There is something called the Bechdel Test. It’s a scale you run movies through to basically see how misogynistic they are. (EDIT: It has been pointed out to me that maybe misogynistic wasn’t the best word to use here. It’s more testing how conscious of female characters they are.)
The test is as follows: 1. It must have at least two named female characters. 2. They must speak to each other. 3. They must converse about something other than a man. Anything with a score lower than 3 fails.
I’ve run all of the episodes of NewWho through this test and here are my results:
Percent of failed episodes written by RTD: 9.7%
By Moffat: 55.6%
Percent of episodes in which there were two named female characters, but they didn’t speak to one another by RTD: 9.7%
By Moffat: 16.7%
Percent of episodes without two named female characters by RTD: 0%
By Moffat: 5.6%
Percent of failed episodes with RTD as showrunner (including those written by other writers): 20%
With Moffat: 67.8%
Percent of episodes in which there were two named female characters, but they didn’t speak to one another with RTD as showrunner: 10%
With Moffat: 25%
Percent of episodes without two named female characters with RTD as showrunner: 0%
With Moffat: 25%
Total percent of failed episodes: 35.2%
Total percent of episodes in which there were two named female characters, but they didn’t speak to one another: 14.8%
Total percent of episodes without two named female characters: 8%
RTD did a lot better than Moffat. This is not a go at him, just facts.
Over half of SM’s episodes failed. RTD neither wrote or was showrunner to an episode with less than two named female characters. Moffat wrote one episode with less than two named female characters, and a staggering 25% (1/4!) of episodes with him as showrunner did not include more than one named female character.
My data is here. You can check it if you like, and please tell me if you find any errors. Thanks!
More on the Bechdel Test here. Very interesting list!
When I say something that should not be controversial
Why aren’t 50% of coal miners women? Why not 50% of janitors or pest control workers? Don’t forget front line military!
Likewise, why aren’t men 50% of college enrollment and 50% of teachers?
We should eliminate the stupid “personal choice” thing because forcing people into certain professions is way more fun.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT FORCING PEOPLE INTO PROFESSIONS
THIS IS ABOUT WOMEN GOING INTO SCIENCE BEING DISCOURAGED
THIS IS ABOUT WOMEN BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
FIRST, WHAT GBT SAID.^
FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION WOMEN COAL MINERS. BECAUSE I STUDY THEM. AND GUESS WHAT?
Women had to fight court cases to be allowed into coal mines as workers. Once a few women paved the way, thousands of women followed in short suit because on average, their incomes increased 500% over working as domestic workers, doing textile piecework and waitressing. Some saw their income jump 1000%.
Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find women have been mining coal for centuries. They were pushed out in the Victorian period because the mansplainers of the day could tolerate women wielding such a phallic object as a shovel underground with male workers present. And wearing pants! Still, women disguised themselves as men to work in the mines.
Oh, and World War II. Where did all the coal come from then? Oh, that’s right. Women. Women who were expected to stand aside and let the men take their jobs when the war was over and were denied benefits when they later developed black lung.
Also, can we just talk about how absurd it is to say that women don’t make up 50% of ‘janitors’?
Gee, I wonder if that’s because when a woman is hired to be the primary cleaner and caretaker of a property, it gets called ‘housekeeping’ or ‘maidservice’ and pays less than the EXACT SAME JOB, which if done by a man is given the title ‘janitor’?
Why aren’t men 50% of college enrollment? Because men aren’t 50% of college applications. No one’s exactly sure why, but the prevailing guess? Because it’s easier for men to get a professional job without a degree. Which means it’s easier for men to earn a living wage without going into debt. Which increases the already existent wealth gap, already exacerbated by the income gap.
(And if you’ll allow me to get all snarkily gender essentialist for a moment, maybe you boys just can’t cut it in higher ed. Even those of you getting into colleges are dropping out at rates WAY higher than women. They were probably just there looking for a wife to provide for them, though, am I right? Ah, get back in the toolshed, don’t worry your silly little heads about it.)
Oh my god I want to fucking marry this entire post.
