galahadsgurl

[galahadsgurl]

First Look at The Black Dagger Brotherhood by J.R. Ward

[galahadsgurl]

First Look at The Black Dagger Brotherhood by J.R. Ward

[galahadsgurl]

Home

"The feeling of being curled up in your arms, with our fingers intertwined and the soft feel of your breath on my neck can never be put into words. I can, however, tell you that it is where I belong and it is in those arms that I feel at home." - anon

Artwork by ChristineChangIllustration

[galahadsgurl]

Soul's Embrace

"Maybe it's not about the length of time you've known someone; maybe it's about instant recognition on an unconscious level. Our souls know each other. - S. E. Hall

[galahadsgurl]

Naval aviation fun facts for today: naval aviators are *not* required to give up their wings (or leave flight status) once they reach a certain rank! It is absolutely true that for the vast majority of aviators, once they reach a certain rank the jobs available to them are not jobs that require them to fly, but admirals can still fly (provided they pass a flight physical and are on flight status), although they wouldn't do so frequently bc they would be busy doing other things. The amount you fly as an aviator has much more to do with what job you're doing than what rank you are! (An LT doing a tour at the Pentagon probably isn't flying at all, while a CDR with the Blue Angels is, of course, flying nearly every day!)

Also, giving up your wings is not the same thing as having a non-flying job! Giving up your wings means you're no longer designated as a naval aviator/naval flight officer, and it's a very long process that you would only complete if you have the desire to drop out of aviation altogether, because it involves needing to apply to, be accepted by, and train in another warfare community (e.g. surface warfare, intel, subs, etc). Otherwise, you can absolutely be a designated naval aviator/naval flight officer occupying a non-flying billet (provided you meet the qualifications)! Almost all naval aviators/naval flight officers have portions of their careers where they are barely flying or not flying at all -- it's just part of how the career progression goes!

[galahadsgurl]

American Girls in my style!

Just a fun little fan art series purely for the nostalgia! Do you have a favorite?

Molly and Kit

Addy and Samantha

Kirsten and Kaya

Still working on a few more!

[galahadsgurl]

Anthony Ramos and Dominique Thorne for EMMY Magazine!

Photographed by: Miranda Penn Turin (Styled by Laura Sophie Cox & Jason Rembert)

Ironheart comes out June 24th on Disney+, Anthony and Dominique will portray Parker Robbins (The Hood) and Riri Williams respectively.

[galahadsgurl]

"i don't comment on ao3 because i don't wanna be annoying or weird" skill issue + you greatly underestimate the power dynamic here, writing multi paragraph comments is like feeding a bunch of deeply insane and possibly starved ducks at the park and watch them go completely mad over having received a piece of bread

[galahadsgurl]

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim. Hatred of Israel and of the Jewish people have no place in this world.

"If I am to understand…that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people." J.R.R. Tolkien

[galahadsgurl]

pray for those who hate you

pray for those who mock you

pray for those who curse you

pray for those who belittle you

pray for those who laugh at you

pray for those who persecute you

pray for those who can't stand you

pray for those who would never pray for you.

[galahadsgurl]

to all artists painting the same thing over and over and to all writers writing the same story over and over

[galahadsgurl]

Tyler/Kate/Javy?

the way the movie ended and how Javi interacts with both Kate and Tyler just screams ot3 to me and i love it

[galahadsgurl]

I have a poly!tornado trio headcanon :D This is for the three other Kate x javi x tyler ot3 truthers.

Whenever Javi gets stressed he slips into Spanish (I hc both his parents came from Puerto Rico to the states and that spanish was Javi's first language) This means whenever Javi is really panicked and starts mumbling to himself, Kate and Tyler can't really understand what he's saying. I also headcanon that Javi's parents know very limited English so Javi only speaks to them in spanish

So this inspires Kate and Tyler to learn spanish. They learn together and when they get the gist of the basics they show Javi and he is so touched. Like starts giving them kisses and all that.

