Are these sculptures of roman citizens or slaves?
The association of Black people with enslavement is an entirely modern invention, as in, chattel slavery in the…
Regarding the whole ‘men hunted, women gave birth’ thing (and wildly off topic from racism in classical Rome, sorry), it is looking increasingly like a load of nonsense (no surprise).
There are prehistoric hunting scenes showing hunts which (probably *1) show women hunting for one thing and despite this male researcers still declares that men hunted and men created these hunting scenes and were also the first artists. But now we know that these hunting scenes not only show women hunting in some cases but WERE PRODUCED BY WOMEN primarily!
So what evidence for male = hunter is there?
When you look at the evidence for male hunters you have gender bias (men obviously hunted because men hunt now), gender essentialism (men hunted because they had less body fat and didn’t need to produce babies and Reasons) and ethnographic evidence (indigenous Australian hunters were solely male in the 19th-20th centuries).
We assume that because violent activities today are associated with men while women nurtured young that has always been the way. We also assume that women who were not pregnant would be compelled to behave in the same way as women who were pregnant/looking after children. It also assumes that hunting was much more dangerous than it probably was, hunters were often as much scavengers as far as we can tell from archaeological evidence of kill sites and often employed tactics like driving pray off cliffs to die or into dead ends were they could be picked off more safely. That isn’t to say it was completely safe of course. But who is to say gathering was necessarily safe in an age where a simple cut could result in death from infection and there were no anti-bodies for the admittedly few venomous creatures in Europe or that the gatherers would be free from the attentions of now extinct predators.
Much of the ethnographic evidence comes either from African nomadic peoples which have still had thousands of years of contact with patriarchal cultures or Australian Aboriginal and Papua New Guinean groups. The ethnographic observations were made in the 19th and 20th centuries and are deeply racist because they were based on the assumption that these cultures were primitive and unchanging since settlement of Sahul (Australia + New Guinea when they were connected) 50,000 years ago! We know, for example, in the early nineteenth century the power structure of Australian indigenous populations shifted in favour of young men after various epidemics killed 90% of the Aboriginal population in the space of 50 years or thereabout (something we never learnt in school, funnily enough). We do not know who hunted prior to European colonisation of Australia. We guess and the further back in time you go the more problematic that becomes because the hundreds at least indigenous cultures in Australia have all evolved over time just like any other culture.
IF we accept the creators of the hunting scenes across Europe were hunters themselves then we have to accept that women were as likely to be hunters as men. If we do not want to accept that the people who made the art were hunters then we have no evidence beyond ethnographic evidence for males solely being hunters and then we have to look carefully at the ethnographic evidence and accept it is deeply, deeply problematic.
So, in my opinion as a humble archaeology undergraduate, we either accept we have no firm evidence to say men or women hunted, just that hunting was done. If you accepted the cave paintings as evidence of male hunters when they were believed to be produced by men you should also accept they are now evidence of female hunting.
If you think you can say with certainty that ‘women have always been subjected to men because Reasons’ then you have no clue what you are talking about.Sadly much of the scholarship on the subject assumes male = hunter and works forward from that, trying to justify the assumption rather than addressing the actual evidence. Because if we accept that there is no evidence for that then it undermines a lot of nonsense gender essentialism used to handwave away sexism in society today.
Australian Archaeology by Peter Hiscock
Lectures, seminars, lost media articles etc.
*1 Of course it is ‘accepted’ (read: assumed) that all the figures are male by default unless there are obvious feminine traits as opposed to just representing people in general.
Oh my god, I could not have said that nearly as well as you did.
This is such a concise and accessible explanation of why and how so much of what we “know” about the ancient world, prehistory, and a lot of history in general has almost EVERYTHING to do with looking for confirmation of reflections of our CURRENT SOCIETY, and any academic with a lick of honesty will tell you the same thing.My graduate adviser tells a story about doing her dissertation research in Normandy in the 1970s, where she delved into the civic archives of Caen to study the role of women in early modern commerce. The other academic working there was an older French man (my adviser is an American woman), and he guffawed at her research plans and greatly despised her working there alongside him, a “real” historian studying “serious” history. He insisted repeatedly that there were no women working in commerce in France at that time, and that there were only men.
