I got into solarpunk mostly because I’m too butch for cottagecore, but I might be too granny to satisfy the punk requirements. I wanna stay on my couch and knit, you guys, I’m so tired.
Strawberries is top of my list of things to start when I’m in a better situation to garden. Gotdamn squirrels got em when I tried before, and the maintenance guys just kicked over the barren-looking pots (tried to garden on the communal stoop since I don’t have a balcony or private patio, did not work).
This is the kind of thing I think about to get the useful bits out of the “touch grass” meme.
Unfortunately I’m not very good at it and time isn’t real until the stores put out the commercialized holiday crap: It’s only really summer when the 4th of July kitsch is put out on the shelves. It sucks and I want to be better about it.
I started with bamboo needles because I had a hard learning curve for knitting, but now that I’ve leveled up I’m thinking about getting a metal set, especially in the smaller sizes. I have hopes that it’ll help my gauge issues, but chances are it won’t help that much :(
The TL;DR of this article is that KonMari method doesn’t work for the author. Author feels defensive about her collection of sentimental items and wants more advice about organizing than KonMari offers.
Maybe this book isn’t helpful for some people. That’s okay. Doesn’t mean you need to do clickbait libel to my girl with “debunk.”
But jokes aside, I wonder how this would stack up against pre-Industrialized society, what with the high infant/child mortality. And at least Catholics let women fuck off to the nunnery if the whole maternity thing didn’t appeal to them. One way that medieval Catholics were weirdly more progressive than most flavors of Protestants.
If I remember my Navajo mystery novels correctly, this is specifically because the Navajo/Dinee consider corpses to be ritually unclean. I guess the equivalent would be taking powdered human waste up to the moon and flinging it around just to say there’s human DNA on the moon (I’m sure all the moon missions left their waste behind anyway, there’s already human DNA up there).
In the interest of horse-girl infodumping, I recall seeing some at the Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa, OK, and luckily they have some pics for their online collection, thank you Gilcrease.
This one actually has stirrups, looks like the girth attachments are more sophicated than my Dunning-Kruger ass imagined, but the stirrup leathers are, in fact, looped over each of the wooden bars: collections.gilcrease.org/object/84985
I wondered what the heck a “true” saddle was supposed to be, but it looks like they roughly defined it as a treed (wooden frame) saddle with stirrups attached. I can’t seem to parse whether the tree came before the stirrup – it’s implied but not stated – but it looks like a single mounting stirrup was invented before paired riding stirrups. I’ve seen a Native American (Cherokee? IIRC dated about Removal Time) saddle that was basically just a tree, presumably used with blankets above and beneath for comfort, without any indication of rings for girth or stirrup attachment, but that doesn’t rule out looping them through the gap between the tree bars (where the spine floats underneath). It was/is a trend within the last decade or so to use a treeless saddle for more “natural” horsemanship (whatever that means), and I’m sitting here wondering what that means for stirrup attachment. Layered on top of the girth, I hope, for stability. Gonna go fall down the google-hole.