![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dec. 18th, 2016
havingbeenbreathedout:
septembriseur:
but like @ this whole issue of tumblr’s lack of historical awareness (in this case, re: the use of the term “queer,” but, let’s face it, there is a huge lack of historical awareness about almost everything on tumblr), it’s not even a question of “this term was deliberately reappropriated by queer people and is a very common neutral term all the way up to its official situation in Queer Studies/Queer Theory.” If you go back and actually read what queer people were writing about themselves and other queer people, certainly in the early half of the 20th century/prior to the queer rights/gay rights movement there were people using the term “queer” as a casual way of describing themselves and things that were relevant to their experience of non-normative attraction. Example from my own particular area of interest: in 1940, Peter Pears recommends a W. Somerset Maugham novel as “terribly good… & of course the whole thing, in his subtle way, is quite itching with queerness.” When, in 1963, Pears writes to Britten that the two of them are, after all, “queer & left & conshies,” neither “queer” or “conshies” is a radical political statement, but rather a factual description of their orientation/situation in regards to “mainstream” society.
Christopher Isherwood also used the term “queer” neutrally in his midcentury letters, to describe people he’d met (in 1961, describing Franco Zeffirelli as “queer and quite attractive”) and characteristics and themes (also in 1961: “Frank Wiley, with a friend, just stopped by to deliver the manuscript of his Sta. Barbara campus queer novel”).
And these are off-the-cuff examples that I just happen to be able to pull out and cite without effort.
Yes, this is true of my particular area of interest as well (e.g. Lytton Strachey, WWI & Bloomsbury), as well. And, as I’m fond of pointing out, George Chauncey’s “Christian Brotherhood or Sexual Perversion?: Homosexual Identities and the Construction of the Sexual Boundaries in the World War I Era” thoroughly documents same-sex-attracted men in Rhode Island in 1919 using “queer” as an umbrella term in a nuanced system of sexual taxonomy:
The [gang of] inverts [within the US Navy in 1919 Newport, Rhode Island] grouped themselves together as “queers” on the basis of their effeminate gender behavior, and they all played roles culturally defined as feminine in sexual contacts [sic]. But they distinguished among themselves on the basis of the “feminine” sexual behavior they preferred, categorizing themselves as “fairies” (also called cocksuckers), “pogues” (men who liked to be “browned,” or anally penetrated), and “two-way artists” (who enjoyed both). The ubiquity of these distinctions and their importance to personal self-identification cannot be overemphasized. Witnesses at the naval inquiries explicitly drew the distinctions as a matter of course and incorporated them into their descriptions of the gay subculture. One “pogue” who cooperated with the investigation, for instance, used such categories to label his friends in the gang with no prompting from the court: “Hughes said he was a pogue; Richard said he was a cocksucker; Fred Hoage said he was a two-way artist…” While there were some men about whom he “had to draw my own conclusions; they never said directly what they was or wasn’t,” his remarks make it clear he was sure they fit into one category or another.
A second group of sailors who engaged in homosexual relations and participated in the group life of the gang occupied a more ambiguous sexual category because they, unlike the queers, conformed to masculine gender norms. Some of them were heterosexually married. None of them behaved effeminately or took the “woman’s part” in sexual relations, they took no feminine nicknames, and they did not label themselves–nor were they labelled by others–as queer. Instead, gang members, who reproduced the highly gendered sexual relations of their culture, described the second group of men as playing the “husbands” to the “ladies” of the “inverted set.” Some husbands entered into steady, loving relationships with individual men known as queer; witnesses spoke of couples who took trips together and maintained monogamous relationships. […]
(The quote goes on from there; the whole essay is fascinating.)
