#anti meg march

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

Muffin, what is your favorite March sister from Little Women? Do you think Jo or any of her sisters would survive Edward?

Well, I'll answer your second question first.

Who Survives Edward?

The funny thing is that most people survive Edward quite easily. If you're an ordinary person who's not on Edward's 1920's hit list then he pays you very little mind and you never really interact with him. For all Jessica annoyed him, she was never in danger from him, nor was Angela, nor many of the other characters we meet.

Even Mike wasn't Edward's concern until Edward became obsessed with Bella and decided Mike was his rival.

So, the March sisters would all be absolutely fine. The likelihood of them smelling as good as Bella is very small, remember Aro's 3500 years old and he hasn't come across his own singer once. Edward's probably not going to run into another singer and it's very unlikely to be one of the March girls.

Now, if they smelled as good as Bella...

Beth and Meg have the best shot at it. Jo is too assertive and too myopic, Edward wouldn't approve of her treatment of Laurie and then her getting upset when Laurie goes and marries Amy. Amy is too self-centered (look, guys, the recent movie was made by Amy stans and I have to go off the book here but even in the recent movie Edward would see it this way).

Beth is incredibly sweet and caring and actually kind of what Edward believes he loves in Bella. She's caring at great cost to herself and with no resentment after scarlet fever destroys her health, she's the heart of keeping her dysfunctional family together, she even sweetly plays piano. Her sickly nature after the fever would also be a bonus for Edward as it means that they're in a doomed romance where woe he could turn her and remove all her health problems but he can't and she's very likely to die young. It also means she'll always need him to care for her and adds to her Victorian style frailty. Beth, for her own part, being the youngest and generally overlooked for her sisters because of her health/youngness/sweetness would probably be very flattered and into this mysterious hot boy who is paying attention to her.

Beth might very well survive until she dies of health complications.

Meg might get by in that she's generally... tolerable. She does what's best for her/the family, does what Aunt Marge thinks is best, and quietly gets married and lives her life the way she's supposed to. The trouble is if she attracts Edward's notice...

Without Bella's mental shield I don't think he's convincing himself she has an entirely different personality and I don't see him being into her. I take it back, Meg dies.

My Favorite March Sisters

I like all of them except Meg, I find Meg boring, which is kind of the point of her, so I guess it works out.

EDIT:

I forgot Beth is the second youngest, not the youngest who is Amy.

#little women #little women meta #little women headcanon #twilight #twilight meta #twilight headcanon #twilight renaissance #jo march #meg march #amy march #beth march #the march sisters #edward cullen #anti edward cullen #anti meg march #anti amy march #meta #headcanon #opinion

[littlewomenpodcast]

Genuine question: why do so many people talk about Meg like she's vain? Like, how is wanting nice things and wanting to fit in 'vain'? I can understand people saying that about Amy, especially when she's a kid, but Meg is the sweetest of the four sisters next to Beth? And isn't vanity being too self-important? Am I missing something? (Sorry for all the questions, but I just do not understand)

I don't mind questions at all. Keep them coming :)

I have often wondered this myself. I wonder if it has something to do with Meg being more a feminine type of girl, and people attack her simply because she likes to be girlish and femininity is often connected with vanity. I don't know.

In the book, like you said Meg is not really a vain person. The whole Vanity Fair chapter, is really more about self-discovery and Meg's thinking about her own self-worth. These other rich girls, they treat her like she is a doll and they play dress-up games with her. In the end, Meg even said she could not recognise herself any more.

The 2019 film, completely missed the point in this (once again). Gerwig said that "Meg needs a day of from her miserable life". Meg in the book never thinks her life is terrible. Yes, she is poor, but in the end of the Vanity Fair chapter, it feels more like "I would not change my life for the lives of these girls. It is so hollow". If the person only watches 2019 film, and takes that narration, no wonder people think that Meg is a vain person.

I also think it is really hypocritical sometimes, the way Meg gets criticised, when she buys the silk for a dress. She was very poor and getting luxury items was pretty rare for her. That is not something a poor girl should be condemned. If we think about Laurie, he is written to be very dandy. A nice looking young man who likes to take care of his appearance. Jo even criticises how he buys expensive gloves and perfumes what not. Nobody, ever critices Laurie for that.

Total double standards.

Also, Laurie was a metro-sexual, before metro-sexuality was a thing.

#little women #Meg March #anti little women 2019 #Laurie Lawrence #Vanity Fair

[joandfriedrich]

Greta Gerwig saying that Meg "settles" to be a wife of a poor man, makes me feel like Gerwig would have wanted Meg to marry rich...and not care at all if she was happy or not.

