🏳️‍🌈

Truncated text of tweet from MrPitBull, Mar 11, 2026:

She kept finding women in laboratory photographs from the 1800s. Then she read the published papers—and every single woman had vanished. Someone had erased them from history.

Yale University, 1969.

Margaret Rossiter was a graduate student studying the history of science. She was one of very few women in her program.

Every Friday afternoon, students and faculty gathered for beers and informal conversation. One week, Margaret asked a simple question: "Were there ever any women scientists?"

The faculty answered firmly: No.

Someone mentioned Marie Curie. The group dismissed it—her husband Pierre really deserved the credit.

Margaret didn't argue. But she also didn't believe them.

So she started looking.

She found a reference book called "American Men of Science"—essentially a Who's Who of scientific achievement. Despite the title, she was shocked to discover it contained entries about women. Botanists trained at Wellesley. Geologists from Vermont.

There were names. There were credentials. There were careers.

The professors had been wrong.

But Margaret's discovery was just the beginning. Because as she dug deeper into archives across the country, she found something far more disturbing.

Photograph after photograph showed women standing at laboratory benches, working with equipment, listed on research teams.

But when she read the published papers, the award citations, the official histories—those same women had disappeared. Their names were missing. Their contributions erased.

It wasn't random. It was systematic.

Women who designed experiments watched male colleagues publish results without giving them credit. Women whose discoveries were assigned to supervisors. Women listed in acknowledgments instead of as authors. Women passed over for awards that went to male collaborators who contributed far less.

Margaret realized she was witnessing a pattern that stretched across centuries.

Women had always been present in science. The record had simply pushed them aside.

She needed a name for what she was documenting.

In the early 1990s, she found it in the work of Matilda Joslyn Gage—a 19th-century suffragist who had written about this exact phenomenon in 1870.

In 1993, Margaret published a paper formally naming it: The Matilda Effect.

The term captured something that had been hidden in plain sight for generations. Once you knew the term, you saw it everywhere.

Her dissertation became a lifelong mission.

For more than 30 years, Margaret researched and wrote her landmark three-volume series: Women Scientists in America. She examined letters, institutional policies, individual careers. She gathered undeniable evidence that women in science had been consistently under-credited and structurally excluded.

Her work faced resistance. Many dismissed women's history as political rather than academic. Others insisted she was exaggerating.

Margaret didn't argue emotionally. She presented data. Documented cases. Patterns repeated across decades and institutions.

Eventually, the evidence became undeniable.

Her research helped restore recognition to scientists who had been erased:

Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work revealed DNA's structure—credit went to Watson and Crick.

Lise Meitner, who explained nuclear fission—omitted from the Nobel Prize.

Nettie Stevens, who discovered sex chromosomes—received little credit.

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered stars are made of hydrogen—initially dismissed.

And countless others whose names had nearly vanished.

Margaret changed the narrative. Science was no longer just the story of solitary male geniuses. It became a story of collaboration that included women who had been written out.

- France abolished the Code Noir 2 months ago. That law project that said hey you can enslave, mutilate, kill, cross breed, etc. black people at will bc they're not people they're property ? Yeah. Abolished 2 months ago. We are in July 2026.

- the last human zoo closed its doors in 1994 in France due to social pressure. Not bc they were running out of business, no. Ppl still visited that place until it closed its doors. No, it was bc (black) French people were fed up. That human zoo was specialized in displaying black (presumed Congolese) people in fake huts in enclosures, for white entertainment.

- now while this might no longer be the case, when I was growing up, I went to a French school (as in. It was an international French School w the French flag n all) and the way we were taught French geography was that France has the biggest and largest access to the sea in the world. And they'd show us a map of France and its colonies around the world. It's all occupied indigenous lands. I don't know if they still teach that. I hope not. But they absolutely did until I graduated high school in 2017. Again, I write this on July 21st 2026, for the record.

Opened in 1994, the village was created with the aim of promoting tourism in Ivory Coast, in partnership with the biscuit brand Biscuiterie Saint-Michel. It was named "Bamboula's Village" after the company's "Bamboula" chocolate biscuits, which had a black person with the same name as their mascot. The name of the biscuits was a racial slur, dating from colonial times.

Twenty-five Ivorians, including children, were hired for six months to build and inhabit the village. They performed every day of the week, and received pay below the French minimum wage. Dancers were forced to work bare-chested despite bad weather. Performers' passports were confiscated; most lived confined to their huts (the park gate being closed in the evenings), which provided less space than required by labour law. Children were kept out of school, while medical care was provided by the zoo's veterinarians.

every fat person you know for the most part probably has a story like this, of medical neglect. many of the stories i've heard personally are when the complaint or the doctor wasn't related at all, like being told to lose weight at the ear nose and throat doctor or at the dentist. it's straight up just bias. it's such a thing that in the show Shrill it's portrayed, when Aidy Bryant goes to the gynecologist and her doctor suggests she get gastric bypass.

the studies on health and fatness are simply not that black and white and there is basically no research that shows that more than an incredibly tiny minority of people can lose weight and keep it off for more than like 2 years. bodies have set points that they gravitate towards, it's not a personal failure. this also is how the weight loss industry succeeds so well - repeat customers.

some of the harm associated with fatness is also due to weight cycling, which is very hard on your body and is even worse if you get off a GLP1, which according to a recent study causes weight to be regained at a rate that is 4x faster than without taking a GLP1.

you don't have to hate yourself. you don't have to hate other people for their body type either. it makes me so sad to see the thinspo tag going around again in 2026 a lot like it was back in the day.

some resources to learn more here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/feeling-fat-may-be-worse-for-you-than-being-fat-idUSTON079061/

Like, he's the epitome of self-interest; the closest thing real life can produce to a Randian hero. And by any reasonable standard, he's won at life! He's the richest man ever to live, and he's getting richer; he controls the channels of information and communication; the government of what remains the world's only superpower waits on his command. If capitalism had a victory condition, he would surely have achieved it. And yet...