Absolutely beautiful images from Botswana, the colours and patterns are breath taking. It’s so easy to forget how incredible nature can be. 7
‘Being above the ground at such low elevations, and having the ability to precisely maneuver, was like gliding over an enormous painting and being able to create brushstrokes at will. As soon as I saw the landscape from above I knew there was potential to create a special body of work.’
People really don’t believe Ancient Egyptians were ethnically African?
They referred to themselves, not as ”Egyptians” (a Greek term) , but as ”Kemmui’’, meaning, ”the blacks”.
The country itself they called, Kemet, or black nation.
'Kem' is the term for black in the ancient Egyptian language. It is represented in hieroglyphs by a stick charred at both ends.”
"km.t, the name of Ancient Egypt in Egyptian; Egypt (Coptic: Kemi)
r n km.t, the native term for the Egyptian language
(Ref: The Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vols 1&2, E.A. Budge, Dover.)
Note: words inside brackets are the determinatives or word classifiers along with their English meanings.
Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black
Kememu = Black people (Ancient Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou).
Kem [khet][wood] = extremely black, jet-black
Kemet = any black thing. Note: “t” is silent - pronounced Kemé
Kemet [nu][community, settlement, nation] = Black nation = Ancient Egypt.
Kemet [Romé][people] = Black people. Ancient Egyptians.
Kemit [Shoit][books] = Black books, Ancient Egyptian literature.
Kem wer [miri][large body of water] = The Great Black sea (The Red sea). This sea is neither black nor red, this is in reference to which nation, Black or Red, at a particular time, controlled this body of water.
Kemi fer = Black double house; seat of government. Note: by reference to Wolof again, we know that to make a plural of per or house, the “p” becomes an “f” or fer. Thus fero=great houses (double), it is not pero as Budge writes.
In Ancient Egyptian, the ordinary adjective always follows the noun it modifies, whereas a sanctified adjective usually comes before its noun. The sanctified adjectives are:
Kem — Black
Suten - Royal
Nter —- Holy, Sacred
Kem ti = Black image, sacred image : ti oubash = white image
Kem ho = Black face/title of a god : ho oubash = white face
Kem ta = Black land, holy land : Ta deshret = Red land (also; Ta Sett)
This rule does not apply when Black is used as a noun-adjective of nationality:
Hompt Kemet = copper of Black; Egyptian copper : Hompt Sett = copper of the Red nations; Asiatic copper
Ro in Kemet (page 416a) = speech of Black; mute ro n Kemet = word of the mouth of Black; the Egyptian language
Kemet Deshret = Black and Red; good and evil; fertile and barren, etc.; Duality
Deshretu (page 554a,b) = red ones, red devils. Used also to refer to the Namu and Tamhu; not a complimentary label.
The following Ancient Egyptian words acknowledge the origins of Pharaonic Egyptian civilization;
Khentu Hon Nefer (page 554a) = founders of the Excellent Order. Budge: “peoples and tribes of Nubia and the Egyptian Sudan.” For “Hon” see page 586b.
Hon Nefer (page 1024b) = Excellent Order
Kenus (page1024b) = mighty; brave (from Kenu, page 772a)
Ta Khent (page 1051b/page 554b) = land of the beginning.
Eau (page 952b/page 17b) = the old country
Ancient Egyptian’s Worldview:
The Egyptian’s view of the world was the exact opposite of the current Western one. To the Egyptian, the top of the world was in the south (upper) towards the African interior, the bottom (lower) towards the north, hence upper and lower Egypt; upper and lower Syria.”
"Oh yes, the black soil business.
Most scholars outside the modern western cover-up establishment have rejected the false interpretation some have given to Kemet, ostensibly alluding the term Kemet to the alleged ”black soil” of Egypt. There’s nothing in the term, outside the imagination of western myth-makers, to suggest the Egyptians referred to the color of the soil or sand, rather than the people, in naming their country. Our position is consistent with the testimony of the ancient Greek writers, eyewitnesses who unanimously described the Egyptians as a black people, closely related to the ”Ethiopians”.”
And white Hollywood casts white actors and gives them tans.
i will never not reblog this. i know too many people who for real dont think Egypt is a part of Africa.
It’s finally done. I’ve wanted to redo the oldversion since… basically since I drew it.
