I work 365 days a year.
I never stop hunting for Bigfoot.
Well for heaven’s sake, I sincerely hope you aren’t taking academic sources and professional news sites without a grain of salt either! Some sources are entirely more reliable than others, but it’s still up to you to be discerning and thoughtful about the information that’s presented to you. If you think an academic is playing fast and loose with the history of colonization, get in there and do some research. Find the authors they quote, find the peers who disagree with them, look at history yourself. The same goes for current events and modern journalism. “Huh, it seems weird that Russian soldiers would keep accidentally wandering into Ukraine" is a thought that requires legwork. I mean, admittedly not much, in that case, but it’s still legwork that you have to do.
Look, ultimately you’re on the internet, swimming in a sea of information, and no one should be spoon-feeding you. Sources will want to, but it’s your responsibility not to let them.
…you are doing God’s work.
Lestat the Musical came out when I was fifteen, on the heels of my waaaaaay-too-into-it stint with The Phantom of the Opera, and just before I got too old for the Vampire Chronicles. So yeah. Yeah, I’ve heard of it.
I was disappointed at the Elton John-ness of it though, vampires do not sing Elton John, certainly not Anne Rice vampires. I know a lot of people fucking hate Andrew Lloyd Webber, but he has an ear for gothic histrionics that would have suited Lestat perfectly. Note to future composers, sensual undead open-shirted protagonists require strings. Lots and lots of strings. Not the same guy who scored The Road To El Dorado.
(although yeah, that duet was pretty gay, but it says a lot that it still might be the least gay version of Lestat and Louis ever imagined.)
Tumblr is literally (and I’m using literally in its old-fashioned sense) one of the worst places you could possibly get your information about pretty much anything. Just imagine thousands of different people, most of them under the age of thirty, packed into a glass box and screaming at the top of their lungs. Do you really want that to be your Al Jazeera?
Just, for my sake, find a handful of bloggers who you can trust to source their posts, and stick with them.
In case you still don’t understand how badly women have had it, when anaesthetic was first invented doctors weren’t allowed to give it to women who were giving birth because the church said that the pain of childbirth was God punishing women for not being men
oh my god this isn’t true.
William Thomas Green Morton, a Boston dentist, gave the first public successful demonstration of surgical anesthesia on October 16th, 1846. It was a big deal. News of his accomplishment rippled through the medical establishment, and within two weeks a description of the operation was published in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. By December 19th, Francis Boott and James Robinson, a dentist and a doctor respectively, designed a device to more directly administer ether, which they then used in another dental surgery. Mere days afterward anesthesia was used again in London by the surgeon Robert Liston in order to amputate a patient’s infected leg.
This lightning-fast spread of surgical ether culminated in January of the next year, 1847, when Scottish obstetrician James Young Simpson administered it to one of his patients, a young woman with a disfigured pelvis. It was the first known use of modern anesthesia for childbirth, and took place a mere four months after William Morton’s initial demonstration of the drug’s surgical applications. On the day of the delivery, Simpson also received a letter from Queen Victoria herself, appointing him her personal physician in Scotland, but he was so excited by his patient’s condition that he’s quoted as saying: “Flattery from the Queen is perhaps not common flattery, but I am far less interested in it than in having delivered a woman this week without any pain while inhaling sulfuric ether. I can think of naught else!”
Diminishing pain in childbirth was one of the first applications of modern anesthesia. The church could condemn all they liked (although, “the church”, this post doesn’t make it clear which church. was it all the church?), and I’m sure some factions did, but the medical community wasn’t especially deterred. Particularly not in the late nineteenth century, when the Church of England had really ceased to have much say in public medical policy.