This is one of the first citations in the OED of “queer” as applied to same-sex-attracted people, and it’s plain that it is part of a system of self-definition originating from within queer culture, not without. And the fact that the events Chancey describes were happening in direct response to a culture and reputation that the American Navy had been developing for quite some time, leads me to believe that it’s a safe assumption this terminology existed within queer Navy circles at least back through the early years of the War.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hfrdfD
via IFTTT
septembriseur:
but like @ this whole issue of tumblr’s lack of historical awareness (in this case, re: the use of the term “queer,” but, let’s face it, there is a huge lack of historical awareness about almost everything on tumblr), it’s not even a question of “this term was deliberately reappropriated by queer people and is a very common neutral term all the way up to its official situation in Queer Studies/Queer Theory.” If you go back and actually read what queer people were writing about themselves and other queer people, certainly in the early half of the 20th century/prior to the queer rights/gay rights movement there were people using the term “queer” as a casual way of describing themselves and things that were relevant to their experience of non-normative attraction. Example from my own particular area of interest: in 1940, Peter Pears recommends a W. Somerset Maugham novel as “terribly good… & of course the whole thing, in his subtle way, is quite itching with queerness.” When, in 1963, Pears writes to Britten that the two of them are, after all, “queer & left & conshies,” neither “queer” or “conshies” is a radical political statement, but rather a factual description of their orientation/situation in regards to “mainstream” society.
Christopher Isherwood also used the term “queer” neutrally in his midcentury letters, to describe people he’d met (in 1961, describing Franco Zeffirelli as “queer and quite attractive”) and characteristics and themes (also in 1961: “Frank Wiley, with a friend, just stopped by to deliver the manuscript of his Sta. Barbara campus queer novel”).
And these are off-the-cuff examples that I just happen to be able to pull out and cite without effort.
Yes, this is true of my particular area of interest as well (e.g. Lytton Strachey, WWI & Bloomsbury), as well. And, as I’m fond of pointing out, George Chauncey’s “Christian Brotherhood or Sexual Perversion?: Homosexual Identities and the Construction of the Sexual Boundaries in the World War I Era” thoroughly documents same-sex-attracted men in Rhode Island in 1919 using “queer” as an umbrella term in a nuanced system of sexual taxonomy:
The [gang of] inverts [within the US Navy in 1919 Newport, Rhode Island] grouped themselves together as “queers” on the basis of their effeminate gender behavior, and they all played roles culturally defined as feminine in sexual contacts [sic]. But they distinguished among themselves on the basis of the “feminine” sexual behavior they preferred, categorizing themselves as “fairies” (also called cocksuckers), “pogues” (men who liked to be “browned,” or anally penetrated), and “two-way artists” (who enjoyed both). The ubiquity of these distinctions and their importance to personal self-identification cannot be overemphasized. Witnesses at the naval inquiries explicitly drew the distinctions as a matter of course and incorporated them into their descriptions of the gay subculture. One “pogue” who cooperated with the investigation, for instance, used such categories to label his friends in the gang with no prompting from the court: “Hughes said he was a pogue; Richard said he was a cocksucker; Fred Hoage said he was a two-way artist…” While there were some men about whom he “had to draw my own conclusions; they never said directly what they was or wasn’t,” his remarks make it clear he was sure they fit into one category or another.
A second group of sailors who engaged in homosexual relations and participated in the group life of the gang occupied a more ambiguous sexual category because they, unlike the queers, conformed to masculine gender norms. Some of them were heterosexually married. None of them behaved effeminately or took the “woman’s part” in sexual relations, they took no feminine nicknames, and they did not label themselves–nor were they labelled by others–as queer. Instead, gang members, who reproduced the highly gendered sexual relations of their culture, described the second group of men as playing the “husbands” to the “ladies” of the “inverted set.” Some husbands entered into steady, loving relationships with individual men known as queer; witnesses spoke of couples who took trips together and maintained monogamous relationships. […]
(The quote goes on from there; the whole essay is fascinating.)