Inspired by that post going around about mermaids being women who were supposed to drown.
When I was seventeen and preparing to leave for university, my mother’s only brother saw fit to give me some advice.
“Just don’t be an idiot, kid,” he told me, “and don’t ever forget that boys and girls can never just be friends.”
I laughed and answered, “I’m not too worried. And I don’t really think all guys are like that.”
When I was eighteen and the third annual advent of the common cold was rolling through residence like a pestilent fog, a friend texted me asking if there was anything he could do to help.
I told him that if he could bring me up some vitamin water that would be great, if it wasn’t too much trouble.
That semester I learned that human skin cells replace themselves every three to five weeks. I hoped that in a month, maybe I’d stop feeling the echoes of his touch; maybe my new skin would feel cleaner.
It didn’t. But I stood by what I said. Not all guys are like that.
When I was nineteen and my roommate decided the only way to celebrate the end of midterms was to get wasted at a club, I humoured her.
Four drinks, countless leers and five hands up my skirt later, I informed her I was ready to leave.
“I get why you’re upset,” she told me on the walk home, “but you have to tolerate that sort of thing if you want to have any fun. And really, not all guys are like that.”
(Age nineteen also saw me propositioned for casual sex by no fewer than three different male friends, and while I still believe that guys and girls can indeed be just friends, I was beginning to see my uncle’s point.)
When I was twenty and a stranger that started chatting to me in my usual cafe asked if he could walk with me (since we were going the same way and all), I accepted.
Before we’d even made it three blocks he was pulling me into an alleyway and trying to put his hands up my shirt. “You were staring,” he laughed when I asked what the fuck he was doing (I wasn’t), “I’m just taking pity.”
But not all guys are like that.
I am twenty one and a few days ago a friend and I were walking down the street. A car drove by with the windows down, and a young man stuck his head out and whistled as they passed. I ignored it, carrying on with the conversation.
My friend did not. “Did you know those people?” He asked.
“Not at all,” I answered.
Later when we sat down to eat he got this thoughtful look on his face. When I asked what was wrong he said, “You know not all guys do that kind of thing, right? We’re not all like that.”
As if he were imparting some great profound truth I’d never realized before. My entire life has been turned around, because now I’ve been enlightened: not all guys are like that.
No. Not all guys are. But enough are. Enough that I am uncomfortable when a man sits next to me on the bus. Enough that I will cross to the other side of the street if I see a pack of guys coming my way. Enough that even fleeting eye contact with a male stranger makes my insides crawl with unease. Enough that I cannot feel safe alone in a room with some of my male friends, even ones I’ve known for years. Enough that when I go out past dark for chips or milk or toilet paper, I carry a knife, I wear a coat that obscures my figure, I mimic a man’s gait. Enough that three years later I keep the story of that day to myself, when the only thing that saved me from being raped was a right hook to the jaw and a threat to scream in a crowded dorm, because I know what the response will be.
I live my life with the everburning anxiety that someone is going to put their hands on me regardless of my feelings on the matter, and I’m not going to be able to stop them. I live with the knowledge that statistically one in three women have experienced a sexual assault, but even a number like that can’t be trusted when we are harassed into silence. I live with the learned instinct, the ingrained compulsion to keep my mouth shut to jeers and catcalls, to swallow my anger at lewd suggestions and crude gestures, to put up my walls against insults and threats. I live in an environment that necessitates armouring myself against it just to get through a day peacefully, and I now view that as normal. I have adapted to extreme circumstances and am told to treat it as baseline. I carry this fear close to my heart, rooted into my bones, and I do so to keep myself unharmed.
So you can tell me that not all guys are like that, and you’d even be right, but that isn’t the issue anymore. My problem is not that I’m unaware of the fact that some guys are perfectly civil, decent, kind—my problem is simply this:
In a world where this cynical overcaution is the only thing that ensures my safety, I’m no longer willing to take the risk.