2019 Little Women is all about money.

#meg march #little women #little women 2019 #anti greta gerwig #emma watson

[bookns]

Amy sucks. I’m sorry - I’m trying to like her yet her POV is sucking the soul out of me

#little women #amy march #laurie laurence #meg march #jo march #beth march #anti Amy March

[princesssarisa]

Some “Little Women” thoughts – In defense of Meg’s marriage

@littlewomenpodcast, @thatscarletflycatcher, @joandfriedrich

Whether Little Women is a feminist book or an anti-feminist book will probably be debated forever.

Most of the debate seems to center around the character of Jo: whether she’s depressingly “tamed” in the end or matures in a healthy way, whether her marriage is anti-feminist or not, and whether or not it’s “anti-feminist” that in the end she’s a schoolmistress instead of a famous author. (Though of course she’ll eventually be a famous author in Jo’s Boys.) But similar debate surrounds the other March sisters too, for various reasons.

Not even Meg, the sister whom readers most often seem to overlook, is spared from these debates. Many feminist critics, such as (but not limited to) Samantha Ellis in her book How to Be a Heroine, have criticized the chapters depicting Meg and John Brooke’s married life in Part II. They label those chapters “depressing,” and they feel as if Meg and John are constantly at odds with each other and miserable. They argue that each of their marital conflicts ends with Meg learning to be a more submissive wife who placates and effaces herself for her husband. And they despise John, labeling him “selfish” and “disrespectful.”

Sometimes I wonder if I read the same book that they did.

It seems obvious to me that Meg and John’s marriage is a happy and healthy one: Alcott is just honest about the fact that even the happiest marriage includes conflict and requires work. Some of these critics seem to think fictional marriages only exist in two forms, “perfect” and “toxic,” with no in-betweens. Nor does John deserve half the negative commentary he gets, nor does Meg’s personal growth within her marriage consist of learning to be a submissive or self-effacing wife. On the contrary, much of her growth consists of her learning that she doesn’t need to be a “perfect” housewife and mother who gives and demands too much of herself, and their marriage becomes more of an equal partnership by the end, not less of one.

Let’s look in depth all three of Meg and John’s marital conflicts.

First there’s the jelly incident.

Here we see the first of a recurring theme: Meg is determined to be the perfect housewife and is "over-anxious to please.” She wants to do everything right and do it all by herself, because she’s afraid that otherwise, she'll be a failure. In terms of her personality type, I agree with @funkymbtifiction that Meg is an ESFJ. In the book, if not in all adaptations, Meg and Amy are both ESFJs: Amy is more of the sparkling “Glinda in Wicked” variety, while Meg, apart from her streak of vanity, is more of the down-to-earth, motherly, “Mrs. Potts in Beauty and the Beast” variety. But Meg in particular shows what @alittlebitofpersonality calls the ESFJ Type Angst. Her eagerness to manage her marriage and motherhood in the most pleasant, correct way (her strong Fe and Si) and her fear of possible failure (her weak Ne and Ti) give her, in A Little Bit of Personality’s words, a “frantic desire to do everything and get it done right now,” so she drives herself too hard.

She shouldn’t have promised John that he could bring home a dinner guest at any time; that’s unrealistic. Nor should she have tried to make jelly for the first time in her life using only the memory of watching Hannah make it; she should have invited Hannah over to help her. Nor should she have become so absorbed in making and re-making the jelly that she didn’t cook dinner; nor should she have let herself be so distraught about the failed jelly, or lost her temper with John and then run to her room, leaving him to improvise a bread-and-cheese dinner and entertain Mr. Scott alone.

John is also at fault and acknowledges it. He shouldn’t have forgotten that Meg was making jelly that day and brought home a guest without warning. He shouldn’t have laughed at Meg’s anguish over the failed jelly, nor should he have joked that he and Mr. Scott “won’t ask for jelly” with dinner. But let’s be fair to John. His laughter is probably just as much out of relief as out of amusement, because when he first comes home and finds Meg sobbing, he worries that something terrible has happened. Then, when he realizes no food has been cooked, he’s understandably annoyed because he’s come home from work tired and hungry, with a guest too, and Meg hasn’t done what she promised she would. But he doesn’t lose his temper; he stays calm and amiable and accepts a cold-cut meal; he just gives his annoyance a tiny vent with his joking barb about the jelly. Then Meg overreacts in response.

In the hours afterwards, he and Meg are still polite to each other, just a bit distant, each sorry but waiting for the other to apologize first. Then, when Meg finally breaks the ice, they both apologize (not just Meg – in fact only John verbally apologizes, Meg just does it with a kiss), everything is fine again, and from then on they both laugh about the incident.

