Whatever the hell they are, they're up right now and pointed at you, buddy.

dirkbot:

If you notice me reblogging

  • a repost
  • stolen art
  • false information
  • etc.

please let me know, you’re not rude or annoying and I actually do give a fuck and I will correct my mistake, thank you

dezi-desire:

Performing my Vyvyan routine at Bad Girls Burlesque!
https://www.facebook.com/DeziCosplay



Photographer: Rene Blais

Blanket statements against cis, straight, white (often male) people used to make me uncomfortable.[[MORE]]Then I got into a fight with my (cis, straight, white, male) friend. We’ve been friends for almost ten years and we’ve gone through some rough stuff together, but that night he said that he didn’t understand why I got upset with people who supported companies with homophobic CEOs or which had homophobic policies. He tried to tell me that it wasn’t a big deal, and that I was “overreacting” for being angry about the fact that things like that make it harder for people who aren’t straight—people like me—to get hired and generally have basic human respect. He didn’t “understand what my problem was.”I ended up retreating to the bathroom and pulling my hair, and out of my mouth came the words, “Fucking straight people!”Then I realized why people used blanket statements like that.That’s the story you’re not hearing when you feel uncomfortable about those blanket statements. You don’t understand that—today, yesterday, last week, their whole lives—they’ve been stepped on by those closest to them. Friends, family, loved ones, coworkers, bosses. All these cis, straight, white, male people who they love and cherish using the wrong pronouns for them, derailing them, gaslighting them, telling them “that’s just how it is,” telling them to get over it, telling them they don’t matter.When you use generalizing blanket statements, it hurts less. It isn’t your best friend who’s jokingly using slurs. It isn’t your mother who says “how gross” when a woman kisses another woman on the TV and you’re sitting right across the table. It isn’t your brother who takes photos of trans people walking down the street and then shows them to you like he’s proud of himself. It depersonalizes it, makes the people who hurt you into a nebulous group.It’s just “white people.” It’s just “cis people.” It’s just “straight men.” For one second, you can pretend that it’s no one you actually know and love.So the next time you hear someone use a blanket statement, stop and hear the pain and struggle underneath it. Think about all the personal stories of betrayal they must have. And then feel grateful, really fucking grateful, that you don’t need to use them yourself.

rhube:

medievalpoc:

fantasiawandering:

idriveahyundaimovietheatre:

medievalpoc:

whitefriartuck:

theletteraesc:

medievalpoc:

fuckyeahalejandra replied to your post: Ancient Art Week! Various Roman Sculpt…

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. 

Sources:

Australian Archaeology by Peter Hiscock

Cave paintings created by women

Lectures, seminars, lost media articles etc. 

Image source

*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?


It’s not just historical academia, either.

My favourite Biology prof did sex studies on guppies when she was in grad school, like you do. It was all about male colour variation and the effects on female mate choice — during mating season, males go through colour change and get these bright, beautiful red or blue markings, and there’s a ton of research done on their role in female mate choice. Like peacocks, it’s generally accepted that bigger, brighter indicators cause females to choose the “fitter” males.

My prof noticed there was one fish in her study that was exhibiting a really atypical colour change. They usually go blue and red at the fins, but this one went a deep gold all over (they start silver). She was intrigued by this atypical morph, and was really interested in it, until it started swelling. Afraid that it had parasites and would contaminate the study population, she culled it and dissected it to see what was going on.

It was pregnant. It was a female.

Everybody knew that females didn’t change colour. So she’d assumed that it was a  male. But it got even worse — looking back over her notes, she’d actually noted down that the females turned gold, but completely dismissed and overlooked her own note taking, because of the commonly-held facts. Despite the fact that she’d written it down, it never even processed.

So when she submitted her paper, she added a note in the discussion pointing out that despite commonly-held belief, females change colour too, and that future studies should investigate whether female colour change also plays a role in guppy mating behaviour.

Her paper was rejected, with a note saying “this academic journal is not the place for your feminist propaganda.”

Reblogging this one too because people are always asking “but what about science though”

Don’t just scroll past: read this, it’s important.

godtie:

you know what term we should start using? 

cispicious

to describe stuff like asks like these

image

pretty cispicious

captainshycoconut:

mallamun:

gatisss:

jesusfuck

I don’t know where this is from, but…

Between this and that Toyota commercial-

Man, I hope genderfuckery of this highly attractive magnitude just INVADES popular media until privileged heteronormative cismen who unthinkingly dominate the world around them through objectification of women and shaming of homosexuality are forced to think.

Forced to think because when they see an attractive ass in panties, they can no longer instinctively flap their dicks at it and say, “I’d own that” without having to think about gender or sexuality. Torn between their habit of reflexively objectifying women and gay-shaming themselves and others, they would have no choice but to open their eyes a little wider and actually think about the people they share the world with instead of living in a neverending reel of imagery that reinforces a narrow reality where they are king.

(x) link to the Toyota commercial mentioned (at least I assume its the one they meant, it fits the point nonetheless).

(Source: lucernes)

"You guys know about vampires? … You know, vampires have no reflections in a mirror? There’s this idea that monsters don’t have reflections in a mirror. And what I’ve always thought isn’t that monsters don’t have reflections in a mirror. It’s that if you want to make a human being into a monster, deny them, at the cultural level, any reflection of themselves. And growing up, I felt like a monster in some ways. I didn’t see myself reflected at all. I was like, “Yo, is something wrong with me? That the whole society seems to think that people like me don’t exist? And part of what inspired me, was this deep desire that before I died, I would make a couple of mirrors. That I would make some mirrors so that kids like me might see themselves reflected back and might not feel so monstrous for it."

—Junot Diaz - on cultural representation in our world (via eshusplayground)

(Source: roses-in-newyork)

sisterresister:

lionessclub:

We live in a really weird era of feminism in which we’re not allowed to criticise any oppressive constructs/industries (marriage, beauty/make up, porn, etc) just because some women enjoy them.

I’m really sick of of opinions and discussions being shut down with “it’s not oppressive if we like it! Don’t you know that some women CHOOSE to do these things?”

Well, heck. don’t you know that  men/the patriarchy have a lot to gain in keeping us content and complicit in our own oppression?

I think our generation of feminists have lost the idea of there being an oppressive structure (patriarchy) which moulds and controls the actions of individual women. So when we say “High heels are oppressive, they are a way of controlling women’s bodies, preventing us from being able to run and deforming our feet” a lot of women hear this as “Women who wear high heels are all stupid and not proper feminists. They are gullible stooges of patriarchy!” This is because Western women have been brought up in a culture that emphasises individualism and personal choices and ignores the coercive social and cultural structures and hierarchies within which those choices are made.

The criticism is not of individual women and the question is not whether individual women do or don’t choose to wear high heels. The criticism is of the patriarchal system that coerces women into wearing high heels and that denies women a genuinely free choice as to whether or not to wear high heels.

snowyfir:

i hate the whole oppression works both way thing because like

for instance

if you go up to your boss and say “YOURE A FUCKING ASSHOLE. YOURE FIRED!!” nothing happens to your boss because you’re not in a position to do anything to her like that. if she goes “NO, YOURE FIRED.” then you’re out on your ass and unemployed. you both said the same thing, but its effects were COMPLETELY different, because of the POSITIONS OF POWER.