This is one of the first citations in the OED of “queer” as applied to same-sex-attracted people, and it’s plain that it is part of a system of self-definition originating from within queer culture, not without. And the fact that the events Chancey describes were happening in direct response to a culture and reputation that the American Navy had been developing for quite some time, leads me to believe that it’s a safe assumption this terminology existed within queer Navy circles at least back through the early years of the War.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hfrdfD
via IFTTT
from-palestine:
Syrian working as bus driver in Turkey discovers his brother, who has been missing for years, among Aleppo evacuees.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hWSes9
via IFTTT
Syrian working as bus driver in Turkey discovers his brother, who has been missing for years, among Aleppo evacuees.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hWSes9
via IFTTT
homura-bakura:
please if you’re a registered voter in the United States, make this call. You do not have to speak to anyone, you only have to leave a message if you have phone anxiety like me. Here’s a potential script:
Hello, my name is [your name] and I’m a registered voter in the United States. I’m calling to urge that the Electoral College vote be postponed until a full investigation of Russian interference in the election, and the Trump campaign’s potential coordination with Russia is complete.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2gPDS7X
via IFTTT
please if you’re a registered voter in the United States, make this call. You do not have to speak to anyone, you only have to leave a message if you have phone anxiety like me. Here’s a potential script:
Hello, my name is [your name] and I’m a registered voter in the United States. I’m calling to urge that the Electoral College vote be postponed until a full investigation of Russian interference in the election, and the Trump campaign’s potential coordination with Russia is complete.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2gPDS7X
via IFTTT
iamncgalactic: lagonegirl: OMG I love
Dec. 18th, 2016 08:33 pmiamncgalactic:
lagonegirl:
OMG I love the doodle!
#BlackPride #RepresentationMatters
So surprised google recognized him today
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hWR8wC
via IFTTT
lagonegirl:
OMG I love the doodle!
#BlackPride #RepresentationMatters
So surprised google recognized him today
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hWR8wC
via IFTTT
thebibliosphere:
penfairy:
zetsubouloli:
penfairy:
Women have more power and agency in Shakespeare’s comedies than in his tragedies, and usually there are more of them with more speaking time, so I’m pretty sure what Shakespeare’s saying is “men ruin everything” because everyone fucking dies when men are in charge but when women are in charge you get married and live happily ever after
I think you’re reading too far into things, kiddo.
Take a break from your women’s studies major and get some fresh air.
Right. Well, I’m a historian, so allow me to elaborate.
One of the most important aspects of the Puritan/Protestant revolution (in the 1590’s in particular) was the foregrounding of marriage as the most appropriate way of life. It often comes as a surprise when people learn this, but Puritans took an absolutely positive view of sexuality within the context of marriage. Clergy were encouraged to lead by example and marry and have children, as opposed to Catholic clergy who prized virginity above all else. Through his comedies, Shakespeare was promoting this new way of life which had never been promoted before. The dogma, thanks to the church, had always been “durr hburr women are evil sex is bad celibacy is your ticket to salvation.” All that changed in Shakespeare’s time, and thanks to him we get a view of the world where marriage, women, and sexuality are in fact the key to salvation.
The difference between the structure of a comedy and a tragedy is that the former is cyclical, and the latter a downward curve. Comedies weren’t stupid fun about the lighter side of life. The definition of a comedy was not a funny play. They were plays that began in turmoil and ended in reconciliation and renewal. They showed the audience the path to salvation, with the comic ending of a happy marriage leaving the promise of societal regeneration intact. Meanwhile, in the tragedies, there is no such promise of regeneration or salvation. The characters destroy themselves. The world in which they live is not sustainable. It leads to a dead end, with no promise of new life.
And so, in comedies, the women are the movers and shakers. They get things done. They move the machinery of the plot along. In tragedies, though women have an important part to play, they are often morally bankrupt as compared to the women of comedies, or if they are morally sound, they are disenfranchised and ignored, and refused the chance to contribute to the society in which they live. Let’s look at some examples.
In Romeo and Juliet, the play ends in tragedy because no-one listens to Juliet. Her father and Paris both insist they know what’s right for her, and they refuse to listen to her pleas for clemency. Juliet begs them – screams, cries, manipulates, tells them outright I cannot marry, just wait a week before you make me marry Paris, just a week, please and they ignore her, and force her into increasingly desperate straits, until at last the two young lovers kill themselves. The message? This violent, hate-filled patriarchal world is unsustainable. The promise of regeneration is cut down with the deaths of these children. Compare to Othello. This is the most horrifying and intimate tragedy of all, with the climax taking place in a bedroom as a husband smothers his young wife. The tragedy here could easily have been averted if Othello had listened to Desdemona and Emilia instead of Iago. The message? This society, built on racism and misogyny and martial, masculine honour, is unsustainable, and cannot regenerate itself. The very horror of it lies in the murder of two wives.
