notfadeaway asked: I'm working on a script for a comic I'm creating. My cast is primarily female and I'm worried I have too many women. When you're writing CM (since your cast is largely female) do you ever think, "there should be a guy in here somewhere?" And if so, what do you do? I'm really comfortable writing women, and I love my characters... I see no need for anymore men in the story at this time, but I'm afraid it won't appeal to a large enough audience. 3 prominent women to 1 supporting male? Too much?
>too many women
I’m sorry, I don’t know what those words mean in that order.
>do you ever think, “there should be a guy in here somewhere?”
>I see no need for anymore men in the story at this time, but I’m afraid it won’t appeal to a large enough audience.
You’re trying to sell a thing you haven’t even written yet. Write the story you would write if you were just going to put it in a drawer.
Write the story you want to read.
"You’re trying to sell a thing you haven’t even written yet. Write the story you would write if you were just going to put it in a drawer.
"Write the story you want to read. "
I think that, at some point, all of us who write forget this, and I’m so grateful to Kelly Sue for reminding us.
When you realize that reading you didn’t for do because you count find it is under a different name and now you have 70 minutes to read 93 pages before class
I wonder; if you used gender swapped man-splaining/defenses against a MRA would they realize what you were doing or criticize your easy-to-rebut-and-defeat straw man arguments?
Person A: Women are crazy.
Person B: Not ALL women.
There’s a full lunar eclipse tonight at 3:46 EST. If I go to bed now and get up at 3:30 it’ll be close to my usual 6 hours of sleep. But then I’ll have to be up for 20 hours…
Tough decisions are happening to procrastinate papers.
spacebunnysparkle-empress asked: 1/2. answer to your post got too long. I think maybe Martin, as an author, is just portraying the world as it is. in the world we live in, those things are true. It is violent and terrible and men, particularly white men do have the power. For me personally, i see it as a mirror. i feel like he's exposing how awful we can be. plus it makes for conflict and you cant have a good tv or fiction without tons of that. also, in real world,
historically things like rape were either not discussed, considered NBD, or something which meant you must commit suicide because why would anyone want you after that? when i watch/read game of thrones, it makes me think about the brutality in our own lives, and how our media handles that. i dont know if it has that effect on anyone else though.
1. You’re wrong about social perspectives on violence, including sexual violence, from “history”. Firstly, because you seem to be generalizing the entirety of human history. Secondly,
According to the text of the Madrid manuscript of the “Synopsis historion,” a Byzantine chronicle written by John Skylitzes, “There were some Varangians dispersed in the Thrakesion theme for the winter. One of them coming across a woman of the region in the wilderness put the quality of her virtue to the test. When persuasion failed he resorted to violence, but she seized his Persian-type sword, struck him in the heart and promptly killed him. When the deed became known in the surrounding area, the Varangians held an assembly and crowned the woman, presenting her with all the possessions of her violator, whom they threw aside, unburied, according to the law concerning assassins.” In the image depicting these occurrences, the woman uses a spear to kill her attacker, and the other Varangian men approach her with armfuls of clothing.
Women’s History in regard to the European Middle Ages, specifically, is so constantly being revised, revisited, and rewritten, what is considered “the norm” and what is considered “exceptional” changes with the day of the week, the phase of the moon, and the latest piece of documentation being debated in various circles.
You can read this excerpt reviewing Gendering the Master Narrative: Women and Power in the Middle Ages in its second incarnation, versus the one from 1988 which the authors claimed focused too much on
"the positive"…. as you can see, these ideas are constantly in flux, as well they should be! I’m ready for another volume refocusing on the positive, myself…. :|
In other words, THIS is precisely what I mean-people get these ideas from media and project them onto history a lot of the time. And yes, there are plenty of counter-examples, we can talk about Artemisia Gentilischi, and a million other things, but my point is that you cannot universalize this.
2. That’s precisely the problem I’m talking about, that GoT is more of a reflection of our CURRENT SOCIETY than it is Medieval European Society, but it’s often being presented as or defended as “Just How Things Were Back Then”. You know, back when DRAGONS.
3. I think I’m going to have to have a whole speech very soon on how conflict in fiction is 100% possible without replicating or exaggerating gender or race-related oppression (Laurie J. Marks’ Elemental Logic series), AND without erasing gender (Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness) OR people of color (like basically 90% of the genre of epic fantasy. And urban fantasy, for that matter.)
FYI, the Varangians were Vikings. This woman killed a fucking Viking and the others honoured her for it.
Let me rephrase that: a native Byzantian woman defended herself and killed a Varangian (a certain group of ‘vikings’, to be brief) who had come to these lands for trade and as hired guards (its more complex but bear with me). When the other Varangians heard of one of their own having attempted to assault a woman they proceeded to dump his corpse and give her all her belongings. Rather than, ya know, gang up on her like they constantly do in GoT (./vomit).
It is an extremely interesting manuscript excerpt to look at the interaction of different cultural groups, the way they value eachother within and across said groups, and the expectations on either side. The Varangians responded in the way they would when one of their own had attacked another, and the other had rightfully defended themselves. The fact that the ‘other’ was in this case a woman and of a culturally different group was completely irrelevant to them: someone was assaulted, therefore, it was obvious to them what aught be done - namely compensate her with the deceased’s belongings / holdings.
Thanks for adding more context to the story.
I really just want to add one more time that fantasy stories that you read or watch on TV are stories invented by writers. They are not fettered by “historical facts” to have misogyny (or racism, or anything else) hardwired into every storyline supposedly based on history. Their stories are the result of choices that they are responsible for.
Leningrad Gas-Mask Drill, 1937
"Are you my Mummie?"
lifesgrandparade reblogged your photo:
…Is Mary selling a John The Baptist t-shirt in the corner there?
It’s the Veil of Veronica, an image supposedly made miraculously without paint or dye, when Saint Veronica wiped the blood and sweat from the face of Jesus during the…
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.
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.