I’m perfectly capable of enjoying the idea of “person A, a hero, ‘saves’ person b, a villain, with the power of love” in a fictional context, and all the different ways it can play out, while also recognizing that it’s a bad idea to try to save someone from themselves if they’re dangerous in real life. I’m an adult and I understand the difference. My enjoyment if hero/villain ships in fiction does not inform my real life relationship choices. On the contrary, they allow a safe outlet me to explore and live out these ideas without suffering negative consequences in my real life.
This continued insistence by self-described feminists that I actually don’t know the difference, and am potentially endangering myself by consuming fiction featuring that trope, is not helpful. It’s not progressive or radical. It’s not liberating or empowering. It’s not “smashing the patriarchy.”
On the contrary, it’s nothing but a rehash of old misogynistic stand-bys: that women can’t be trusted to understand their own thoughts and emotions, that they have to be told what they feel and think and why, that women are blinded by innate naivety and compassion, or by sexual desire, that women need a guiding hand to protect them from their own bad judgment.
The fact that it’s women applying this to other women this time around. does not magically make it okay, does not make it less condescending, less patronizing, less violating. Women have been enforcing misogynistic social norms for other women for ages; this is nothing new. It’s no different than when my female Sunday school teachers told me that my body is inherently a temptation to sin, and I must take counter-measures to prevent others from falling from grace by covering it at the expense of my own comfort. It’s no different than when they told me that women who aren’t virgins are equivalent to chewed up gum or licked cupcakes. Sexism doesn’t stop being sexism because it’s enforced laterally.
It’s funny that these people keep implying that women who enjoy this fictional trope have a savior complex. From where I’m sitting, we aren’t the ones trying to save people who don’t need or want to be saved.
Honestly I think we need a name for this kind of condescending “it’s for their own good” themarysue-style fauxminism and I’m formally submitting “helicopter feminism” as that name.
I think I figured out how to stop the obnoxious notification spam that has been telling me “[name] mentioned you” every time somebody reblogs a post I was ever tagged in, even if they never mention me in THEIR reblog!
1. Go to Account, the little person head and shoulders in upper right.
2. Go to Settings, with the gear icon.
3. Click Notifications.
4. Uncheck the new “conversational notifications” switch.
Female Awesome Meme (6/15) Lead Female Characters: Ginny Baker.“You think I got rattled so you’re coming out here on your white horse to give me one of your great movie speeches. I don’t need a speech from you today. I don’t need a speech from you, or my father, or my brother, or my agent. And I don’t need some billionaire taking me all over the world as if I’ve got nothing else to do. I don’t need a man to rescue me. I’m the one on the mound right now. Me. I throw the ball. I give the speeches.”
A user played a blank card threatening to shoot up a certain school. Another player in the match reported it to the FBI, and, due to the legal costs racking up against the person running the servers, PYX has been closed.
It wasn’t the admin’s fault, it was a dumb player who has since been arrested.
and here’s a reproduction of the statue with the colors restored
i honestly think that what we consider the height of sculpture in all of Western civilization being essentially the leftover templates of gaudy pieces of theme park shit to be evidence of the potential merit of found art
“I tried coloring it and then I ruined it”
And you know what the funniest part is? The paint didn’t just wear off over time. A bunch of asshole British historians back in the Victorian era actually went around scrubbing the remaining paint off of Greek and Roman statues – often destroying the fine details of the carving in the process – because the bright colours didn’t fit the dignified image they wished to present of the the cultures they claimed to be heirs to. This process also removed visible evidence of the fact that at least some of the statues thus stripped of paint had originally depicted non-white individuals.
Whenever you look at a Roman statue with a bare marble face, you’re looking at the face of imperialist historical revisionism.
(The missing noses on a lot of Egyptian statues are a similar deal. It’s not that the ancient Egyptians made statues with strangely fragile noses. Many Victorian archaeologists had a habit of chipping the noses off of the statues they brought back, then claiming that they’d found them that way – because with the noses intact, it was too obvious that the statues were meant to depict individuals of black African descent.)