Maybe by modern standards, it is problematic that Marmee has urged Meg to be careful not to make John angry and to always apologize first when they’re both at fault. But it’s not because John has “a volcanic temper,” as Samantha Ellis inexplicably claimed– he so clearly doesn’t! Nor is Marmee’s message “Men are less forgiving than women so we need to placate them.” She’s not talking about “men,” but about John the individual, and she’s not urging Meg to placate him either. All she means is that John’s anger doesn’t flare up and die quickly like the March women’s, but simmers much longer because he represses it.

Then there’s the silk incident.

Say what you will about vanity-shaming and other gendered implications (which of course are valid), but Meg didn’t need an expensive silk dress, and she shouldn’t have ordered it without telling John. It’s not that a wife should ask her husband’s permission to spend money; it’s that no one, regardless of gender, should do anything behind their spouse’s back that they’re ashamed to admit. And again, John doesn’t get angry. He accepts the expense without complaining. He’s just hurt; he works so hard to provide for Meg, and the fact that what he provides isn’t good enough for her, that she says “I’m tired of being poor,” makes him feel inadequate. Yet he tries not to show his hurt and is willing to let Meg have the dress. He cancels his own order for a new overcoat so they can afford it; he’s willing to sacrifice something he needs for something Meg wants but doesn’t need. When Meg sells the silk and buys the overcoat for John instead, she’s only repaying his selflessness in kind.

Finally, we reach the chapter “On the Shelf.”

I’ve read several feminist articles that criticize this chapter and especially John’s behavior in it. But I don’t agree with any of them. John isn’t being selfish the way Meg briefly thinks he is; he’s not jealous of her attention to the twins. By all appearances, Meg genuinely neglects him and overwhelms herself too, because she devotes every waking moment to her two toddlers and thinks no one can properly take care of them but herself. Again she’s trying to be superhuman because she’s afraid of failure. She doesn’t let John be a parent to his own children, or take any time to relax either, and she spoils the twins and makes things harder for herself by giving in to their tantrums. I understand why some feminists are rankled when John starts spending his evenings elsewhere, Meg feels ignored, and Marmee tells her it’s her own fault for forgetting ‘her duty to her husband.” But even if that wording isn’t ideal by modern standards, it's arguably true. To blame John for “not bothering” to help take care of the twins and “forcing” Meg to do it all alone, as some of these critics do, is just the opposite of what the chapter means to convey.

And again, John doesn’t get angry or complain. Nor, unlike what some of these critics seem to think, does he cheat on Meg, either physically or emotionally. He just goes to visit the Scotts rather than feel lonely and useless at home (where Samantha Ellis got the idea that he goes to “what sounds like a dodgy establishment” is beyond me; it’s a friend’s house), and just because Meg worries that his eye is roving to pretty Mrs. Scott doesn’t mean it is.

Arguably, this chapter has a very feminist message about egalitarian marriage and co-parenting. Instead of doing all the work alone and sacrificing her own wellbeing, Meg learns to share her parenting duties with John, and to let Hannah babysit often so they can have much-needed time to themselves too. She also starts to converse with John about politics, so he doesn’t constantly feel the need to seek out a male friend to discuss them, and he returns the favor by conversing with her about domestic subjects too. Traditional gender divides are relaxed. By the end of the chapter, their marriage is more balanced and equal than ever.

I’ve also read complaints about John’s co-parenting. The fact that Meg is portrayed as too soft-hearted, spoiling rowdy Demi and needing John to discipline him. The fact that John and therefore Alcott advocates the potentially traumatic “cry it out” method of sleep training. The fact that John insists on handling Demi’s tantrum in his own way despite Meg’s objections and Meg reluctantly gives in, with references to John’s “masterful tone” and Meg’s “docility.” The possible sexist implication that John knows how to parent better than Meg does.

But I don’t think Alcott meant to imply that John is a better parent than Meg or meant us to see him as lording over her. Even though he won’t let her give in to Demi’s demands, what finally stops Demi’s tantrum is a kiss from Meg after he’s been allowed to cry for a few minutes. They solve the problem together by combining John’s discipline with Meg’s tenderness. Then John shows tenderness of his own by lying down on the bed and holding Demi as he falls asleep, so it’s not a straightforward “cry it out” that he (or Alcott) advocates for sleep training, but something closer to the Ferber Method.

Of course there is an old-fashioned, traditional aura to Meg and John’s marriage and to their roles in the house: Meg as homemaker and John as breadwinner, Meg as nurturer and John as disciplinarian to the twins, and her fondness for sitting in his lap. But of the four March sisters, Meg was always the most traditional young woman of her era. Her marriage dynamic might not be what Jo or even Amy would want, but it’s just right for Meg. And Alcott shows us that with the right effort, even a basically traditional marriage can be egalitarian and mutually healthy.