My adviser soldiered on despite having to work while facing directly at this man every single day. As she began her research, she began finding women “hiding” in plain sight, listed right alongside men in the tax rolls and notarized sales that they were both studying. She found hundreds of women engaging in buying and selling, and happily shoved these documents right in the face of her detractor, who now insisted that these women, who had not existed in his mind the day before, were simply “unimportant”.
My point: our biases are so powerful that we can literally look at documents and not see the names on the paper, if we believe that those names should not be there. How much of our narrative self-perpetuates, as generations of scholars find support for preexisting biases by simply overlooking the contradictory evidence staring right back at them?
"Being touched by a stranger and told that I was beautiful didn’t make me feel more beautiful; it made me feel unimportant. It made me feel like what I wanted – to go from home to work with a quick stop at Starbucks on the way, without being harassed – didn’t matter. What mattered most was that this man had an opinion about me, so I had to hear it whether I wanted to or not. He wanted to touch me, so I was going to be touched, by a stranger, whether I wanted it or not."
So I take it you've never: ever heard of cartoon porn before bronies existed, and you don't know the term 'safesearchwrapup'?
I thought about this ask a LOT while I was away from my computer today. A LOT. Because I have always tried to be calm and cool and answer your questions respectfully, and this bothered the shit out of me.
So I am not going to be calm, and I am not going to be cool. This is your only warning.
First off, cartoon porn has always existed. Google “Tijuana Bible” if you’re curious. You, too, can see Mickey Mouse fuck Olive Oyl in the ass while she sucks off Popeye and Goofy masturbates in the background. The art’s not as good as some of what we have these days, but hell, standards change. When I was in high school, I and a bunch of other kids in my art class had what we called the “porn sketchbook,” which was full of EXTREMELY explicit cartoon porn, showing lots of popular characters fucking each other’s brains out.
Guess what we didn’t show to six year olds? Gosh, you’re a good guesser. And guess what most six year olds don’t know? Terms like “safesearchwrapup.” The post that I reblogged, that you are now addressing me over, OPENLY EXPLAINED the search standards. That “safe search” was on. That the pictures showed up anyway. And that sometimes kids will get on the internet without supervision.
I have NO FUCKING PROBLEM with cartoon porn. I may find some of it to be in questionable taste, and I cheered when Princess Molestia was removed from the internet, but whatever. Your kink is your kink, and your kink is okay, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. When your kink literally pushes little girls out of their fandom, IT IS HURTING PEOPLE.
Let’s look at a word. The word “brony.”
I am a My Little Pony fan. I have been since I was four. My first ponies were Cotton Candy and Minty. I still have them, and more than two hundred others. I have the original cartoon on DVD. Some of my earliest works of fiction were stories in which I got to travel over the rainbow and live in Ponyland. I am not a newcomer to this fandom.
My Little Pony is a “girl toy,” so yeah, most of the fans I knew were girls. But there were boy fans. You know what we called them? FANS. We didn’t give them a special, gender-specific name that proved how cool they were for liking something that wasn’t made specifically to appeal to them. WE CALLED THEM FANS.
The very term “brony” is a statement of conquest. “This was made for girls, but we’re too cool to like it unless it’s on our masculine terms. Our bro-terms.” So we’re once again belittling men, because they can’t love a thing unless it’s somehow masculized. And we’re excluding girls, because seriously. We teach little girls FROM DAY ONE that boy things aren’t for them, and you don’t get more “this is for men” than a name that includes “bro.” (And no, saying I can be a “pegasister” doesn’t help. I AM NOT THE PROTAGONIST’S SISTER IN MY OWN FANDOM.)
Cartoon porn is fine in its place, but it should not be so prevalent and so poorly tagged that it takes over the search results for a children’s property. The way the brony community has said “MLP is for us, always us, us above all others, little girls don’t count, the intent of the brand doesn’t count, the people who have loved this property since 1982 will never love it like we do, because they don’t have a special name” feels like the fannish equivalent of that old Eddie Izzard sketch about “Do you have a flaaaaaaag?” I don’t need a flag. I LIVE HERE.
I always have.
My son (who is 13) loves MLP. He was introduced to it by friends, and he’s asked his aunt to watch it so that they can talk about it together. We talked about the term ‘brony,’ and that it implies that boys have to be special to like something that’s for girls. That they need a separate term.
He frowned, nodded, and said, ‘Oh, right, yeah. Well, I just like it, I don’t want to hurt anybody.’