THEN they meet Javi's parents and hear Javi talking to them and Kate and Tyler just kinda look at eachother like "Oh my god we know fucking nothing."

From there Javi teaches them puerto rican Spanish and the next time they see Javi's parents they pull up with the "que es la que hay"

Javis parents are impressed 🙏

It also means they can understand what's troubling Javi when he is panicked which is helpful ‼️

Okay bye

[galahadsgurl]

AOS really lost the opportunity to have a great “enemies to lovers to enemies again to lovers again” with skyeward right?

like, sorry to say, but NO ONE through the whole show had better chemistry with daisy/skye

(and also lost the the opportunity for one of the best redemption arcs ever with ward)

[galahadsgurl]

By: Tom Golden

Published: May 16, 2025

Modern feminist thought has deeply influenced how society perceives and responds to gender-based stereotypes. Feminists have rigorously documented how stereotype threat impacts women and girls—how being reminded of negative gender-based assumptions can lower their performance, limit their confidence, and reduce their opportunities. As a result, enormous institutional energy has been devoted to minimizing stereotype threat for females across education, employment, and media.

Yet in a jarring contradiction, the same feminist voices that crusade against the stereotyping of girls often perpetuate, ignore, or excuse deeply harmful stereotypes about boys and men. From classrooms to courtrooms, from media headlines to college campuses, males are frequently cast in the most unflattering terms imaginable: violent, toxic, emotionally stunted, hypersexual, power-hungry. This glaring double standard is rarely acknowledged—and when it is, it's often waved away as justified.

The result is a cultural imbalance where girls are protected from stereotypes, while boys are buried under them. Let’s examine how this disparity is constructed, maintained, and what it costs all of us.

Stereotype Threat and the Feminist Crusade to Protect Girls

Feminists have long argued—and rightly so—that stereotypes about girls can shape outcomes. One of the most cited examples comes from the realm of STEM education. Studies have shown that girls perform worse on math tests when reminded of the stereotype that "girls aren’t good at math." This phenomenon, known as stereotype threat, was popularized by social psychologists Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson. Feminists embraced the concept and used it to campaign for reforms in teaching, testing, curriculum design, and media messaging.

Other domains soon followed. Feminists argued that girls were reluctant to lead because of the “bossy” label, or that societal beauty standards hurt girls’ self-esteem and academic performance. They noted that girls were silenced by fear of being called “sluts,” or that women in professional settings were discredited as “too emotional.” Each of these concerns was framed not just as an individual struggle, but as a systemic injustice—something society must urgently address.

And society listened. School systems restructured grading rubrics. Teachers were retrained. Billions were poured into programs to boost girls' confidence in science, leadership, and athletics. The public and private sectors launched endless initiatives to remove barriers caused by female stereotype threat.

In short, feminist activism produced a world where girls’ psychological safety was treated as sacred.

The Stereotyping of Boys: An Avalanche of Contempt

While girls were being lifted out of the trap of stereotype threat, boys were being pushed further in.

Instead of confronting negative assumptions about boys and men, feminist rhetoric often amplifies them. From slogans like “toxic masculinity” to academic theories of male privilege and patriarchy, boys and men are persistently painted with a broad and damning brush.

Here are just a few of the common stereotypes promoted or tolerated in feminist narratives:

“Toxic masculinity” — Suggests that traditional male traits like stoicism, competitiveness, or strength are inherently dangerous or pathological.

“All men are rapists” — A paraphrase of radical feminist assertions such as those made by Andrea Dworkin and echoed in various feminist circles, promoting the idea that male sexuality is fundamentally predatory.

“Men are pigs” — A socially tolerated insult that would be unthinkable if genders were reversed.

“The future is female” — A slogan implying men are obsolete or that society would be better off without them.

“Teach boys not to rape” — A blanket accusation that implies boys are budding criminals in need of reprogramming.