— r.d. (via vonmoire)
this is all true and perfect and awful. and dudes, one of the worst things you can do in a situation where you witness “those guys” is say “not all guys are like that.” the last time a man screamed out his car window that i was a slut, an unknown man walking the other way turned to me and said, “i’m sorry that guy’s an asshole. have a good night, okay?”
if you feel you absolutely must comment on the situation, model yourself on that man. don’t make excuses for yourself or “guys” as a whole or, in fact, anyone. don’t center your concern on what this says about you or about what i might think of you in the face of your fellows’ abusive behavior. if you want to express concern or sympathy, center it around me and then shut up. any concern you have about what this says about you or about “guys” is valid, and you should probably think about it, but that is not my problem. i am not interested in affirming how good it is of you to have noticed that something bad happened or reassuring you that you’re not one of “them.” violence has just been done to me. either stay out of it or worry about me. keep your introspection to your damn self.
Traces of coca and nicotine found in Egyptian mummies - WTF fun facts
well DUH. a lot of historians are still trying to process the fact that ancient egyptians knew how to build boats, which is ridiculous. why would they not be seafarers and explorers?
this is not new or surprising information at all. it pretty much day one of any african-american studies course.
the egyptians knew that if they put their boats in front of the summer storm winds it’d blow them right across the sea to the Americas and they shared that with the greeks.
It’s really hard for people to understand that everyone had boats, exploration, and trade interactions without the same level of murder, colonization, and violence that the Europeans did. It’s really hard for people to get that.
The Sea-Craft of Prehistory (book; Eurocentric as heck)
Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages (273 pages-for the hardcore only!):The only plausible explanation for these findings is that a considerable number of transoceanic voyages in both directions across both major oceans were completed between the 7th millennium BC and the European age of discovery. Our growing knowledge of early maritime technology and its accomplishments gives us confidence that vessels and nautical skills capable of these long-distance travels were developed by the times indicated. These voyages put a new complexion on the extensive Old World/New World cultural parallels that have long been controversial.
Bras we have known.
The last one is soo damn true
Hahaha I’m crying
lawd, lawd, lawd
u know what the worst thing about being a girl is… is when another girl asks u for a hair tie, but its ur last one, but u can’t say u don’t have one because she knows its on ur wrist, so u give it to her, and then she says “oh i’ll give it back!” knowing damn well she won’t, and u sit there sad because now you have to go buy another pack of hair ties that u know ur gonna lose by the end of the month
This is just another example of the overwhelmingly pervasive idea in our culture that no matter where or when you go in history, anyone who wasn’t Black and who SAW a Black person immediately thought, “Hey! Thisperson and everyone on earth who looks anything like them would make great slaves!” So…before we play remedial education, can we all take a moment to think about how horrible that is? That the idea of Black people=slaves is SO dominant that we project it into ancient history???
Okay, first of all, slavery in the Ancient Mediterranean was not the same as American chattel slavery. It was not race-based slavery. Your race had nothing to do with whether or not you were enslaved.
Basically, what you’re asking about (roughly) is the Hellenistic Era.
After Alexander the Great’s ventures in the Persian Empire, Hellenistic kingdoms were established throughout south-west Asia (Seleucid Empire, Kingdom of Pergamon) and north-east Africa (Ptolemaic Kingdom).
This resulted in the export of Greek culture and language to these new realms, and moreover Greek colonists themselves.
Equally, however, these new kingdoms were influenced by the indigenous cultures, adopting local practices where beneficial, necessary, or convenient. Hellenistic culture thus represents a fusion of the Ancient Greek world with that of the Near East, Middle East, and Southwest Asia, and a departure from earlier Greek attitudes towards “barbarian” cultures.
The Hellenistic period was characterized by a new wave of Greek colonization (as distinguished from that occurring in the 8th–6th centuries BC) which established Greek cities and kingdoms in Asia and Africa. Those new cities were composed of Greek colonists who came from different parts of the Greek world, and not, as before, from a specific “mother city”.
As explained above, what you would have had is a “melting pot” of many different languages, “races”, cultures, schools of art, ethnicities, et cetera.
The art of this period reflects that.
