darkmagyk:

So, I just wrote that big thing on ‘progressive’ white America’s modern view of the chattel slavery of African Americans, and I have deiced, on behalf of all white people, we need to stop lying to each other. Teachers, tour guides, even just random people, when they get asked “Was Master X nice to his slaves” or “But most slaves were treated well, right?” Need to uniformly answer “No.” 

No owner ever treated a slave well. Not George Washington, Not Thomas Jefferson, not your potential ancestors, not the nice family you heard about on vacation last year. To own another human being is to not treat them well.

We have to stop lying to kids (and each other) and saying that there is a humane way to strip another human being of there right to self, to take a person and create a marketable commodity . 

White Americans still benefit from the legacy of slavery, and Black American’s still suffer from it. We need to stop teaching it as an ancient quirk that left few scars because everyone was more or less happy. 

It wasn’t symbiotic, it was parasitic, and we need to stop saying otherwise. 

tamthewriter:

zaiatzgeistbeth:

callmebliss:

ancestorsofthenorse:

This beautiful Swedish lady sings an ancient Viking song. Now watch how the cows respond. 

It is often argued that everything our ancestors did and said gets stored into our brains. Their experience and knowledge gets passed down from generation to generation. This may explain why we know or react to certain things without having any prior knowledge.

Kulning is an ancient herding call used in the Scandinavian region. The call is a high pitch tone that can reach long distances. The herding call sounds more like a haunting and sad melody meant to echo through mountains and alleys.

It was getting late and foggy on a magical night last month when Swedish artist Jonna Jinton wanted to try kulning. She wanted to find out if the animals would answer to the call their own ancestors heard when the women called them. Kulning might just be one of the most beautiful and enchanting sounds ever made.

Never in my life have I so badly wanted to be able to download the audio from a video.

*whispers* vidtomp3.com

what an excellent collection of sounds.

How to spot untrustworthy resources on the Maya – Maya Archaeologist

nativeamericanconfessions:

tlatollotl:

I thought this was really good, so I wanted to share. Some of the images were missing, so I did my best to substitute based on the description.

Since the ancient Maya have been added to the Key Stage 2 national curriculum for History (non-European Study), there’s been a ‘mushrooming’ of online resources covering the topic. Most of which are downright awful!

After the recent flawed news story about a teenager finding a Maya site, I thought it an apt moment to let both teachers who are teaching the Maya as well as the general public know what they need to be looking out for to confirm a resource’s unreliability

Beware!

Here are 10 tell-tale signs that expose unknowledgeable sources

1. The term ‘Mayan’ is used instead of ‘Maya’

image

The term ‘Mayan’ is ubiquitously used by ill-informed sources: ‘Mayan people’, ‘Mayan pyramids’, ‘Mayan civilisation’…

All Maya specialists -and, for that matter, all non-specialists who’ve read a book or two on the ancient Maya- know that the right word is Maya.

Their calendar is called the ‘Maya calendar’, their civilisation is called the ‘Maya civilisation’, their art is called ‘Maya art’…

The only time you should use the adjective ‘Mayan’ is when you are talking about their languages, the ‘Mayan languages’.

So, if you see ‘Mayan people’, ‘Mayan pyramids, ‘Mayan art’, ‘Mayan civilisation’, etc, on a publication (website or magazine), you can be sure the person who wrote the article doesn’t know a thing about the ancient Maya.

2. The image of the Aztec calendar stone is presented as the Maya calendar

image

Unscrupulous sources will use the ‘Sun Stone’ to illustrate texts about the Maya calendar.

Unfortunately, the famous sculpture is Aztec. Not Maya.

Using the ‘Sun Stone’ to talk about Maya calendar system is like using photos of theElizabeth Tower at Westminster (AKA ‘Big Ben’), which was completed in 1859, to illustrate time keeping in ancient Rome!