If a thirteen year old can understand it, why can’t putative adults?
i am SO MAD RIGHT NOW. like. FURIOUS. just. ugh
did you know that Arwen was supposed to show up in the Two Towers and fight at Helm’s Deep?
Because I didn’t know. Arwen was my entry point into fandom, period. Arwen was. Like, I can’t even begin to tell you how important Arwen is to me, or how important she was to me when I was eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen. And, and she entered into the movie sword-first, guys. She was brave and strong and a faster rider than Aragorn and a healer and I loved her so much and I wanted to grow up and be her so badly. But cortue and I were just talking the other day about how once Elrond shows up at Aragorn’s camp in the third movie, Arwen loses the ability to speak. She shows up in flashback, lying in bed, and she shows up at the wedding, smiling and happy, but she doesn’t get even one more line. “Every time I watch it, I hope against hope that the elf under the cloak is going to be Arwen.”
We got an extra, “non-canon” book scene in which Arwen lay upon a fainting couch and was going to die because of Reasons, and then after that she fades out of the story, except as a smiling face at Aragorn’s coronation.
And she was supposed to be in the battle of Helm’s Deep? She was supposed to show up grim and beautiful and dangerous and save Aragorn’s life? She wasn’t just supposed to choose Middle-Earth, she was supposed to fight for it?
I can’t begin to tell you what that would have meant to me. I can’t begin to tell you how furious I am that this scene was cut, even from the extended editions.
hey, do you know why Arwen at Helm’s Deep was cut? Three guesses, and the first two don’t count. Fucking fanboys. Fucking Tolkien purists. Apparently they threw such a big shitfit when news of this storyline was leaked that Jackson et al scrapped it.
The website I found this on said that the internet outrage was so personal and vicious that it made Liv Tyler cry. I don’t know if that’s true, but if I’d known that this was a possibility, eleven year old me definitely would have cried. ten years later I still kind of feel like crying.
like, not just deleted from the movie. not just deleted from the fucking director’s cut. deleted so well that, like. well. a girl who’s been in love with Arwen for half her life never heard of it. I feel robbed.
and, it’s just. it’s been ten years, and people are still at that exact same level of outrage about Tauriel.
I’m so angry I’m not even angry, I’m just sad.
arwen the lord of the rings the battle of helms deep arwen undomiel if you hate tauriel then fuck you if you hate ladies because they weren’t in the books then fuck you if you hate ladies because they’re doing things they didn’t do in the books then FUCK YOU
I am mad I’m speechless, and I’ve been staring at this post for a good ten minutes.
"There’s no such thing as ‘men’ or ‘women’. There’s only the individual character you’re writing. One guy emailed me asking me how to write women, and I couldn’t answer, because I had no idea which woman he meant: me? Eleanor of Aquitaine? Lady Gaga? If you’re thinking of ‘men’ or ‘women’ as a monolithic group defined primarily by their sex, then you’re not thinking of them as individuals; so your character isn’t going to come out as an individual, but as a collection of stereotypes. Sure, there are differences between men and women on average – but you’re writing an individual, not an average. If your individual character is chatty on the phone or refuses to ask for directions, that needs to be because of who he or she is, not because of what he or she is. Write the person, not the genitalia."Wonderful writing tips from Tana French: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/book-news/tip-sheet/article/53085-5-writing-tips-from-tana-french.html (via theoncominghope)
When [an abusive man] tells me that he became abusive because he lost control of himself, I ask him why he didn’t do something even worse. For example, I might say, “You called her a fucking whore, you grabbed the phone out of her hand and whipped it across the room, and then you gave her a shove and she fell down. There she was at your feet where it would have been easy to kick her in the head. Now, you have just finished telling me that you were ‘totally out of control’ at that time, but you didn’t kick her. What stopped you?” And the client can always give me a reason. Here are some common explanations:
"I wouldn’t want to cause her a serious injury."
“I realized one of the children was watching.”
“I was afraid someone would call the police.”
“I could kill her if I did that.”
“The fight was getting loud, and I was afraid the neighbors would hear.”
And the most frequent response of all:
"Jesus, I wouldn’t do that. I would never do something like that to her.”
The response that I almost never heard — I remember hearing it twice in the fifteen years — was: “I don’t know.”
