (on microfiche or in archive) broadsides available to everyone, and transcribed to modern eyes and ears.  Amazing.  What we have online is amazing.

(via plenilune)

soyonscruels:

mythopoeticlicense:

soyonscruels:

duhjwooly:

duhjwooly:

tocifer:

soyonscruels:

i mean lmao off the top of my head: we still live in a country where any man who’s had sex with a man in the past 12 months can’t give blood and people are like, wow, this fight is over now!

okay, guys.

wait what? why? how does that even make any sense??

Actually isn’t it “since [the date of the first appearance of HIV/AIDS in the US] 1977”. So, if a man has had sex with another man, at any time between now and 1977, in the United States, he can’t donate blood. Like that was the specific question I was asked (by a kiosk) last time I tried to donate blood.

It’s complete bullshit.

Just realized OP is probably from the UK….my bad

lmao i am from the uk and i went to university with the son of a prominent human rights lawyer who tried and failed to get this law completely abolished, so. yeah. you cannot give blood if you are a man who has had sex with a man in the past 12 months. (i’m surprised no one has tried to get even just get the specific wording of this changed, tbh, as presumably it actually means ‘cisgender men’ and/or ‘sex between two people with penises’ even but idk. homophobes. who knows what they’re talking about ever if we’re being honest here.)

our blood donation laws are very strange, i am not allowed to give blood for non-gay reasons,  and frankly i cannot wait until labour win again and just get rid of all this rubbish once and for all (although at one point i was not allowed to give blood for gay reasons, as the law also applies to women who have had sexual contact within a certain time period with a man who has ever had sex with a man. SHIT’S A MESS.) 

Yeah, I’m pretty sure Labour could have got rid of that restriction at any point in the 12 years they were in power, yet they didn’t. 3 years ago in 2011 the policy got reviewed and updated, and it was done so by the National Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissue and Organs (SaBTO), based on the most up to date testing methods for blood born diseases at the time. You can see the list of members here.

You can download the report SaBTO compiled here. It’s not an equality issue, it’s a safety issue for the health of the people who receive blood transfusions and already have compromised immunity. 

You don’t have to give blood. They have to receive it. Their continuing safety is more important than your hurt feelings because you can’t have a needle jabbed in your arm a couple of times a year. 

go fuck yourself you disgusting giant homophobe

does it not seem somewhat strange to you that two men in an exclusive gay relationship who could have been essentially married for twenty years can’t give blood but a promiscuous heterosexual man can? how do you think HIV is transmitted? if they didn’t have HIV in fucking 1985 and they’ve never tested positive and they’ve been having monogamous sex with the same man before the advent of AIDs even (which is the case! for some gay men over fifty!) how in god’s name could they be a health risk? they don’t have HIV. they physically cannot have HIV. 

as a member of the labour party: they’re not perfect. they also struggled to pass a lot of anti-homophobia legislation during their time in power— civil partnerships were supposed to be a much more temporary stop-gap than they ended up being. i think this battle might be one of the hardest and longest ones to win, but it’s going to be won. i think you’re very naive if you don’t understand that.

do you know how many blood transfusions i’ve had in my life? it must be in double figures by this point. i am a ‘they’, i am the ‘they’ you’re talking about. i want to give blood BECAUSE i have been a ‘they’. and i don’t have HIV. i just don’t. how can i possibly be a health risk. and anyway. this isn’t about my hurt feelings. this is about the ongoing perception of HIV as a gay plague and gay men — regardless of how unlikely or impossible the risk — being its carriers. the thinking that goes along with this position has allowed my gay and bi brothers to die in their thousands since 1981 in this country, and it’s still happening today. go fuck yourself.

I’m a big believer in blood donation and it being a good thing to do, but it is a fucked up system in a lot of ways. I also couldn’t give blood for a period of time because I am a woman who had had sex with a man who had had sex with a man, and jesus it fucking grated on my nerves. It also comes with a series of assumptions about conversations about sexual histories. A friend and I were talking a few months ago about the likelihood of people giving blood in violation of the rules because they just didn’t know - I mean, a lot of the men I know (through work or volunteer stuff or whatever) are highly unlikely to tell someone they’ve had sex with another man if it was a ‘one off’ or a ‘drunken thing’ or ‘just to see what it’s like’.

I’ve said this before and I’ll point it out again -

Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone.

Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if (cis) women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then (cis) men are NEVER suited to office.

If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time.

And, on a final note, post-menopausal (cis) women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office.

timemachineyeah  (via arnericasinger)

"If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time. "

(via transientsanity)

(Source: ask-pauli-amorous, via the4freedoms)