And yes I have even seen this image adorning the front cover of books on the Maya! Beware! Which leads nicely onto point 3-

3. The Maya are identified as the Aztecs

image

This confusion is very common but the truth is the Aztecs were very different to the Maya. They spoke a different language and had a different writing system.

Also the Maya civilisation began at least 1500 before the Aztecs.

The Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan is as far away from the great Maya site of Tikal as London is from Milan, Italy!

Stating the Maya were the same as the Aztecs, is basically saying that all Europeans are the same, having the same language, culture and beliefs…

Would you like to see an image of Stonehenge on the front cover of a book on the French? I think not!

Then we get the Egyptians….

4. Maya pyramids are said to be similar to Egyptian pyramids

image

I am afraid not!

Firstly, the ancient Maya and ancient Egyptians lived during different time periods. The time of pyramid building in Egypt was around 2000 years earlier than the earliest Maya pyramid.

Secondly, Egyptian pyramids have a different shape and use to those of the Maya.

Maya pyramids are not actually pyramidal! They have a polygonal base, but their four faces do not meet at a common point like Egyptian pyramids. Maya pyramids were flat and often had a small room built on top.

Pyramids in Egypt were used as tombs for the dead rulers, for the Maya, though the pyramids were mainly used for ceremonies carried out on top and watched from below.

Lastly, they were built differently. Maya pyramids were built in layers; each generation would build a bigger structure over the previous one. Egyptian pyramids, on the other hand, were designed and built as a single edifice.

5. It is claimed that the Maya mysteriously disappeared in the 10th century AD

image

Uninformed sources talk about the ‘mysterious’ disappearance of the ancient Maya around the 10th century AD., which mislead people to think that the Maya disappeared forever….

Firstly, the Maya did not disappear. Around 8 million Maya are still living today in various countries of Central America (Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador and Honduras); in fact half of the population of Guatemala is Maya.

Although they do not build pyramids like the ancient Maya did, modern Maya still wear similar dress, follow similar rituals and some use the ancient Maya calendar. I am sure they would all like to assure you that they have definitely not disappeared!

We know now that what is called ‘Classic Maya Collapse’  was actually a slow breakdown, followed by a reconstruction, of a number of political, economical and cultural structures in the Maya society.

Archaeologists see cities being abandoned over the course of the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, and people travelling north into the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) building new great cities such as Mayapan, which was occupied up until the 15th century.

Secondly, there was nothing mysterious about it! A number of associated factors were at play.

There was a severe drought in the rainforest area that lasted decades, so people moved north where water sources were more easily available. The competition between waring factions and cities for natural resources led to increased warfare. Which, in turn, led to the breakdown of trade networks.

All this was likely exacerbated by political and economical changes in Central Mexico.

So, very much like the French did not disappear after the French Revolution -although they stopped building castles and some big political, economical and cultural changes occurred in the French society- the Maya did not mysteriously disappear around the 10th century.

6. The Maya are portrayed as blood-thirsty sacrifice-loving psychos

image

The Maya are often portrayed in the media and popular culture as blood-thirsty (see for example Mel Gibson’s 2006 Apocalypto), so the commonly accepted -and oft-repeated- idea is that the Maya carried out lots of sacrifices.

Actually, there is barely any trace of sacrifice in the archaeological record of the Maya area. The rare evidence comes from pictorial representations on ceramics and sculpture.

Warfare amongst the Maya was actually much less bloody than ours and no, they did not use a real skull as a ball in their ballgame! And no the loser was not put to death!

In warfare, they did capture and kill opponents, but it was on a small-scale. Rulers boasted of being “He of five captives” or “He of the three captives”.

The heart sacrifices that were recorded by the Spanish chroniclers were those of the Aztecs.

It is also important to keep in mind that the Spanish Conquistadors had lots of incentives to describe the indigenous people of the Americas as blood-thirsty savages.

It made conquest and enslavement easier to justify (see the Valladolid Debate) so lots of stories were exaggerated.