These ready answers strip the cover off of my clients’ loss of control excuse. While a man is on an abusive rampage, verbally or physically, his mind maintains awareness of a number of questions: “Am I doing something that other people could find out about, so it could make me look bad? Am I doing anything that could get me in legal trouble? Could I get hurt myself? Am I doing anything that I myself consider too cruel, gross, or violent?”
A critical insight seeped into me from working with my first few dozen clients: An abuser almost never does anything that he himself considers morally unacceptable. He may hide what he does because he thinks other people would disagree with it, but he feels justified inside. I can’t remember a client ever having said to me: “There’s no way I can defend what I did. It was just totally wrong.” He invariably has a reason that he considers good enough. In short, an abuser’s core problem is that he has a distorted sense of right and wrong.
I sometimes ask my clients the following question: “How many of you have ever felt angry enough at youer mother to get the urge to call her a bitch?” Typically half or more of the group members raise their hands. Then I ask, “How many of you have ever acted on that urge?” All the hands fly down, and the men cast appalled gazes on me, as if I had just asked whether they sell drugs outside elementary schools. So then I ask, “Well, why haven’t you?” The same answer shoots out from the men each time I do this exercise: “But you can’t treat your mother like that, no matter how angry you are! You just don’t do that!”
The unspoken remainder of this statement, which we can fill in for my clients, is: “But you can treat your wife or girlfriend like that, as long as you have a good enough reason. That’s different.” In other words, the abuser’s problem lies above all in his belief that controlling or abusing his female partner is justifiable…."Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men (via seebster)
"But a female dummy didn’t become a mandatory part of frontal crash tests until last year. For all this time, the average American guy stood for us all.
That may have had a substantial impact on women’s auto safety. If airbags are designed for the average male, they will strike most men in the upper chest, creating a cushion for their bodies and heads. Yet small women might hit the airbag chin first, snapping their heads back, potentially leading to serious neck and spinal injuries.
In some cases, according to tests with female mannequins, small women were almost three times as likely as their average male counterparts to be seriously injured or killed. A study of actual crashes by the University of Virginia’s Center for Applied Biomechanics found that women wearing seatbelts were 47 percent more likely to be seriously injured than males in similar accidents.”"
I really wish there were a single word that meant “disgusted and speechless but also not at all surprised”
How about two words: paying attention
A dude friend demanded I "name one" female superhero who could head her own movie. I gave him a list. He said he hadn't heard of any, so they couldn't be A-listers. I said Captain Marvel, Black Widow, She-Hulk are solo titles. He said they still "couldn't handle" a solo movie. I gave up. (btw he also made several factual errors that, if he'd been a girl, the other dudes would've crucified him for, but they didn't say anything.) What are we supposed to do?
Kill him and eat him in front of the others. It’s the only way they learn.
Reminder that Iron Man wasn’t “A-list” before his first movie.
Erm….How was Iron Man not “A-List”? He has several solo titles and is one of the main protagonists in the Avengers…. Iron Man is pretty much the definition of “A-List”
See the bit where I said “Before his movie”. He wasn’t, he really wasn’t, one of the top names before a) Ellis and Granov’s Extremis arc/reboot and b) his first movie.
Until that point he was moderately successful, within comics, but certainly wasn’t a huge hit, and crucially, very few people outside of comic readers had any idea who he was.
Reminder that Black Widow had a solo film in production before the first Iron Man movie, and the reason it was cancelled was her gender.
One of my best friends has been an Iron Man fan his whole life, and he was STUNNED when the movie was green-lit, because Iron Man wasn’t A-list. We MADE these characters A-list, by loving their movies.
In another world, very close to this one, Black Widow is THE name to beat in comic book movies right now. I want to live there.
Ant-Man is getting his own movie
Daredevil had a movie
Ghost Rider has had 2 movies
Punisher’s had 2 movies (recently, in total he’s had 3)
Blade’s had 3 movies and a TV show
These are all “A-listers”?
I bet you most people had no clue who Blade was before the movies made him a success.
They invented a white dude out of whole cloth in the movie series in Coulson, and now he’s in video games, a live action series, an animated series, and in the comics.
Captain/Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, Spider-Woman, Black Widow, etc all have more of a comics history and name recognition than Coulson who didn’t even exist 6 years ago. People act like who gets a movie is like some sort of sports draft, and they’re being picked by their college/comic accomplishments, rather than these are fictional characters who are popular if there is the will to write them well & promote them.
Can we just bring this back to Kelly Sue’s answer which is downright perfect?