Greek architects and sculptors were highly valued throughout the Hellenistic world. Shown on the left is a terra-cotta statuette of a draped young woman, made as a tomb offering near Thebes, probably around 300 BCE. The incursion of Alexander into the western part of India resulted in some Greek cultural influences there, especially during the Hellenistic era. During the first century BCE., Indian sculptors in Gandhara, which today is part of Pakistan, began to create statues of the Buddha. The Buddhist Gandharan style combined Indian and Hellenistic artistic traditions, which is evident in the stone sculpture of the Buddha on the right. Note the wavy hair topped by a bun tied with a ribbon, also a feature of earlier statues of Greek deities. This Buddha is also wearing a Greek-style toga.
-Essential World History by Duiker, Spielvogel, p. 101
As for trade routed in the Ancient World, well. The Silk Road has existed for pretty much as long as the continents have been in their current configuration and populated by humanity. I’m not exaggerating-the prehistoric version of what became known as the Silk Road is known as The Steppe Road. The Silk Road ITSELF was established for trading purposes at least 2,000 years ago. Here’s a mockup of the Silk Road as it existed during the era you’re asking about:
Here are some Hellenistic Era Greek artworks that feature Black people. There is NO correlation in this era between a person being Black and a person being enslaved.
In general, Greek attitudes towards anyone with Black or dark brown skin were sort of ethnocentric, but not negative OR associated with slavery. After all, the idea of “white people” wouldn’t exist for another 1,500 years at LEAST.
Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks by Frank M. Snowden contains many, MANY invaluable interpretations and translations of primary sources that help to really explore attitudes and philosophies that the people in the time had about appearance, human difference, and personality traits. From page 86:
If you want something a bit more definitive, The Image of the Black in Western Art Vol. 1:From the Pharaohs to the Roman Empire explores the Greek and Roman preoccupation with physical type+personality traits as a form of PROTO-racism, but please note that nothing in their writing or art indicated the association of Blackness or Black skin with slaves or enslavement/enslavability:
"Race" as we have this concept today did not exist then. the "races" they are talking about have to do with ethnicity and culture, NOT skin color by necessity. In addition, the "proto-racist" writing is describing geographical origin and climate to correlate with personality type, with the “perfect balance” being conveniently, Greeks.
As for the beginnings of the Roman Empire, the above is wehre you’re pretty much starting from, and then you have EVEN MORE intermixing between peoples. Including the Emperor born in the Roman Province of “Africa”, Septimius Severus, who led a campaign of additional conquering there around 200 C.E.
He then of course sent tens of thousands of Roman soldiers up directly into Britain and Scotland, and there are extensive records of Black military legions at Hadrian’s Wall in the 3rd century. Incidentally, leading to a rather multicultural population in Roman York (England), which is also extensively documented (Ivory Bangle Lady, one of the richest women in that area at that time, was definitely of African descent).
This would have been the Roman Empire about 100-200 years before the time of Ivory Bangle Lady. Excavations in the area combined with the cutting edge of academia and science combined have this to say:
"We’re looking at a population mix which is much closer to contemporary Britain than previous historians had suspected," Hella Eckhardt, senior lecturer at the department of archaeology at Reading University, said. "In the case of York, the Roman population may have had more diverse origins than the city has now.”
Isotope evidence suggests that up to 20% were probably long distance migrants. Some were African or had African ancestors, including the woman dubbed “the ivory bangle lady”, whose bone analysis shows she was brought up in a warmer climate, and whose skull shape suggests mixed ancestry including black features.
"We can’t tell if she was independently wealthy, or the wife or daughter of a wealthy man — but the bones show that she was young, between 18 and 23, and healthy with no obvious sign of disease or cause of death."
The authors comment: "The case of the ‘ivory bangle lady’ contradicts assumptions that may derive from more recent historical experience, namely that immigrants are low status and male, and that African individuals are likely to have been slaves. Instead, it is clear that both women and children moved across the Empire, often associated with the military."
Feel free to go tell your dad he’s full of it.
A documentary looking at the conditions of Vincent Clortho Public Wizard School, the worst-performing wizard school in the country.
the chronicles of narnia fancast → Rinko Kikuchi as Jadis, the White Witch
"Don’t you understand?" said the Queen (still speaking to Digory). "I was the Queen. They were all my people. What else were they there for but to do my will?"