The one feminist complaint I might sympathize with is that all three of these episodes do revolve around Meg learning to be a better wife. In each instance, Meg is portrayed as being more at fault than John, and she’s the one who learns the chief lesson. But I don’t consider this a sexist choice either. The March sisters are the protagonists of Little Women. Their coming-of-age journeys and personal growth are the focal point. John is a supporting character, so it’s arguably only natural that the “married life” chapters focus more on Meg’s personal growth than on his.

These are the reasons why I personally enjoy the chapters revolving around Meg and John’s marriage, and why I don’t consider them problematic or “depressing.” They’re just a realistic portrayal of the struggles, mistakes, and conflicts that occasionally rise within a happy marriage, which are resolved in a healthy way when both partners put in the necessary work. I understand where the critics who dislike those chapters are coming from, but I can’t bring myself to agree.

#little women #louisa may alcott #meta #analysis #meg march #john brooke #marriage #parenting #feminism #rambling

[katnissgirlsmakedo]

and the thing is that i can’t really fuck with peter girls. i’m sorry there’s nothing wrong with peter being your favorite it’s just that it’s so basic. it’s the same as when people who like little women think the only one of the march sister who matters is jo… sorry these things are just incredibly firmly entrenched together in my mind i have never in my life viewed one without thinking of the other and it’s physically impossible for me to stop now. anyway i guess this is a point in favor of greta gerwig’s narnia because i liked how she did little women. but i still can’t think about it. what i meant earlier about jo is that i know jo is like. the main character but i don’t like when people then treat meg and amy and beth like they don’t matter. i especially cannot stand an anti amy bitch!! you’re not original!!!! and this is the difference between the 1994 and 2019 adaptations to me… people have said 2019 was too pro amy. wrong! 2019 was simply not anti amy the way 1994 was… the 2019 version put all four girls on equal footing. the 1994 version was incredibly jo centric… and i like both. i do. people don’t think that can be true and yet i exist!! anyway. being a peter girl is basic i’ll say it i don’t care. and while we’re bitching. comparing peter to king arthur is ridiculous and incorrect kill yourself. sorry i’m just trying to express the depth of my feelings. ok happy easter or whatever this is my easter movie. because it’s an easter movie not a christmas movie. stop the madness with that one fr

#peter’s nice but you can’t be serious saying he’s you FAVORITE. be interesting oh my god #and who’s MY favorite? you might think you know but you actually don’t. and wouldn’t you like to huh

[teyamsatan]

ok andra we need to talk ab this snow white remake.

i just cant with it like i already dont want to watch it

i think her name is rachel zegler but just from the interviews its already ruined it for me

like sure i guess its good that she isnt going to be saved by a man but like snow white is such an iconic timeless story. like idk if im right ab this but shes the first disney princess? i swear i read that somewhere and she said in an interview how snow white is outdated and thats why they changed the plotline but how can it be out dated when the majority of disney princess movies have that same story line. even the ones that were made recently like anna in frozen which wasnt that recent but in the last decade

like its reminding me of tthis tiktok i saw and it was ab taylor changing the lyrics to better than revengein fearless TV and the captions were something like “taylor sometimes we like a little misogyny. please change the lyrics back” (im still bitter about that lyric change 😤😤😤) but back to snow white… i want prince charming. and also the 7 dwarfs arent even inclusive to people with dwarfism. im so bitter.

but i loved the little mermaid

no cause it's honestly made my blood boil hhahaahahh. these people live under the impression that "feminism" is a one sided affair in which only the women that are "independent girl bosses" are worthy of being represented on film, and it is honestly sad and pathetic to watch unfold. it is such a detriment to allow ourselves to succumb to a 2 dimensional, restrictive, constricted version of ourselves, and to not allow little kids to believe or to ever want or strive for anything other than "the bag". BABE, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WANTING LOVE. there's nothing anti-feminist or weak about not being about that life. feminism is about choice, it's about allowing yourself to be the best and most authentic version of yourself. there is nothing authentic about yet ANOTHER movie about some surface level, shallow "strong" female character. they're all the same and they all SUCK - captain marvel, she-hulk, the new mulan, the new show white etc etc etc (notice the disney theme?)

in the wise words of meg march "just because my dreams are different than yours, doesn't mean they are unimportant."

#i'm tired af #my asks 💕 #𖨆♡𖨆 andra's anonnies #snow white #snow white remake #snow white live action

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Interesting article about Megs wanting to partner with Flamingo Estate and now trying to copy them. by u/HydeParkUK

Interesting article about Megs wanting to partner with Flamingo Estate and now trying to copy them. DM article, so if anyone would like to archive. The comments are all anti-Megs, so fun to read. Mods please delete if this has already been posted.https://ift.tt/cEFkaqN post link: https://ift.tt/7hnWR5c author: HydeParkUK submitted: March 28, 2024 at 01:46PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

#SaintMeghanMarkle #harry and meghan #meghan markle #prince harry #fucking grifters #Worldwide Privacy Tour #Instagram loving bitch wife #Backgrid #voetsek meghan #walmart wallis #markled #archewell #archewell foundation #megxit #duke and duchess of sussex #duke of sussex #duchess of sussex #doria ragland #rent a royal #clevr #clevr blends #lemonada media #archetypes with meghan #invictus #invictus games #Sussex #WAAAGH #american riviera orchard #HydeParkUK

[ingek73]

ROYAL DISS

Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?