How about Hamlet? Ophelia is a disempowered character, but if Hamlet had listened to her, and not mistreated her, and if her father hadn’t controlled every aspect of her life, then perhaps she wouldn’t have committed suicide. The final scene of carnage is prompted by Laertes and Hamlet furiously grappling over her corpse. When Ophelia dies, any chance of reconciliation dies with her. The world collapses in on itself. This society is unsustainable. King Lear – we all know that this is prompted by Cordelia’s silence, her unwillingness to bend the knee and flatter in the face of tyranny. It is Lear’s disproportionate response to this that sets off the tragedy, and we get a play that is about entropy, aging and the destruction of the social order.
There are exceptions to the rule. I’m sure a lot of you are crying out “but Lady Macbeth!” and it’s a good point. However, in terms of raw power, neither Lady Macbeth nor the witches are as powerful as they appear. The only power they possess is the ability to influence Macbeth; but ultimately it is Macbeth’s own ambition that prompts him to murder Duncan, and it is he who escalates the situation while Lady Macbeth suffers a breakdown. In this case you have women who are allowed to influence the play, but do so for the worse; they fail to be the good moral compasses needed. Goneril, Regan and Gertrude are similarly comparable; they possess a measure of power, but do not use it for good, and again society cannot renew itself.
Now we come to the comedies, where women do have the most control over the plot. The most powerful example is Rosalind in As You Like It. She pulls the strings in every avenue of the plot, and it is thanks to her control that reconciliation is achieved at the end, and all end up happily married. Much Ado About Nothing pivots around a woman’s anger over the abuse of her innocent cousin. If the men were left in charge in this play, no-one would be married at the end, and it would certainly end in tragedy. But Beatrice stands up and rails against men for their cruel conduct towards women and says that famous, spine-tingling line - oh God, that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the marketplace. And Benedick, her suitor, listens to her. He realises that his misogynistic view of the world is wrong and he takes steps to change it. He challenges his male friends for their conduct, parts company with the prince, and by doing this he wins his lady’s hand. The entire happy ending is dependent on the men realising that they must trust, love and respect women. Now it is a society that is worthy of being perpetuated. Regeneration and salvation lies in equality between the sexes and the love husbands and wives cherish for each other. The Merry Wives of Windsor - here we have men learning to trust and respect their wives, Flastaff learning his lesson for trying to seduce married women, and a daughter tricking everyone so she can marry the man she truly loves. A Midsummer Night’s Dream? The turmoil begins because three men are trying to force Hermia to marry someone she does not love, and Helena has been cruelly mistreated. At the end, happiness and harmony comes when the women are allowed to marry the men of their choosing, and it is these marriages that are blessed by the fairies.
What of the romances? In The Tempest, Prospero holds the power, but it is Miranda who is the key to salvation and a happy ending. Without his daughter, it is likely Prospero would have turned into a murderous revenger. The Winter’s Tale sees Leontes destroy himself through his own jealousy. The king becomes a vicious tyrant because he is cruel to his own wife and children, and this breach of faith in suspecting his wife of adultery almost brings ruin to his entire kingdom. Only by obeying the sensible Emilia does Leontes have a chance of achieving redemption, and the pure trust and love that exists between Perdita and Florizel redeems the mistakes of the old generation and leads to a happy ending. Cymbeline? Imogen is wronged, and it is through her love and forgiveness that redemption is achieved at the end. In all of these plays, without the influence of the women there is no happy ending.
The message is clear. Without a woman’s consent and co-operation in living together and bringing up a family, there is turmoil. Equality between the sexes and trust between husbands and wives alone will bring happiness and harmony, not only to the family unit, but to society as a whole. The Taming of the Shrew rears its ugly head as a counter-example, for here a happy ending is dependent on a woman’s absolute subservience and obedience even in the face of abuse. But this is one of Shakespeare’s early plays (and a rip-off of an older comedy called The Taming of a Shrew) and it is interesting to look at how the reception of this play changed as values evolved in this society.
