justice-turtle:

kulshedra:

wizzard890:

moment-of-sen:

cecilikesbooks:

“Joan of Arc”  by Sir John Everett Millais, 1865, oil on canvas

This is beautiful, but I wish somebody had painted her not with the big, innocent eyes and innocent face of a sacred virgin, compromising her armour with a skirt; but all sweaty from battle, face red, her hair cut short, wearing the masculine garb she actually wore, looking determined and tired but triumphant. Now that would be proper representation of Joan. Too bad this was 1865 and a bit before proper women’s lib and the rise of secularism.

While I understand the desire for a historically accurate image of Joan, I don’t think it’s fair to say that this painting suffers as a result of its spiritual and romanticized elements. Regardless of a viewer’s personal opinion re: religion or Christianity specifically, it’s important to remember that at its core, the story of Joan of Arc is the story of a girl who genuinely believed she heard the voice of God. Saying that the only proper representation of Joan would be one that was created after “the rise of secularism” is ridiculous. An artist can bring a different aspect of her life to the forefront, of course, she doesn’t always need to be a religious figure, but focusing on her sainthood and relationship with the divine isn’t doing her a disservice. 

(Also I’m not going to argue for a second that 19th century painting was a bastion of equality when it came to representations of women, but to be fair, Millais was one of the founders of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, a group of guys who weren’t exactly known for depicting the sweat and blood of battle. You’d be hard pressed to find a dashing knight any less spotless than Joan is here. This painting is a result of its movement, not a time capsule preserving the work of a less enlightened people.)

Also gonna go right on ahead and point out that Joan of Arc’s awesomeness isn’t contingent on the masculinity of her portrayal, and that this is a sexist notion in and of itself. This is as much a “proper” representation of Joan as an in-the-heat-of-battle image would be.

#You don’t want JOAN OF ARC depicted as a sacred and devoted virgin?

The skirt and long hair are… disrespectful, though. Since Joan herself, during her imprisonment, refused to give up the men’s clothing she believed God had ordered her to wear, until she was forced to wear a dress or go naked.

I wouldn’t saying portraying Joan in a skirt is by itself disrespectful - an Imprisoned Joan (near the end of her life) or Shepherdess Joan (before she went to war) would have a skirt and possibly longer hair - but putting a skirt and long hair on a fully-armored Warrior Joan is disrespectful, an erasure of the way she presented herself.

(I would point out to those who take issue with the Pre-Raphaelite spotlessness of the lady, though, that this seems to be a praying-before-battle situation in which a male knight would be equally spotless, and rightfully so.)

(via sentientcitizen)

muninandhugin:

non-volerli-vittime:

myjourneymythoughts:

sonic-hip-attack:

these-cardboard-devils:

enterthedreamatorium:

ssxvxtricky:

“I haven’t read Harry Potter, I have read Pullman who is the other leading children’s author that one might mention and I love his books. I don’t know what to think about magic and fairy tales.”

Prof Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of “bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards”.

“I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don’t know,” he told More4 News.

“I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s something for research.”

do you ever laugh so hard you die

Oh Richard Dawkins, you never fail to amaze me in the worst way possible

oh jesus effing christ

dawkins how are you even

Are. You. Fucking. Serious?! REALLY BRO?!

You know, I have to wonder if he even sees that he’s now parroting what the religious right says. “Harry Potter is damaging to young minds!” My dear sweet gawd, this dude is such a fucking jackass.

Pro-tip, Dawkins: If a parent wants to read their kid HP books, I’M PRETTY FUCKIN’ SURE THEY’RE GONNA TELL THE CHILD IT’S FUCKING FICTION.

But daaad, magick and science are meant to be friends!

I don’t what…

(Source: nosdrinker)

stfuconservatives:

cityofroses91 submitted: “Just to clarify, this kid is 100% serious.”

—-

Stupid publicly funded schools, teaching the arts and sciences instead of one religion! It’s not like there’s a book where you can read all about Jesus or anything.

muninandhugin:

lavienoire:

holzmantweed:

jtotheizzoe:

In case you’re curious, Neil Tyson doesn’t have any patience for fools when it comes to 2012 Maya apocalypse mumbo-jumbo.

Drop da mic, NdT…

Also, congrats to the Tumblr community for being a place for “impassioned discussion on all topics”!!!

That awkward moment when the usually awesome Neil deGrasse Tyson fails to grasp that there are not merely “a few Maya fans out there,” but real actual living Maya who aren’t thrilled with his disrespecting their culture, especially since they didn’t predict the world’s ending in 2012 in the first place — and neither did the Aztec, whose calendar is often misattributed to the Maya.

That awkward moment when jtotheizzoe follows in Dr. Tyson’s footsteps in fucking up instead of, oh I don’t know, pointing out the facts that refute the good Doctor’s hypothesis. 

You know, science?

Isn’t there supposed to be some science going on this blog?

That awkward and not that unusual moment when scientists don’t know shit about per-columbine cultures and when they are totally ignorant about the actual use of the calendar.

Neil, you quoted yourself saying shitty stuff about the Maya, and then proceed to claim you said nothing of the sort?

I don’t see how you can miss the fail there, sir. If your targets were those misappropriating the Maya calendar, mistranslating it, mis- pretty much everything about it, then you could have easily said so. Instead, what you did say was that you could not take “science cues” from a “culture that could not predict its own demise” (untrue, the culture is still there, the people are still there), from a people who did not discover the wheel (someone else pointed out the lack of large beasts of burden to make that invention necessary or worthwhile), or from a culture that practiced religious animal sacrifice. The last one is one I really, really, take issue with, Neil.

I said it the last time I reblogged screenshots of your tweets. Science and religion have shit all to do with each other. Science cannot measure religion, and if you cannot measure something in science you just move the fuck on. The sacrifice of animals to gods is not reprehensible, and in fact has been protected as a right by the US Supreme Court in The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye vs The City of Hialeah. So Neil, please tell me why that is important to your argument at all? Why are you conflating a cultural and religious practice with a scientific practice? Why do you still disparage a culture that is respected in your field for having a fantastic amount of knowledge of astronomy without having the instruments we use today?

But then, knowing that you previously held disdain for Chinese astronomy history makes this turn of events unsurprising. Further disappointing, but unsurprising.