A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame

BY HANNAH EWENS

MARCH 1, 2023

King Charles III doesn't understand why no one wants to come to his party. SAMIR HUSSEIN/WIREIMAGE

IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.

The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues. Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?

“The Nineties were so different in British pop culture. It was New Labour, everyone was playful and being a bit cheeky,” explains Michael Cragg, author of Reach For The Stars, a book about Nineties and ‘00s British pop. But, Cragg says, “that cheekiness absolutely isn’t here anymore. Now we really want to know who people are and the version of the Royal family that we’ve learned of recently through Prince Harry’s book and how the Prince Andrew scandal was handled: the reality is awful. You could not be the biggest band in the world now and walk up and plant a kiss on them and it still work.”

To perform at a royal event in 2023 would be to align yourself with blatant scandal. The recent allegations regarding Prince Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and an alleged sexual relationship with one of Epstein’s victims are still fresh in people’s minds. And so is Andrew’s disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview about said claims. But before people had a chance to reconcile their feelings about Andrew, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle publicly announced that they were stepping down from royal duties. In the years since, Harry and Markle have levied several accusations against the royal family and the UK press, claiming their respective treatment of Markle led to fears for her mental and physical health. The discourse and growing divide between the couple and the Institution has been well documented in Harry’s 2023 tell-all memoir Spare and the couple’s Netflix series Harry & Meghan.

“The royal family has faced a number of PR disasters in recent times, and anyone performing at the show would have to consider whether there would be a backlash from appearing amongst their fans,” says Simon Jones, PR to Little Mix, Niall Horan, and Louis Tomlinson.

On that same note, it would be a laughingly straightforward decision to decline an offer to perform for many artists. Kingsley Hall of political band Benefits, whose 2022 anti-monarchy single “Flag” was number one on the Official UK vinyl the week of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, explains of the British cultural temperature, “We’ve had so much exposure and negative exposure of the Royal family – jubilees, weddings, fallings out, accusations of racism, notable deaths, someone being accused of being a sexual predator – in what I would classify as a short space of time. People are sick of it and probably won’t be involved for that reason.”

For many millennial and Gen Z fans in the UK in particular, Royalism is a dirty idea. Meg, head of a leading British music PR company, notes that both Styles and Adele are at points in their careers where they need to define themselves beyond a successful decade in music. “For them right now, storytelling is really important,” says Meg, whose real/full name has been withheld by request. These big symbolic associations carry a lot of weight and literally go down in history books in bold and underlined. I can understand why there’d be a big PR discussion around artists doing it or not.”

Whereas the public had previously seen the Queen as a longstanding grandmother of the nation, Charles is not the country’s grandfather so much as a blank emblem of the royal family. “ I don’t know what there is to gain for artists by associating with him,” says Meg. “With the Queen, she was fab and glamorous to some people. Charles doesn’t add anything — there’s not a legacy of his that anyone would want to align with. It’s televised, so a lot of people will hear your songs, sure, but in terms of long-term PR strategy, I don’t know if performing would add positively to an artist’s narrative unless they were staunchly pro the monarchy.”

A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond to Rolling Stone‘s request for comment. Rolling Stone also reached out to the BBC, which is organizing the coronation.

Crucially, this coronation is happening in a year when the UK’s cost of living crisis has dangerously peaked. Ellie (whose real/full name has been withheld by request), founder of a British pop music PR company, says, “Strip back the gold and red cloak, and you have a country where parents are choosing between feeding their kids or keeping them warm. How much money is the coronation costing the taxpayer? It feels like a political statement to play.”

Each artist who declines will naturally have their own political motivations based on their Britishness. As Adele superfan Grace Martha from London notes, Adele is a proud champion of being working class from Tottenham, one of the most ethnically diverse areas in Britain. “The pomp and money this coronation is costing doesn’t represent her values at all,” says Martha. “This issue is so specific to our culture; Americans might think, ‘Oh, she’s from London and a cockney, why wouldn’t she do it?’ But they don’t understand the nuances of different areas, cultures, and identities here. She’s for the ‘everyday person,’ and the everyday younger person in London doesn’t rate the royal family anymore.”