As early as 1611 The Shrew was adapted by the writer John Fletcher in a play called The Woman’s Prize, or The Tamer Tamed. It is both a sequel and an imitation, and it chronicles Petruchio’s search for a second wife after his disastrous marriage with Katherine (whose taming had been temporary) ended with her death. In Fletcher’s version, the men are outfoxed by the women and Petruchio is ‘tamed’ by his new wife. It ends with a rather uplifting epilogue that claims the play aimed:
To teach both sexes due equality
And as they stand bound, to love mutually.
The Taming of the Shrew and The Tamer Tamed were staged back to back in 1633, and it was recorded that although Shakespeare’s Shrew was “liked”, Fletcher’s Tamer Tamed was “very well liked.” You heard it here folks; as early as 1633 audiences found Shakespeare’s message of total female submission uncomfortable, and they preferred John Fletcher’s interpretation and his message of equality between the sexes.
So yes. The message we can take away from Shakespeare is that a world in which women are powerless and cannot or do not contribute positively to society and family is unsustainable. Men, given the power and left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. But if men and women can work together and live in harmony, then the whole community has a chance at salvation, renewal and happiness.
In the immortal words of the bard himself: fucking annihilated.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2gPGkLA
via IFTTT
penfairy:
zetsubouloli:
penfairy:
Women have more power and agency in Shakespeare’s comedies than in his tragedies, and usually there are more of them with more speaking time, so I’m pretty sure what Shakespeare’s saying is “men ruin everything” because everyone fucking dies when men are in charge but when women are in charge you get married and live happily ever after
I think you’re reading too far into things, kiddo.
Take a break from your women’s studies major and get some fresh air.
Right. Well, I’m a historian, so allow me to elaborate.
One of the most important aspects of the Puritan/Protestant revolution (in the 1590’s in particular) was the foregrounding of marriage as the most appropriate way of life. It often comes as a surprise when people learn this, but Puritans took an absolutely positive view of sexuality within the context of marriage. Clergy were encouraged to lead by example and marry and have children, as opposed to Catholic clergy who prized virginity above all else. Through his comedies, Shakespeare was promoting this new way of life which had never been promoted before. The dogma, thanks to the church, had always been “durr hburr women are evil sex is bad celibacy is your ticket to salvation.” All that changed in Shakespeare’s time, and thanks to him we get a view of the world where marriage, women, and sexuality are in fact the key to salvation.
The difference between the structure of a comedy and a tragedy is that the former is cyclical, and the latter a downward curve. Comedies weren’t stupid fun about the lighter side of life. The definition of a comedy was not a funny play. They were plays that began in turmoil and ended in reconciliation and renewal. They showed the audience the path to salvation, with the comic ending of a happy marriage leaving the promise of societal regeneration intact. Meanwhile, in the tragedies, there is no such promise of regeneration or salvation. The characters destroy themselves. The world in which they live is not sustainable. It leads to a dead end, with no promise of new life.
And so, in comedies, the women are the movers and shakers. They get things done. They move the machinery of the plot along. In tragedies, though women have an important part to play, they are often morally bankrupt as compared to the women of comedies, or if they are morally sound, they are disenfranchised and ignored, and refused the chance to contribute to the society in which they live. Let’s look at some examples.
In Romeo and Juliet, the play ends in tragedy because no-one listens to Juliet. Her father and Paris both insist they know what’s right for her, and they refuse to listen to her pleas for clemency. Juliet begs them – screams, cries, manipulates, tells them outright I cannot marry, just wait a week before you make me marry Paris, just a week, please and they ignore her, and force her into increasingly desperate straits, until at last the two young lovers kill themselves. The message? This violent, hate-filled patriarchal world is unsustainable. The promise of regeneration is cut down with the deaths of these children. Compare to Othello. This is the most horrifying and intimate tragedy of all, with the climax taking place in a bedroom as a husband smothers his young wife. The tragedy here could easily have been averted if Othello had listened to Desdemona and Emilia instead of Iago. The message? This society, built on racism and misogyny and martial, masculine honour, is unsustainable, and cannot regenerate itself. The very horror of it lies in the murder of two wives.