And who are we to judge when we used to have public spectacles of people being hanged or having their heads chopped off and placed on spikes on London Bridge!

7. The ancient Maya predicted that the world would end on 21 December 2012

image

The 2012 phenomenon was a range of beliefs that cataclysmic events would trigger then end of our world on December 21st.

This date was regarded as the end-date of a 5,126-year-long cycle in the Maya Long Count calendar and it was said that the ancient Maya had prophesied the event.

This is not true and all Maya people today and Maya specialists know this!

Very much like a century and a millennium ended in the Christian calendar on December 31st 1999, a great cycle of the Maya Long Count -the 13th b’ak’tun– was to end on 21 December 2012.

In Maya time-keeping, a b’ak’tun is a period of roughly 5,125 years.

Only two Maya monuments –Tortuguero Monument 6 and La Corona Hieroglyphic Stairway 12– mention the end of the 13th b’ak’tun. None of them contains any speculation or prophecy as to what would happen at that time.

While the end of the 13th b’ak’tun would perhaps be a cause for celebration, the next day the Maya believed that a new cycle -the 14th b’ak’tun- would begin; much like our New Year’s Eve.

In fact, in the temple of Inscriptions at Palenque, where we find the tomb of King Pakal, it was written that in AD 4772 the people would be celebrating the anniversary of the coronation of their new King Pakal!

8. The Maya are described as primitive people

image

The Maya created an incredible civilization in the rainforest where it is extremely humid, with lots of bugs and dangerous animals and little water.

There they built spectacular temples, pyramids and palaces without the use of metal tools, the wheel, or any pack animals, such as the donkey, ox or elephant.

The Maya were the only civilization in the whole of the Americas to develop a complete writing system like ours.

They were only one of two cultures in the world to develop the zero in their number system and so were able to make advanced calculations and became great astronomers.

The Maya were extremely advanced in painting and making sculptures, they played the earliest team sport in the world and most importantly, for me anyway, is that we have the ancient Maya to thank for chocolate!

So no, they were definitely not primitive!

The problem with this view of the ancient Maya is that their achievements are then explained by the help of Extra-terrestrial beings or other civilisations.

9. The great achievements of the Maya are in thanks to the Olmecs

image

The Olmec civilisation is an earlier culture located along the Gulf coast of Mexico.

This myth of the Olmecs being a ‘mother culture’ to the Maya and other cultures in Mesoamerica had been questioned over 20 years ago and has been long put to rest.

Excavations have shown that they were many other cultures, other than the Olmec living in Mesoamerica before the Maya and that rather than a ‘mother culture’ we should be looking at ‘sister cultures’ all influencing each other.

Furthermore, Maya achievements in hieroglyphic writing and calendrics which no other culture in Mesoamerica had seen or used, indicate that they were much more innovators than adopters.

So, if the resource mentions the above, then it is obvious that they are not specialists and are using redundant information written over 20 years ago.

10. Chichen Itza is used as the quintessential Maya site

image

Chichen Itza was inhabited quite late during the Maya time period, about 1400 years after the first Maya city and is not purely Maya.

The city was quite cosmopolitan and was greatly influenced by Central Mexico, particularly the Toltecs, who may have lived there.

Therefore, its architecture and art -such as the ‘chacmools‘ or the ‘tzompantli‘ (AKA ‘skull-racks’) actually are Central Mexican, and not Maya, features.

A much better example of a typical Maya city would be Tikal, which was occupied for more than 1500 years.

So, if all you see on a website is about Chichen Itza, chances are this is not a reliable source of information about the ancient Maya and your ‘charlatan alarm-bells’ should go off!

I had to reblog this!!

