Posts I Like

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

AW YES

TINY PRECIOUS LITTLE AQUA PIGS

Going for a swim and being adorable

(via afairlypudgycat)

drumstyx:

hebbycakes:

transetheralbrimwylf:

hexgoddess:

That’s brilliant I need to wear shorts under skirts

That disappointed gif might be my new fav.

THANK YOU ANIME GIRL

I love this for criticizing the constant panty shots in anime. Brilliant

(via onecricket)

ollielephant:

Mudskippers screaming in each other’s faces

(via newvagabond)

comradewodka:

swindleofficial:

all the transformers are gay

just accept it

i really dont see why people are surprised

you brought this on yourself when you made 99.9% of the characters male-coded because girl cooties are gross

and then had them do shit like fly off into space while holding hands

(via newvagabond)

nitewrighter:

benepla:

ideal hogwarts students:

  • aromantic wizards being absolutely immune to amortentia, it only smelling like the ingredients put into it when they smell it, and teaching other students how to identify the stuff on any food or drink
  • gender confused ravenclaw leafing through glossarys of pronouns and accidentally getting 80% of the class to stay up leafing through similar glossarys, screaming out pronouns in the common room when they think they found one that may fit
  • slytherin students sometimes taking polyjuice potion to pose as one of their depressed members who was having a bad day and really couldn’t bring themselves to classes
  • kids who read about the second great wizarding war and, when reading about Severus Snape’s brave acts, argue “well yeah ok but he was kind of an asshole still?”

—Wizard broomchairs instead of wheelchairs. No need to worry about stairs when you’re floating, right? Just say “up” to it like you would with a broomstick and it hovers a comfortable 7 inches from the ground, though it can be raised and lowered depending on the wizard’s preference/mood.

—No one giving Wizards with ADD/learning/organizational disabilities any guff about the rememberalls they carry on hand. 

—Aspie and autistic Wizards with dazzling proficiency in more mysterious and complex branches of magic like Wandlore and wandmaking.

—The books in Hogwart’s library reacting to dyslexic students trying to read them and helping them: breaking up paragraphs, highlighting words, sometimes reading themselves aloud if the student is having a particularly difficult time or has eyesight problems.

—Professors enchanting gloves to use sign language next to them as they teach for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

—Neville Longbottom instigating a schoolwide program to foster better communication between students and teachers and better regulation of how house points are handed out, and the general effort toward a less stressful learning environment, referred to lovingly by students as ‘Deebass,” from the joking acronym, “Don’t Be A Snape”

(via newvagabond)

gorillamunchies:

me after I reincarnate

(via afairlypudgycat)

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?


(via thebicker)