How about Hamlet? Ophelia is a disempowered character, but if Hamlet had listened to her, and not mistreated her, and if her father hadn’t controlled every aspect of her life, then perhaps she wouldn’t have committed suicide. The final scene of carnage is prompted by Laertes and Hamlet furiously grappling over her corpse. When Ophelia dies, any chance of reconciliation dies with her. The world collapses in on itself. This society is unsustainable. King Lear – we all know that this is prompted by Cordelia’s silence, her unwillingness to bend the knee and flatter in the face of tyranny. It is Lear’s disproportionate response to this that sets off the tragedy, and we get a play that is about entropy, aging and the destruction of the social order.
There are exceptions to the rule. I’m sure a lot of you are crying out “but Lady Macbeth!” and it’s a good point. However, in terms of raw power, neither Lady Macbeth nor the witches are as powerful as they appear. The only power they possess is the ability to influence Macbeth; but ultimately it is Macbeth’s own ambition that prompts him to murder Duncan, and it is he who escalates the situation while Lady Macbeth suffers a breakdown. In this case you have women who are allowed to influence the play, but do so for the worse; they fail to be the good moral compasses needed. Goneril, Regan and Gertrude are similarly comparable; they possess a measure of power, but do not use it for good, and again society cannot renew itself.
Now we come to the comedies, where women do have the most control over the plot. The most powerful example is Rosalind in As You Like It. She pulls the strings in every avenue of the plot, and it is thanks to her control that reconciliation is achieved at the end, and all end up happily married. Much Ado About Nothing pivots around a woman’s anger over the abuse of her innocent cousin. If the men were left in charge in this play, no-one would be married at the end, and it would certainly end in tragedy. But Beatrice stands up and rails against men for their cruel conduct towards women and says that famous, spine-tingling line - oh God, that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the marketplace. And Benedick, her suitor, listens to her. He realises that his misogynistic view of the world is wrong and he takes steps to change it. He challenges his male friends for their conduct, parts company with the prince, and by doing this he wins his lady’s hand. The entire happy ending is dependent on the men realising that they must trust, love and respect women. Now it is a society that is worthy of being perpetuated. Regeneration and salvation lies in equality between the sexes and the love husbands and wives cherish for each other. The Merry Wives of Windsor - here we have men learning to trust and respect their wives, Flastaff learning his lesson for trying to seduce married women, and a daughter tricking everyone so she can marry the man she truly loves. A Midsummer Night’s Dream? The turmoil begins because three men are trying to force Hermia to marry someone she does not love, and Helena has been cruelly mistreated. At the end, happiness and harmony comes when the women are allowed to marry the men of their choosing, and it is these marriages that are blessed by the fairies.
What of the romances? In The Tempest, Prospero holds the power, but it is Miranda who is the key to salvation and a happy ending. Without his daughter, it is likely Prospero would have turned into a murderous revenger. The Winter’s Tale sees Leontes destroy himself through his own jealousy. The king becomes a vicious tyrant because he is cruel to his own wife and children, and this breach of faith in suspecting his wife of adultery almost brings ruin to his entire kingdom. Only by obeying the sensible Emilia does Leontes have a chance of achieving redemption, and the pure trust and love that exists between Perdita and Florizel redeems the mistakes of the old generation and leads to a happy ending. Cymbeline? Imogen is wronged, and it is through her love and forgiveness that redemption is achieved at the end. In all of these plays, without the influence of the women there is no happy ending.
The message is clear. Without a woman’s consent and co-operation in living together and bringing up a family, there is turmoil. Equality between the sexes and trust between husbands and wives alone will bring happiness and harmony, not only to the family unit, but to society as a whole. The Taming of the Shrew rears its ugly head as a counter-example, for here a happy ending is dependent on a woman’s absolute subservience and obedience even in the face of abuse. But this is one of Shakespeare’s early plays (and a rip-off of an older comedy called The Taming of a Shrew) and it is interesting to look at how the reception of this play changed as values evolved in this society.
As early as 1611 The Shrew was adapted by the writer John Fletcher in a play called The Woman’s Prize, or The Tamer Tamed. It is both a sequel and an imitation, and it chronicles Petruchio’s search for a second wife after his disastrous marriage with Katherine (whose taming had been temporary) ended with her death. In Fletcher’s version, the men are outfoxed by the women and Petruchio is ‘tamed’ by his new wife. It ends with a rather uplifting epilogue that claims the play aimed:
To teach both sexes due equality
And as they stand bound, to love mutually.