The colonialism of the British empire has been a major discussion point over the past two years. That is behind the struggle to secure A-List British acts, says Hak Baker, a musician from London: “Any situation where I’d bow to an openly racist colonial imperial system that refuses to apologise for its past and eradication of my people’s history I’d rather avoid with a barge pole. We are more aware of the past now. They are not exempt from recognition. I think they’re going to have a hard time.”

Han Mee of Manchester band Hot Milk agrees emphatically, calling it an “outdated institution” that does not represent modern Britain. “Leave it in the past, it’s as old, aged, and expensive as the whiskey that props it up but without the strength and merriment,” she says. “I liked Liz, but it should have died with her – the coronation is a kick in the teeth when this country has never been more of a shit show.”

The real question is: Why do the royals need this entertainment value at all? “No one’s talking about the date or the guests,” considers Meg. “The big headlines around the coronation right now are which musicians are in and which musicians are out, which underlines the importance of music and what the symbolism is of an endorsement from one of these megastar artists.” It appears that in 2023 the royal family needs musicians more than musicians need them.

#abolish the monarchy #king charles lll #prince harry #royals #british royal family #prince andrew #king charles the cruel

[otemporamores]

Mass march for Palestine in London as Israeli forces assault Gaza

A "szocialista munkas" nevu formedveny. Nem tudom eldonteni, hogy ezek a forumok valojaban eleve muszlimok, akik a jobbnak gondt.marketing miatt maszkirozzak magukat vorosre. ebben lenne logika. Vagy tenyleg leteznek ennyire retardalt komcsik, akik az iszlam dzsihadban talaltak meg a szovetsegesuket a nyugat, vagyis a SAJAT MAGUK elleni harcban? Ez utobbiak a legalapvetobb logikai muveletek belatasara is keptelenek. A iszlamistak epp felszabaditjak a nem letezo munkasosztalyt. Olyan mintha allegoria lenne. A palesztin a munkasosztaly, a csecsemogyilkos aberralt iszlamista a vörös hadsereg, izrael pedig maga a tőke.

"Every socialist, anti-imperialist, anti-racist and worker must now build the counter-offensive to Israel and the West."

#o1g #álprobléma #kárhogytovábbmentek #folklore #emblem

[foodgreys]

Histera pfefferneusse

Bread-wise, not only did I have a resounding sourdough success, but I also went the veggie route with Alanna's ingenious recipe using beets and Meg Kat's sweet pumpkin creation. I spent a lot of this year learning from other food bloggers too, and boy oh boy did I learn a lot! I made some amazing mincemeat with help from David, I turned leftover frosting and some flavour extracts into cakeballs a la Bakerella. It was a big year for celebrations too, between my grandma's small gathering in January, my mom's HUGE 50th birthday party (with three different cakes and an awesome quinoa salad) and my dad's slightly problematic banana caked birthday in March, my 20th in April (with the colossal fail cake) and Andrew's 21st in July. I completed a baking course at George Brown college in Toronto, baked one heck of an expensive batch of cookies, enrolled full-time in a 2-year Nutrition Management program in September, won a wicked Yahoo-sponsored contest, gave a nutrition seminar and watched my garden explode (again! Anw who could forget the carrot attack?). This year was a big one for culinary achievements on my end, though. Some of the things on last year's list have dropped off more or less permanently while others (like the Dutch Crunch Bread and Hawaiian Sweet Bread from Baking Bites for example) are still firmly in place. Oh, how naive! In the past 365 days, I made eight. I mean, really: looking back a year ago, I published a HUGE list of both my invented recipes and other people's blogged posts to try. Continued abuse of our services will cause your IP address to be blocked indefinitely.I honestly don't know why I bother making "goal lists" or "resolutions" each New Year's Eve. Please fill out the CAPTCHA below and then click the button to indicate that you agree to these terms. If you wish to be unblocked, you must agree that you will take immediate steps to rectify this issue. If you do not understand what is causing this behavior, please contact us here. If you promise to stop (by clicking the Agree button below), we'll unblock your connection for now, but we will immediately re-block it if we detect additional bad behavior. Overusing our search engine with a very large number of searches in a very short amount of time.Using a badly configured (or badly written) browser add-on for blocking content.Running a "scraper" or "downloader" program that either does not identify itself or uses fake headers to elude detection.Using a script or add-on that scans GameFAQs for box and screen images (such as an emulator front-end), while overloading our search engine.There is no official GameFAQs app, and we do not support nor have any contact with the makers of these unofficial apps. Continued use of these apps may cause your IP to be blocked indefinitely. This triggers our anti-spambot measures, which are designed to stop automated systems from flooding the site with traffic. Some unofficial phone apps appear to be using GameFAQs as a back-end, but they do not behave like a real web browser does.Using GameFAQs regularly with these browsers can cause temporary and even permanent IP blocks due to these additional requests. If you are using Maxthon or Brave as a browser, or have installed the Ghostery add-on, you should know that these programs send extra traffic to our servers for every page on the site that you browse.The most common causes of this issue are: Your IP address has been temporarily blocked due to a large number of HTTP requests.