The sheer scale of anti-male generalizations today is staggering. Feminists have created entire frameworks—like the Duluth Model of domestic violence—that treat men as default aggressors and women as default victims. In higher education, young men are often presumed guilty under “believe all women” policies that strip them of due process. In mainstream media, the “bumbling dad,” the “man-child,” or the “creepy predator” are staple characters.

Meanwhile, no serious feminist movement campaigns to shield boys from these psychological burdens. There is no widespread effort to protect boys from stereotype threat. No national initiatives to challenge the myth that “boys don’t cry” or that “boys are naturally violent.” Instead, when boys struggle or fail, they’re often told to check their privilege or try harder not to be a threat.

A Culture That Justifies Male Stereotyping

One of the most troubling aspects of this double standard is the moral justification feminists use for maintaining it. The typical logic goes something like this:

Men have power.

Therefore, they can’t be victims.

Therefore, criticizing or generalizing about them is not harmful.

In fact, it’s necessary for justice.

This thinking allows feminists to cast boys and men in extremely negative terms while insisting that no real harm is done. But this argument collapses under scrutiny.

First, boys are not “the patriarchy.” They’re children. They don’t hold systemic power. Yet from an early age, they are fed messages—through media, school, and sometimes family—that their natural traits are problematic. If stereotype threat is damaging to girls, how much more damaging is it to tell boys they are inherently dangerous?

Second, even adult men are not immune to the effects of persistent shaming and stereotyping. Research on stereotype threat applies to any group facing negative assumptions. If women avoid STEM because they feel they don’t belong, what happens to boys who are told they’re emotionally broken, likely to abuse, or irrelevant?

The feminist model claims to fight for equality. But equality means fighting harmful stereotypes wherever they exist—not just when they affect women.

The Human Cost of Ignoring Stereotype Threat in Boys

Boys today are falling behind in almost every major metric. They lag in literacy, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment. They are more likely to be suspended, medicated, or diagnosed with behavioral problems. They are less likely to be encouraged to express vulnerability, receive mental health care, or have their pain taken seriously.

Feminist rhetoric plays a significant role in this decline. By flooding the culture with negative images of maleness, it reinforces the very stereotype threat that it claims to abhor—only this time, it targets boys.

Consider a boy growing up in today’s world. He hears that his male role models are “toxic.” He learns that his normal competitive urges are suspect. He sees men in the media portrayed as fools, predators, or bullies. He enters a classroom where empathy is reserved for girls and suspicion is reserved for boys. If he acts out, he’s a threat. If he withdraws, he’s invisible. Either way, he’s lost.

What message does this send to boys? What expectations do we set? What futures do we foreclose?

The cost isn’t just male suffering—it’s societal dysfunction. When half the population is taught to distrust itself, we all lose. Relationships become harder. Families fracture. Collaboration becomes suspicion. We create not equality but enmity.

Toward True Equality: Challenging All Stereotypes

If we are serious about ending stereotype threat, we must abandon the feminist double standard that protects girls while demonizing boys. Equality demands consistency.

We must challenge the notion that “masculinity” is toxic. We must stop normalizing phrases like “men are trash” or “all men are predators.” We must stop teaching boys that their natural impulses are shameful. And we must recognize that stereotype threat applies just as much—if not more—to boys who grow up under a cultural cloud of suspicion and contempt.

Imagine if we treated boys with the same empathy and concern we extend to girls. Imagine if we taught them that their emotions matter, that their strengths are assets, and that their masculinity is something to be honored, not erased.

True progress will not come from selectively dismantling stereotypes. It will come from rejecting all dehumanizing generalizations—whether they target girls or boys, women or men.

Only then will we live in a culture that affirms the dignity and potential of every human being.

==

Remarkably, there are people who consider this kind of ethical consistency and equality to be not just unacceptable, but outright nefarious.

[galahadsgurl]