He's empty. He's an absolute sucking void of neediness. His own children hate his guts. He pays professional gamers to run up impossibly high scores in every game under the sun because the pale glow of being praised by epic bacon chuds online is the closest thing that he can feel to love.

This shows us something fundamental about how the people who use tma/tme think. In particular, that the only meaningful way to discuss your own oppression, and in particular transmisogyny, is in terms of comparing oppression.

It is a hard mindset to break from and very easy to fall into. It's also an astoundingly prejudice way of thinking. It is one of the major roots of all exclusionist movements within the queer community. When I compare tma/tme to gold star lesbian, I mean that very genuinely. I don't think everyone who uses it is a bad person, but they are getting caught up in something that will end very poorly and be remembered as this incredibly toxic and prejudice thing that grew out of this need to directly compare your oppression to others - or in reality, the wildly inaccurate assumptions you make about how others are oppressed.

And it all seems so reasonable at the start. I get that. I really do. Just like it seemed so reasonable and obvious that lesbians are more oppressed than bi woman, and bi women would never really understand.

I don't think most of the early rad fems were bad people. I think they were trying to come to terms with and explain the problems they were seeing and experiencing and many of them inadvertently fell into prejudice ways of thinking. They tried out ideas and rather than dismiss them when they proved a problem they became attached, dug in.

The same thing is happening now. I don't think the people using tma/tme now are bad people. But they have adopted prejudice patterns of thought, have become attached, and are digging in.

Do you really think that the lesbians of the past who built up radical feminism were not oppressed and excluded? Do you really think they were not the subject of hate and violence?

The reality is that a critical component of the creation of radical feminism and all the damage it has done since is that lesbians were oppressed and excluded and violently so.

Gothic style gatehouses & lodges

when i eat i do not count calories, i eat what tastes good and what feels good. i eat what i want when i want. i take a bite for child me who didn’t have reliable access to food. i take a bite for teenage me who thought i was unlovable because of how i looked. i take a bite for baby me who was born fat, grew up to be fat, and will die fat. i take a bite for 25 year old me that had to steal all my groceries to stay alive. i take a bite for me right now because i like it.

when the shame i was taught starts to creep in i chew it, swallow, and take another bite. you could never convince me to hate myself for my fat ever again. it is something i love about myself. it is something i love in others.

when i fuck fat people i want to put my hands on every part of them. i want to feel their body in places my own skinny past lovers have been too afraid to touch on my body. i want them to feel the love i feel for myself, i want them to know i love their fat as a part of them and that it is just as important as the rest. i want to worship their fat body in the way i worship my own. i want them to feel appreciated for the gold under their skin.

This post is basically a transcript of a speech I give to newbies to the D/s scene all the time IRL. I figured it might be useful not only to people curious about kink IRL but also to smut writers here on the smut writing website.

For the purposes of this post, I am sending specific physical acts out of the room. Right now they don't matter, because you can meet an emotional need through any number of physical acts. So when I say that there are many ways to dom and many ways to sub, I am not referring to many kinds of physical acts. I mean that there are many emotional needs that doms and subs bring to scenes, and those can change the scene more than the choice of physical acts that will occur in that scene.

I say this to newbies to the scene because they tend to have a narrow view of the motivations and needs that bring people to D/s, biased by both the newbie's own preferences and the depictions of D/s they've seen in media. The same is true of people who write kink fic. Kink fic is very biased to a narrow subset of the wide range of emotional needs that people might bring to this kind of play.

It's really important to understand this in D/s IRL because a mismatch or miscommunication about these needs can lead to a bad scene. For example, let's take the approaches of sub-as-beloved-pet and sub-as-object. If a dom treats a sub as a beloved pet when what they really want is to be treated like an object, then a sub who went into a scene needing to be ignored, or at the very least the illusion of being ignored and disregarded, is suddenly in the spotlight of a lot of intense attention and affection. Again, I will note that both of these scenes could potentially involve the same physical acts, just approached differently. Let's say it's a service submission scene where the sub is naked and cleaning the room for the dom. Sub-as-beloved-pet would get frequent praise and lots of patiently repeated instructions, while sub-as-object would get one detailed instruction at the beginning and no reinforcement except a punishment if they get part of the instruction wrong.

I'm going to go through a bunch of different styles of dom and sub, with the emotional needs that underlie them. This list is not exhaustive. I'm sure there's more I haven't thought of or encountered, so feel free to reblog with additions. It may also be a bit dom-biased because I'm a dom, but I think that might be for the best, because the emotional needs of doms are generally less understood than those of subs.

Various consensual kinks discussed below. Kinkshamers in the notes will be blocked with extreme prejudice.

You don't know how much misbehaviour is allowed, so you become the perfect child who never tests rules.

You don't know if someone is irritated with you, so you'll be extra generous and self-effacing.

You don't know how much is expected of you at work so you'll kill yourself in a minimum-wage job and not notice that nobody else is working like this.

The whole metaverse can no longer be properly viewed without an account and I am definitely not making one just to see your contact info or opening hours.

He’s like “aw I actually can’t go out that night, I’m gonna hang out with [baby’s name].” He talks about her like they have conversations even though she can’t talk yet. It’s never “I took her” to a place, it’s always “we went.” He’s confident that she understands most if not all that happens around her and acts accordingly and it’s so sweet.

She’s one now, but I’ve worked with him since she was born and can guarantee he’s always been like this.