#Histera pfefferneusse

[littlewomenpodcast]

Plus Size Jo March (Video Essay)

Film clips from Little Women 1933, 1949, 1994, 2017, 2019, and 2018. All rights belong to their rightful owners. Some of the criticism towards the 2019 Little Women, is the fact that a lot of the promotion of the film included several fatphobic comments from Gerwig regarding Friedrich's character. Obviously, this is not ethical or morally correct. There is a problem within Little Women's research because there are Alcott's scholars who dismiss Friedrich as a love interest for Jo because of fatphobia. Based on her diaries Louisa May Alcott seemed to have liked more stout and stacked men, and she even criticized the looks of the skinny men who inspired Laurie's character

#Jo March #Little Women #plus size #body image #little women 2019 #Friedrich Bhaer #Meg March #anti little women 2019 #anti greta gerwig #Youtube

[opedguy]

Democrats Blockbuster Witness Fake

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), June 29, 2022.--Yesterday’s testimony in the public Jan. 6 House Select Committee by 26-year-old former Mark Meadow’s aid Cassidy Hutchinson gave Democrats and Trump-hating Republicans their smoking gun,saying Trump lunged to commandeer the steering wheel of his armored SUV AKA “the Beast.”  But no sooner than Hutchinson, who was not present in the SUV, gave her second-and report, Secret Service agents Tony Oratao and Bobby Engel, who were present in “the Beast” said the incident never happened.  Immediately Democrats and Trump-bashers said the two agents would lie for Trump because of their close ties.  So, to get the record straight, House Democrats used someone with second-hand information to say “she heard” Trump lunged at the steering wheel to commandeer the SUV to go to the Capitol, not back to the West Wing.  Hutchinson swore under oath that she heard the story.    When it comes to former President Donald Trump, anything goes when it comes to the truth, any lie, any wild story any unverified second-or-third-hand report qualifies as “breaking news” or a “smoking gun,” as long as it implicates the former president in a crime.  For his year-long campaign and four years in office, Trump was accused by Democrats, largely former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Trump’s 2016 Democrat rival, of a covert relationship with the Kremlin and Russian bank.  FBI and CIA officials thoroughly investigated Democrats’ allegations over a two-year period with 77-year-old former Special Counsel Robert Muller who found after a $40 million investigation that there were no ties to Moscow.  Yet the Democrat rumor-mongering about Trump’s ties to the Kremlin persisted long after Mueller concluded March 23, 2019 that there were no such ties to Russia.    So after two impeachment trials that ended in failure for Democrats, the latest charade gets a meg-dose of disgrace, something Democrats don’t acknowledge.  Listening to House Democrats and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) interview Hutchinson, you’d think she was an eye witness, when she admitted to hearing the story second hand.  Accused to attacking his own secret service and grabbing “the Beast’s” steering wheel didn’t sound credible from the beginning, knowing there’s a lot of distance between the back seat the vehicles steering wheel.  Democrats and Trump-hating Republicans have done everything possible to embarrass and disgrace Trump, making up all kinds of stories for public consumption.  Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans want him indicted by 70-year-old Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland for alleged crimes connected with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and melee.    Hutchinson testified yesterday that Tony Ornato, a Secret Service agent who was present on the SUV, told her that Trump lunged for the steering wheel.  Ornato has said he will take a lie detector test and testify before the House Select Committee that he never told Hutchinson any such thing about Trump.  House Select Committee wants no part of Ornato’s testimony because they wish only to spread more wild rumors about Trump, this time that he tried to commandeer his armored SUV.  All major newspapers had no problem running with the story as expressed by the 26-year-old former aid of Trump’s former Chief of Staff Marck Meadows.  House Select Committee Chairman Bernie Thomson (D-Miss.) and his partner Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) want no part of any testimony by three Secret Service agents present in the vehicle, all saying that Trump did not lunge at the steering wheel or anything else.    Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig was quick to impeach the credibility of Trump’s Secret Service detail, calling them enablers and “yes men,” not asking why the Jan. 6 House Committee should rely on someone not present in the vehicle as their “smoking gun” witness.  “And some people accused them of at times being enablers and ‘yes men’ of the president--particularly Tony Ornato.  And very much people who wanted to do what he wanted and see him pleased,” said Leonig, violating every known principle of ethical journalism.  Instead of questioning Hutchinson, Leonig acts like she’s on the House Select Committee looking to convict Trump of more high crimes and misdemeanors.  With Orato, Engel and others repudiating Hutchinson’s blockbuster testimony, Leonid should remain skeptical, not find ways to find Hutchinson’s testimony credible by attacking Secret Service in the SUV.    Hutchinson’s second hand testimony personifies the kind of witch-hunt used by the Jan. 6 House Select Committee to find anything new to indict Trump.  Were it not for the highly biased left-wing media, no one would accept, let alone tout, the testimony of a second-hand witness, someone not present in the SUV at the time of the alleged incident.  Democrats and Trump-hating Republicans got what they deserved fabricating more fake news about Trump to advance a Democrat agenda. Democrats and Trump-hating Republicans hope to humiliate Trump enough in public that he won’t run for president in 2024.  Whether that happens or not is anyone’s guess.  What known now with Hutchinson’s testimony is that Democrats and Trump-hating Republicans will make up any lie if it discredits Trump.  Democrats and Trump-hating Republicans aren’t concerned about the truth only discrediting and indicting Trump. About the Author John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