How to spot untrustworthy resources on the Maya – Maya Archaeologist

Skin Is Not Necessary for Sex Appeal:  The Scarlet Librarian Weighs In On Functional, Yet Attractive Armor

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

thescarletlibrarian:

First of all, this is not an argument that women’s armor in media should be the same as dudes’ armor.  Most main characters are supposed to look attractive most of the time they’re on screen; whether because of social or biological conditioning, the bulk added by armor on dudes’ chests and shoulders hottens them up.  Dudes in practical armor still meet the hotness standards they’re held to.  Women, however, genuinely are trickier to armor up without losing the hourglass figure or lean lines expected by their hotness standards.  That’s a thing.  Whatever you may think of it, it’s a thing.  And it’s not like anybody ever gets a closed-face helmet.

TRICKIER.  Not impossible, and I’m looking at you, director Patty Jenkins and costume designer Lindy Hemmings of Wonder Woman.

image

Honestly, I would have just let this bullshit armor go as typical Hollywood bullshit armyr, but Jenkins made the mistake of arguing, “To me, they shouldn’t be dressed in armor like men […]It should be different. It should be authentic and real – and appealing to women.” 

Authentic and real, my functional-armored ass, and yes, I have armor for swordfighting, and yes, it’s damn well functional because I have a thing about avoiding cracked ribs and collarbones.  They hurt.  

Jenkins is open about the heels and leg exposure being wish-fulfillment, which is stupid, because you can show off muscle without showing flesh (*cough* Superman *cough* Batman *cough* every Superdude costume ever), but fine, we’ll let it go.  What I will NOT let go is the belief that this armor is functional, or that you can’t have sexy AF armor that shows no skin whatsoever, AND is entirely functional.

But, Scarlet Librarian, What Exactly is “Functional?”

Let’s be clear on this before we jump in.  There’s a lot of bits armor needs to protect, but for the purposes of this discussion, we’ll mostly be talking about breastplates, the biggest offender of Stupid Armyr Bullshit.  The point of a breastplate is to protect the squishy bits like the heart, liver, lungs…do you know how high up in the torso lungs go? 

image

THAT HIGH.  The lungs are higher up than the bust stops, which is why a functional breastplate does not STOP at the breasts, it needs to cover the full torso in order to prevent getting stabbed or shot in the lung, which is frequently lethal, by the way, almost certainly in a premodern context.  Mail usually doesn’t stop an arrow, although it can reduce the damage done.  That’s what plate is for.

Any breastplate that does not protect the lungs is completely non-functional, and will not be discussed here.  We shall pretend these abominations simply do not exist.  

Also important, although less vital, are the collarbones, which I trust you can find yourself.  They’re right where many a sword swing tends to go, and yes, a piece of rebar swung at full-strength into your collarbone is going to crack if not snap it, and even mail is only going to help so much.  If you are very, very lucky, you will be so hopped up on adrenaline you won’t register the pain until after it’s no longer necessary to use both your arms to protect yourself.  You’ll still lose strength and mobility in that arm, and if you’re very, very unlucky, there will be nerve damage rendering it useless.  

Stupid Hollywood Bullshit, But Demonstrates That a Completely Armored Woman Can Still Be Sexy AF

As many people have pointed out already, cleavaged breastplates (as seen on Gal Gadot and co. as Wondwoman), which make a dip or crease in between the boobs, are not actually functional.  They’ll direct a strike, and all the force behind it, directly into the sternum, rather than deflecting it like an outwardly curved shape.  As such, the following are not entirely functional, but still cover everything without rendering the wearer a shapeless hag.

image

Sonja (Rhona Mitra), Underworld:  Rise of the Lycans.  She is awarded compensation points for her excellent gauntlets, and especially for the heavy gorget protecting her neck.

image

Lady Sif (Jaime Alexander) from Thor. I don’t like this aesthetically, personally, and the whole “oh, we’ll just put some stupidly-light mail over her upper chest and that will take care of the GAPING OPENING at her upper chest” is bullshit, as is having mail directly over skin with no fabric or leather beneath (you’ll have mail shaped bruises and abrasions if you take a hit there, and it’s just uncomfortable even if you don’t).  However, once more, completely covered (the mail at least covers the skin), still shapely.  

image

Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) in Jack and the Giant Slayer.  The cleavage here isn’t excessive (especially in comparison to Gadot and co., whose boobs are damn near mummified), but it’s enough I can’t put it in the other categories.  I also have maneuverability concerns–the pauldrons are attached at the shoulder weirdly, and the integrated turtleneck, as opposed to a separate gorget, could be problems.  How the hell do you get into this thing, anyway?  Body armor is typically a breastplate, which is attached to a matching backplate if you can afford it, not a bronze tunic thing.  Seriously, where are the openings?

