“goddess” “matriarchy” “female wisdom” girl your civic rights
“But I didn’t and still don’t like making a cult of women’s knowledge, preening ourselves on knowing things men don’t know, women’s deep irrational wisdom, women’s instinctive knowledge of Nature, and so on. All that all too often merely reinforces the masculinist idea of women as primitive and inferior – women’s knowledge as elementary, primitive, always down below at the dark roots, while men get to cultivate and own the flowers and crops that come up into the light. But why should women keep talking baby talk while men get to grow up? Why should women feel blindly while men get to think?”
tbh i think a big problem with media literacy is that people try to consume all media the same way.
you cannot watch a short film made in the 1800s with the same expectations you’d have when watching a feature length movie released yesterday.
you are going to come away disappointed if you want a 1920s film to have the same special effects or story beats as a 2020s film.
special effects, acting styles, editing techniques, story structures, cultural norms, all of these things change with time. you have to meet a movie when it was made to truly appreciate it.
if you don’t, you’re not only going to have gaps in your media literacy, but you’re going to miss out on some really incredible art and human expression.
i’m not in the best mood, so i’m just going to be blunt: i wish y’all would put a little effort into basic manners. i wish everyone on here would drop this weird smug, condescending “i know something you don’t” shit and just explain why you think someone is mistaken. it’s really unpleasant.
i literally have a master’s degree in english. i promise, i know what media literacy is. this post was building off something i had already been discussing regarding the fact people dismiss and inaccurately analyze older films because they refuse to reflect on the contexts in which those films were created and the fact that storytelling has evolved with time and changing technology. media literacy can be damaged when people fail to consider cultural and technical context.
edit: they literally blocked me instantly for this. people on this site are allergic to being wrong or called rude.
ok so. I’ve been thinking. what if leia’s “thing” is that she’s imperceptible in the force. like, she’s so innately powerful at shielding, she’s just not there. Anakin didn’t know padme was having twins because he literally couldn’t sense leia’s presence. yoda and obi-wan were fine with bail taking leia because they couldn’t perceive her thoughts, even as an infant. neither reva nor vader could penetrate her mind. she spent years in the senate alongside palpatine and he had no idea she was force sensitive. the only person who can see leia for who she really is is the one who has been there from the beginning — luke.
luke: hey i am getting intensely powerful and somewhat intimidating vibes from leia, like the vibes of a dominant and ancient power buried beneath the surface
the gang: looks like SOMEONES never talked to a strong woman before
Komodo dragons have iron-tipped teeth, new study shows
Komodo dragons, the world’s largest species of lizard, have iron-tipped teeth that help them to rip their prey apart, according to new research.
The metal is concentrated in the cutting edge and tips of their curved, serrated teeth, staining them orange, scientists wrote in a paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.
Komodo dragons are native to Indonesia and weigh around 80 kilograms (176 pounds) on average. They eat almost any kind of meat and are known as deadly predators…
WHAT DO YOU MEAN, OH COOL LIKE SHREWS??? SHREWS ALSO HAVE IRON TIPPED SPEAR TEETH???!!
Weeeell, not spear teeth, but iron tipped, yeah
Part of my job involves dissecting owl pellets to identify what small creatures the owl has been eating (this is a Very Handy method for determining small creature biodiversity on a site because owls are much better at finding them than we are)
Once you have the skulls and jaws, you can ID what the species are, anyway, and one of the early ID features you learn for shrews is their iron-tipped teeth. Except in their case, they have so much iron that their teeth are actually red:
Those are both very pronounced examples, but yeah
Other fun facts:
They aren’t rodents, for all that they look like long-nosed mice; they’re insectivores, like hedgehogs
They are venomous, although nowhere near enough to kill a human (but a bite will get infected)
There are three shrew species in the UK and the pygmy shrew is literally our smallest mammal:
Ah! So actually, that one is an elephant shrew, or sengi – they superficially look a bit shrew-like but are unrelated (more closely related to elephants than shrews, in fact, which just goes to show it would be a funny old world if we were all alike)
So that one is not venomous, and I don’t believe it has iron teeth either
Not all shrews even have iron teeth! White toothed shrews don’t bother. In red toothed shrews, because they’re born with the only teeth they’ll ever have and their metabolism is so fast meaning they have to eat a lot, the iron exists to help their teeth cope with all that extra work without dulling or breaking. So red toothed shrews tend to be capable of moving even further along the edge of metabolism’s knife point than white toothed ones!
Honestly, nothing makes me frustrated with the “historians will say they were friends” thing quite like running across reasonably clear suggestions of queerness in my own work and realizing that they simply aren’t that relevant to what I’m arguing about this particular figure.
My internal monologue: “I’m not the first person who’s suggested this man was queer. He has a few very intimate male friendships. He was overly familiar in a mutual way with his subordinate officer who became his adjutant. He had a statue of Ganymede at his home. But none of this is relevant because I’m talking about diplomacy and politics and as far as I can tell, these relationships were discreet enough to have no bearing on that. So I’ll call it friendship to not go off into the weeds.”
I’m not hiding things. I just am not writing a biography and don’t have a way to weave this in.
And it’s not like I can’t bring this up with my advisor. He knows that I think this, but also thinks it isn’t that central to what I’m arguing. Not “don’t say that about a historical figure” just “well, is it relevant?”
There’s also the complications of things people won’t say outright. And the fact that most of the people involved had the chance to go through their correspondence and remove things before it went in the archives (not saying for sure that they did, but there is the chance that they did.)
Add in some hefty social status things, social stigma, and a not unwarranted need for discretion and you get “I feel strongly that this is the case, but proving it past a shadow of a doubt would take a lot of work that isn’t worth doing because there isn’t an argument to attach to it. ”
But you know, that isn’t as appealing as conspiracy.
ALT
amhrancas 