[bookns]

all of them are folklore. Meg March is Invisible String, Jo March is My Tears Riochet (fight me on this I dare you). Amy March is mirriorball and Beth is Epiphany (It just works)

Meg March is the Lover album. She is the Man because she not only is a feminist but a mother just the same - the hardest kind of woman. I think He knows - (he's so obsessed with me and boy, I understand)(lets not forget that John had her glove and that John was ALWAYS looking) She is Daylight, she always thought she had to pretend to be rich and powerful to earn love but in reality she found love in her small home of love with John (once believed it would be black and white but its golden)- I almost forgot paper rings but I like shiny thing but I marry you with paper rings- self explanatory I feel (this is the most Meg March song and I almost forgot about it). (she is also Sweet Nothing

Jo March is MIDNIGHTS (fight me on this, I dare you)- Midnight Rain. You're on your own, kid (EMPAHSIS ON THIS), Bigger than the whole sky (I imagine she sings this to Baby Beth), (and what would've could've (NOT SHOULD'VE)been her and Laurie) the literal Anti Hero, Would've Could've Should've (I know it was the time period but Mr. Bhear was 19/20 years older and Jo was still in her 20's (Give her back her girlhood) She is Labyrith but I would like to argue that this is not about her falling in love with Laurie and Mr. Bhear, but her falling in with writing. She lost it so many times whether it was to Beth's Death (I hate the fact that those two rhyme) and her constant denial at the publishers door stop. She is Karma (as much as I love Amy, this is to her and to all the publishers that never took her). (hell Even Louisa May Alloct is Karma because she is actually a world renown house hold name). She is bejeweled because she took her mind, and everyone who doubted her and created something greater than anyone else.(Laurie and Jo is so you're losing me coded "I'm the best thing at this party...I wouldn't marry me either)(I did freak out when I heard that) (before you argue LAURIE AND JO ARE EVERMORE BUT ONLY WHEN THEY TOGETHER) (Laurie and Jo are Coney Island (sorry for not making you my centerfold), happiness and Majorie (baby Beth) but also Jo/Laurie is THE ONE. THE FUCKING ONE (Amy March saying I have been SECOND to Jo my whole life.)

Gee, I wonder which March Girl is my favorite?

#jo March #amy march #taylorswift #taylor swift #midnights #jo would listen to midnight rain and cry because that was all she ever wanted #little women #meg march #beth march

[yxvz]

when meg march said “just because my dreams are different than yours doesn't mean they're unimportant” she did whatever the fuck lana del rey thinks she's doing now

#very specific post again. yay #my favorite kind #how do i even tag this #little women #meg march #lana del rey #should i like. put 'anti' #idk idk #mine #etc

[forbesromanoff]

Rewatching Little Women . . . and I’m annoyed at Jo March.

Was Amy burning her journal/book/etc a shitty thing to do? Yes, it was, and as a writer myself, I’m not excusing it. If someone destroyed all my writing, I’d be very mad, too. Would I physically attack them over it, though? No. I would not.

Jo is also annoying me in that when they neglect to inform Amy that Beth is sick, Jo says, “Amy has always had a talent for getting out of the hard things in life.” Sorry, what?

- Amy gets attacked by you

- Amy gets hit by her teacher

- Amy has to be without her father

- Amy gets sent away from her family when Beth is first sick

- Amy nearly drowns

- Amy deals with her family neglecting to inform her that her sister is sick

How is that Amy getting out of the hard things in life? Plus, how is it Amy’s fault for not being told that her sister is sick?

Not to mention Amy also had to miss her SISTER’s funeral because no one had informed/prepared her beforehand that Beth was sick. Also, Jo SAW Amy coming to ice skate with her and Laurie and neglected to warn her about the very thing that led her to nearly drown. We saw Laurie warn Jo.

#little women #anti jo march #amy march #laurie laurence #beth march #meg march