Fantasy, But Included For the Sake of Argument

Stuff that, while not entirely functional, covers everything without making the wearer look a shapeless hag, or whatever these costumers are so afraid of.

image

Emily Blunt as Freya in The Huntsman:  WInter’s War.  Again, no neck armor, and the neckline itself is a little low for my liking, but most of her torso is covered, along with her arms, which have both pauldrons on the shoulders and bazuband-style vambraces protecting her forearms and elbows.  The scales are really small, which won’t protect her as well as more historically-based lamellar (see below) would, but this is is probably as good as mail, and the point remains that she’s completely covered in metal and still looks damn good.  It’s also worth mentioning Freya is a scary-ass winter witch with guards around her RIDING A GODDAMN POLAR BEAR, so while this is fantasy armyr, it doesn’t have to be functional so much as look badass and sexy, and it’s doing just fine with that.  While still being more functional than a lot of hands-on-Warrior-Chick armor is.

image

For sale by Armstreet, this is…okay, this is a really weird bastard child of late 16th-17th century stays and someone’s perception of Greek armor.  I wouldn’t want to wear this in any actual combat situation, since mobility is pretty restricted, and my god, please wear some pants and something with sleeves or that shit is going to chafe, but again–Female torso, fully covered, even her neck, still a very feminine look.  (And it comes with a helmet!)

image

Also from Armstreet.  She has been granted, of all shocking things, clothing under her armor!  Heavens to betsy.  I’m not a huge fan of those pauldrons and the way they fit, and for this to be a wholly protective kit she’d need a chainmail coif (like a hood that also pools around the neck and upper shoulders), but we’ll roll with it, especially as the coif would cover the armor that it’s advertising here. 

Really, Not Bad

image

Virginia Hankins, stuntie and performer at the Southern California Renaissance Pleasure Faire (and who thought that was a good name for it?).  This is clearly costume armor that’s never been hit in its life (she doesn’t joust, as we’ll get to later, but rides around hitting targets, which, yes, is very difficult, and how the hell she does it with that hair I’ll never know, because mine would be trying to strangle the horse, but doesn’t require impact-resistant armor).  It’s too tight-fitting to be entirely functional, because the idea here is to look badass and feminine on horseback from a distance.  Fully covered.  Still clearly woman-shaped. 

image

Mia Wasikowska as Alice in Alice in Wonderland, really weird pseudo-mail sleeves that the vambrace bits are just sort of riveted to, but whatever, quite reasonable pauldrons, and even gauntlets!  

image

Sans bunny.  

image

Kristen Stewart as Snow White in Snow White and the Huntsman, with surprisingly better-looking mail.  It’s less girly, both in the shorter and less fluffalous skirts over the hips and thighs, the embellishments, and the overall design, but SW and the H has a weird attempt to be gritty and realistically semi-medieval thing going on (which is hilarious on multiple levels).  Honestly, they may have been going for borrowed dude armor here, but, again, completely covered, still looks fine.  (Okay, except for that hair, nobody ever looks good with their hair scraped back directly from their forehead.  That has nothing to do with the armor, the armor is fine.)