There’s a lot of good academic discussion about chromophobia in modern Western aesthetics and how it links to colonialism.
a couple of general points:
1) the reason the reconstructions here look like “the leftover templates of gaudy pieces of theme park shit” is because they’re reconstructions. this is not actually what these statues looked like, and in my opinion they do roman art a massive disservice. the reason they look so “gaudy” (which is actually the exact same colonial attitude that led directly to the literal whitewashing of graeco-roman art, nice, very nice) is because the colours have been applied flat, with no shading or blending to give the impression of shadow. looking at contemporary roman portraiture, it’s clear that they did actually have quite a sophisticated grasp of shading and colouring, and to imagine that they would just suddenly forget how to do the dark bits when they were painting on stone is ludicrous. for context, this is a portrait of paquius proculo, a fresco from pompeii, dating from around 20-30AD, ten years earlier than that bust of caligula:
(also of interest in this regard are the fayum mummy portraits, dating from the second century AD; again, although they are of varying quality, the best of them demonstrate a clear understanding of shading. for example:
and, to be honest: do you really think a civilisation that produced this
just, what, didn’t get paint? these reconstructions are laughable, not because they’re colourful but because they’re presenting an incredibly sophisticated culture as unable to understand simple artistic concepts; something that i think itself contributes to the idea of colourfully painted statues being ‘silly’ and ‘gaudy’, which again is an incredibly colonially-influenced idea.
2) the reason graeco-roman statues are often missing the noses is because most excavated statues are generally missing the noses. they are fragile. the head of a statue is basically a football with details; the nose is the only protruding part and is comparatively narrow and thin (as opposed to, say, an arm or leg, which takes more force to break off but is still very much detachable, c.f the venus di milo) and is very, very easy to break off. although i am absolutely the last person to deny the racism that has been present in classics, the noses thing is really not a great example.
Many sculptures from antiquity were defaced during the early Christian period. During riots, Christian mobs would smash the noses off of ‘pagan’ sculptures, as they usually depicted pagan gods, or emperors, and depending on the sect, any depiction of a person could be considered ‘graven’.
The hotbed of Christian zealotry was Egypt. Throughout its time as a Roman, and then ‘Byzantine’ province during its early Christian history, the province proved practically unmanageable due to its Christian theological riots, with the majority of the population not following Constantinople’s doctrine and theological orders.
This Roman bust of Germanicus at the British Museum was defaced – nose smashed off – during a riot that would have taken place in late antiquity in Egypt, so, 400-500AD [also, note the cross etched into forehead]
Probably the most known example of this is the destruction of the Alexandrian Serapeum, a vast temple complex in Alexandria, Christian mobs tore the temple apart, destroying and looting, tearing it down brick by brick.
Another example, outside of Egypt, is the Nika Revolts in Constantinople. On its creation as a co-capital of the Roman Empire, an unfathomable amount of art and sculpture was brought to adorn the New Rome, and during the revolt, for the most part this cream of the classical crop was destroyed, again, by theological mobs.
After Egypt’s conquest during the Arab-Islamic conquests, this practice would have continued. In fact, theologically, many of Egypt’s Christian sects were more in line with Islamic theology than what became mainstream Christianity in both ‘Orthodox’ and ‘Catholic’ doctrine.
Basically, if you want to know what happened to sculptures from antiquity, Abrahamic faiths happened to them. We divorce classical and ancient sculptures from their meaning – we see them as history or art, but to the new faiths, they were graven images, they were pagan, and they were destroyed or defaced.
I like this version of the thread. It has actual history in it not just “Victorian assholes” did it (which this thread also seems to be the only thing I ever see about Victorians removing paint from statues).
Mmm, I’m getting really tired of these “Norse pagans who are nazis aren’t real Norse pagans” and “ugh, everyone keeps trying to make sure I’m not a neo-Nazi when I say I’m Norse pagan” attitudes I’ve been seeing around lately.
Distancing yourself from fascist and racist Norse pagans doesn’t address the problem. Whining because someone wanted to make sure you weren’t a fascist doesn’t address the problem.
The prevalence of neo-nazis in Norse pagan spaces is a real and relevant issue and it’s an issue that makes many religious spaces unsafe for poc, queer folks, and disabled folks who practice Norse pagan traditions. If you silence people speaking out about a Norse pagan group with Nazi leanings by saying “they’re not really Norse pagan” then you’re are making it harder for vulnerable groups to find safe religious spaces. When you complain about people trying to vet you and make sure you’re not a neo-nazi when you say you’re Norse pagan, then you’re telling vulnerable groups that they’re wrong to try and stay away from dangerous people.
This isn’t an unwarranted assumption, and it’s not being made to bully you, it’s being made so that people can stay away from actual literal neo-nazis. You need to understand that. You need to understand that this isn’t about you, it’s about the need to stay away from people who might hurt us.
If you’re upset about this assumption then the proper response is to be actively anti-nazi in your worship. It’s to create and support Norse pagan space that are safe for poc, queer folks, and disabled people. Make the Norse pagan community safe and loving and anti-fascist. That is how your break this assumption, not by complaining about the assumption being made in the first place.
Rush's tumblr archive 