The Taming of the Shrew and The Tamer Tamed were staged back to back in 1633, and it was recorded that although Shakespeare’s Shrew was “liked”, Fletcher’s Tamer Tamed was “very well liked.” You heard it here folks; as early as 1633 audiences found Shakespeare’s message of total female submission uncomfortable, and they preferred John Fletcher’s interpretation and his message of equality between the sexes.
So yes. The message we can take away from Shakespeare is that a world in which women are powerless and cannot or do not contribute positively to society and family is unsustainable. Men, given the power and left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. But if men and women can work together and live in harmony, then the whole community has a chance at salvation, renewal and happiness.
In the immortal words of the bard himself: fucking annihilated.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2gPGkLA
via IFTTT
goodnightmybilly:
The greatest accomplishment of Rogue One to me is the fact that it will forever change the way people will view the events of Episode 4, 5, and 6. And it will change it for the better.
What happens in Rogue One gives so much meaning to what happens in the original trilogy. Suddenly now the Rebellion is given the depth and complexity it never had. Vader and Tarkin are even more terrifying and sinister. And more than anything else, the destruction of the first Death Star and the eventual victory of the Rebellion in bringing about the fall of the Empire carries even more weight and becomes all the more satisfying because we saw the sacrifice it took for all of this to come to pass. The celebration on Endor will never be the same, because that happiness only exists because of Rogue One.
The original trilogy happened because one group of rebels took it upon themselves to not give up when everyone else did, and in doing so, gave the Rebellion the kick it needed to bring freedom to the galaxy.
Without Rogue One, there wouldn’t have been the original trilogy.
They had a new hope because Rogue One gave it to them.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hWRuDl
via IFTTT
The greatest accomplishment of Rogue One to me is the fact that it will forever change the way people will view the events of Episode 4, 5, and 6. And it will change it for the better.
What happens in Rogue One gives so much meaning to what happens in the original trilogy. Suddenly now the Rebellion is given the depth and complexity it never had. Vader and Tarkin are even more terrifying and sinister. And more than anything else, the destruction of the first Death Star and the eventual victory of the Rebellion in bringing about the fall of the Empire carries even more weight and becomes all the more satisfying because we saw the sacrifice it took for all of this to come to pass. The celebration on Endor will never be the same, because that happiness only exists because of Rogue One.
The original trilogy happened because one group of rebels took it upon themselves to not give up when everyone else did, and in doing so, gave the Rebellion the kick it needed to bring freedom to the galaxy.
Without Rogue One, there wouldn’t have been the original trilogy.
They had a new hope because Rogue One gave it to them.
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hWRuDl
via IFTTT
wtfzeus:
caecilius-est-pater:
sarahruhlofficial:
the oompa loompas are a greek chorus
First of all, I hate this so much. Second of all, imagine if the two switched places.
(Veruca falls into the trash chute)
Chorus: Pray thou no more; for mortals have no escape from destined woe. Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness; and reverence towards the gods must be inviolate. Great words of prideful men are ever punished with great blows…
(Oedipus stabs his eyes out)
Oompa Loompas: Oompa loompa doopity do
I’ve got another riddle for you
What do you get when you sleep with your mum?
A curse on your kids for decades to come~
Again, very little to do with Zeus but fuck this shit is hilarious
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hJTHl2
via IFTTT
caecilius-est-pater:
sarahruhlofficial:
the oompa loompas are a greek chorus
First of all, I hate this so much. Second of all, imagine if the two switched places.
(Veruca falls into the trash chute)
Chorus: Pray thou no more; for mortals have no escape from destined woe. Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness; and reverence towards the gods must be inviolate. Great words of prideful men are ever punished with great blows…
(Oedipus stabs his eyes out)
Oompa Loompas: Oompa loompa doopity do
I’ve got another riddle for you
What do you get when you sleep with your mum?
A curse on your kids for decades to come~
Again, very little to do with Zeus but fuck this shit is hilarious
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/2hJTHl2
via IFTTT