image

Gwendoline Christie as Brienne of Tarth in Game of Thrones, in a padded gambeson, mail (still stupidly light, but mail), and even a helmet!  The lobstered plates coming down over her hips are too short and too narrow, but she does have something.  She can’t really be described as “shapely,” but she’s not supposed to, the point is she’s mistaken for a guy with her face hidden in the helmet anyway (nor is Gwendoline Christie the most hourglassy lady to begin with).  The design of the breastplate could very easily be altered to taper in more at the waist as well if you really wanted to girl up the look.  (Also included because a number of fighting female friends would beat the crap out of me if I didn’t, this armor is BELOVED among them.  And it really is quite schnazzy.)

image

Miranda Otto as Éowyn in The Lord of the Rings, also disguised as a dude, and it’s hard to get a cuirass like this to fit really snugly when it’s over accurately-sized mail.  So while she doesn’t look all that girly here, she’s not supposed to, and again, like Brienne’s, this armor could be feminized without losing functionality.  (There is, however, NO excuse for this hair being all over the place, NO excuse whatsoever.  Tolkien SPECIFICALLY refers to her hair being braided, besides the fact that you do not, ever, want long hair around mail, because it WILL get caught and it WILL hurt; long hair worn down on your neck is really hot and sweaty and gross if you stick a metal pot on it and then run about in a very active manner; and two words, ladies and gentleman:  HELMET HAIR.  It’s real.  It’s sweaty.  It’s gross.  It’s at least a little tangly even if you braid your hair, which is what very nearly every long-haired (and by that I mean even to the shoulders) woman I know who sticks her head in a metal pot and then bounces around excitedly while wearing heavy, warm protective clothing does, because HELMET HAIR.  Would you play hockey, or roller-derby, or any other active sport that requires a helmet, with waist-length hair left to its own devices?  I’m not even talking about how it looks when you don’t have a professional team making sure you look rugged and a bit tousled but, not, you know, sweaty and gross and afflicted by HELMET HAIR.  This is just about how nasty it feels.)

Historically-Based

image

Nicole Leigh Verdin in Shroud.  While cinched in at the waist to an impractical degree, it still follows the lines of the late-fifteenth-century Gothic armor I promise I’m getting to, so it still keeps EVERYTHING COVERED.

image

Valentina Cervi as Caterina Sforza Riario in Borgia, set in the 1490s.  See what I mean about Brienne’s thigh protection?

image

Gina McKee as Caterina Sforza Riario in The Borgias, yup, still 1490s.  Both the pauldrons and helmet are weird, but the breastplate is decent, and that’s the main culprit in bullshit female armor.

image

Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I in Elizabeth:  The Golden Age.  This armor is more than a century too early, but put her in period-accurate armor and you get…

image

Helen Mirren in Elizabeth I, an HBO minseries. The costuming in this miniseries is damn near reproduction quality, and I’m happy they went with an accurate peascod shaped breastplate because I’m an accuracy geek, but nobody has ever looked good in either a peascod doublet or a breastplate shaped like one, which is why the costume team on the appealing-to-a-broad-audience-that-just-wants-to-see-Cate-Blanchett-Look-Hot-In-Armor Golden Age went all Gothic instead.  

image

So this is actually a gaming mini made by Thunderbolt Mountain, designed to be 12th century Rus, including lamellar (interlocking plates) armor over mail.  This is actually pretty accurate except for some weird draping in the mail coif over her neck and head (and the fact that there’s nothing between the mail and her hair–DO NOT LET MAIL TOUCH YOUR HAIR, you will be very, very sad and possibly bald).  Lamellar, which is I what I wear for several practical reasons not all to do with the Girl Body Thing, is awesome for female armor because of how easy it is to adjust the fit as you make it, and because of its flexibility once it’s made.  My quibble here is actually that she only has a sword belt, not another belt cinched in snug around the natural waist, because that makes a HUGE difference for both men and women by getting some of the weight to settle on the hips rather than hanging off the shoulders and back.  

Actual Damn Armor

image

Armorer Jeff Wasson’s wife Stacey, wearing early- to mid-15th century armor.  As armor.  Because she’s not an actress or performer, she’s a legit jouster (this is why she has the larger pauldron on the left shoulder, where she’s most likely to get hit).

image

Here she lands a hit on her opponent.  This group used balsa-wood inserts in the lances that are designed to break on impact, the idea being that you get hit but don’t, you know, die (this is historically accurate; tournament lances were designed to break themselves, not break people).  That being said, you’re still being hit with a bigass stick by someone on a galloping horse; I would bet money she’s not only taken hits in that armor but also fallen off the horse in it.

image

(Thomas Swynborn Dating 1412 Church of St Peter and St Paul, Little Horkesley, Essex, England.)  What dude armor from the same period as Wasson’s is based on.  The hourglass was in for guys as well as women, to the point that men’s clothing heavily padded the shoulders and chest to exaggerate it, which is what makes the 15th century a great period to base feminine-looking female armor on.

Other examples of extant (and thus made for dudes) armor that would make excellent inspiration for functional and feminine armor, JUST SAYING, PROFESSIONAL COSTUMERS, is from the late 15th century, google “gothic armor” for more:

image

15th c. German,courtesy of Dr. Andrea Carloni (Rimini, Italy), AAF ID.

image

1470 Leeds, UK, Royal Armouries, II.168, composite armour “alla tedesca”, breastplate formerly in Churburg, Milano and Brescia Images courtesy of Igor Zeler*, AAF ID.

image

1484 – Vienna, Austria, Kunsthistorisches Museum, A 62, armour for Archduke Sigismund von Tirol, by Lorenz Helmschmid, Augsburg Front image courtesy of Blaz Berlec, AAF ID.

image

No attribution, but typical of late 15th c. and holy shit, gorgeous.  Look at me, I’m a pretty, pretty badass!

In Conclusion

Armor:  Can be feminine, functional, and hot at the same damn time, without showing any skin.  And while I’m of the opinion that armor needs to look functional for the wearer to be badass, and that wearing a metal swimsuit makes the wearer look ridiculous and neither badass nor sexy, I recognize that when catering to mainstream audience, female characters frequently need to look sexy as well as functionally badass.  That’s the reality in Hollywood right now, like it or not.  I do NOT recognize that skin is necessary for this, or that bullshit fantasy armyr is, because holy shit, how hot would Lady Badass look in some of that Gothic stuff?  SMOKING hot.  All the more so because it would be completely functional.

Just saying, costume designers and denizens of the internet.  Just saying.  

Reblogging this as a follow-up to Wonder Woman movie rhetoric bingo, as @thescarletlibrarian thoroughly explains just how completely unnecessary and unhelpful those Amazon costumes are.

When creating fictional female armor, the designers can go literally anywhere on the scale between “Stupid Hollywood Bullshit” and “Actual Damn Armor” and not worry about the character losing her femininity or sex appeal, if they do their job right. All without showing an inch of randomly exposed skin. 

Things like flaunted cleavage or suspiciously uncovered thighs are a dead giveaway that whoever approved the costume just opted for “sexy” shortcuts. They really highlight that the sole priority was to convey generic “hotness”.

~Ozzie

more about armor design on BABD | more resources on BABD

karnythia:

I’m always amused when I see “The real sign of progressiveness is interracial relationships involving white people” because that is so clearly the logic of a bigot with an allergy to history books. If you think POC being shown loving each other isn’t revolutionary then you need to go take a hard look at American history & media narratives. Hell take a look at Jim Crow etiquette, Black people weren’t supposed to be affectionate to each other in public because two Black people kissing offended white people. 

Hell even with the Loving case, no one cared that a white man wanted to sleep with a Black woman, anti miscegenation laws were more concerned with Black people having the legal status that came with proximity to whiteness, because that could set a precedent for all Black people. All those pesky things like inheritances, property rights…you know the trappings of legal equality. You want me to take your progressive claims seriously? Get comfortable with the idea that POC have a right to love each other.