Yes, Greece still exists, we didn't all die 2000 years ago. Yes, people speak Greek. You people are so fucking stupid for real. So many of you claim to love ancient shit but can't even acknowledge the actual living culture of the people whose mythology and classics you romanticize. You keep leaving annoying comments about how you just forget Greek people still exist, thinking you're being quirky because you love ancient stuff soooo much that you forgot about the people it came from. You think about it so little you don't even realize that an actual Greek person has to read this shit, making it clear how little you actually care about the culture beyond the romanticized (and westernized) mythology. Don't claim you love Greece, don't use our mythology anymore if you can't acknowledge that we're still around without making it about how little you think about us. It's mind boggling that you'd think a Greek person would read this and think you're anything but obnoxious. Explode.
31K notes
·
View notes
can you elaborate on what you mean by romance being a social construct? just trying to understand here, because by that logic to be aromantic is to be against the social construct of romance or what most people view as romance
What does "romance" or "romantic" mean? Most people when answering that question will list specific signifiers or feelings that we commonly associate with romance or romantic feelings, but these things don't have to be romantic. They're 'coded' as romantic because we associate them with romance as a byproduct of our culture. Simple example: Kissing on the lips. Pretty safe to say this action is frequently cited as a romantic gesture. But is it objectively a romantic gesture? No. There are plenty of cultures, currently and throughout history, where kissing on the lips is not romantic. Hell, kissing in some cultures isn't a thing at all/considered unsanitary! Therefore, kissing on the lips is not objectively romantic or some universal phenomenon. It's socially constructed.
The same thing can apply to romantic feelings. First: Feelings of sexuality that often (but not always!) go toe to toe with romance are not inherently romantic. You can be attracted to someone, or be intimate with someone, and not feel romantic feelings. So we need to separate sexuality from romance. What does that leave us with? Great care for someone? A feeling of closeness? A desire to never be parted with someone? Are these feelings romantic? Yes, but they aren't always. Stripped of any other pretenses, you could easily apply those feelings to your friends or family members. What makes them romantic is socially contextual, and subjectively determined. Therefore: Romance is a social construct.
People who identify as aromantic will have different reasons for subscribing to the label. Some may be aromantic because the feelings typically associated with romance just don't happen with them, and sometimes (but not always!!!) asexuality plays a part here as well. But for other aro folk, it's not always that consistent. Maybe they do feel those feelings, but only under some circumstances. Or maybe they feel some of those feelings, but not all of them, or inconsistently, or don't really think of those feelings as romantic at all or in the moment. Romance, like sexuality, is more fluid than we tend to realize, but romance as a specific, socially determined construct can be suffocating for those who don't quite fit in the box. Especially once you start throwing in the other social expectations that romance is typically associated with: Living together, marriage, having kids, permanence, etc. In those instances, some folks may gravitate toward the aromantic label simply because they oppose the rigidness of the construct.
Ultimately, our purpose with our arospec characters (Keagan, Robin, and Daonna) is to explore these variations.
776 notes
·
View notes
I lost my mind when I saw this costume!
In Celtic mythology the white stag is a messenger from the otherworld, often a harbinger. It often appears when one has transgressed, and must atone or be undone. And yet it is also associated with prosperity. In this case, a white stag shows up in the house of prosperity to show them their own transgressions and brings ruin upon their house. That's Oliver. The white stag showing the aristocrats their transgressions and each of them fails to atone and is summarily undone. Except the father. The knight who banishes the white stag. Who lives out the rest of his life free of Oliver, who only returns to Saltburn upon his death.
The jacket embroidery is oak and acorns. This is often representative of power, victory, and enduring hardship. It also represents sorrow.
I saw this costume and I knew this deranged little freak would bring this house to ruin. I lost my fucking mind when I saw this costume.
169 notes
·
View notes
I wonder why christian misrepresentation are rarely talked about if compared to other religion misrepresentation. Like, I've seen people really vocal about Greek myths misrepresentation in LO and such (and it's valid because it's a culture and religion) but I rarely saw the same thing with christian even though there are many media who use christian religion innacurately, to the point where it comes off as using it as an aesthetic and not a proper religion.
Is it because of rampant religious trauma especially in western world? No ulterior motives on this question. I'm not a christian and yet I'm curious about this. I apologize if this sounds harsh.
I obviously don't have The Answer(tm) to this but personally speaking (and I'm about to get VERY personal here so take this with MOUNTAINS OF SALT), I think it's just the obvious - Christian mythology is one of the most well-documented and strongly protected out of virtually any other religion on the planet. Especially here in the West, it's commonplace for kids to go to Sunday school, for couples to have Christian weddings even if they're not practising Christians themselves, even the American anthem references the Christian God. It's simply not as easy to 'misrepresent' it because the representation is written into our very fabric of society. Even Greece itself is primarily made up of Orthodox Christians.
So anyone that does 'misrepresent' it are either completely mislead hardcore Christians, or people who are doing it intentionally, such as with the intent to make a parody of it or to deconstruct it through a different context or whatever have you. And of course, people will still get mad at those things, if you're implying that people aren't vocal about Christian misrepresentation then frankly IDK what to tell you there LOL If you want a contextual example in the realm of webtoons, Religiously Gay was dragged to hell and back during its launch for having a very crude and insulting depiction of St. Michael, and frankly, yeah I don't disagree because what the fuck is this-
(like at best it's just terrible character design lmao that said, there's also plenty else to criticize Religiously Gay for, including its fetishy representation of gay relationships and the fact that it's still just the "naive person who looks and acts like a child hooks up with mean person in a position of power" trope, blech, but the character design is definitely the first thing you notice)
There are even plenty of hardcore Christians who will deadass claim "misrepresentation" over things that ARE factually correct but they just haven't read the actual Bible and simply cherry pick what works for their own agenda. And of course those people are routinely called out by people like myself who know for a fact that Jesus wouldn't have promoted the war crimes that many modern day Christians are committing and justifying today. So it really depends on the definition of "misrepresentation" here.
The issue specifically with LO and Rachel that I personally call her out for (and many others) is that she's called herself a "folklorist" and claimed she's so much more knowledgeable on Greek myth than anyone else, while making a complete mockery of the original mythologies while not being honest about her intent as to whether LO is actually supposed to be a legitimate retelling OR a parody (because it sure acts like the latter more than the former, but she still seems to expect us to take it seriously and consider her knowledge of Greek myth superior?) Which leads to a lot of her teenage audience claiming shit like "Persephone went down to the underworld willingly" and "Apollo did assault Persephone in the original myths actually" and the classic "why would Lore Olympus lie or make up fake myths?"
You just can't pull off this extent of erasure with Christian mythology because we have a whole ass book of it that's been preserved, sold on shelves, and systematically integrated into society for thousands of years. Of course, there are people who will still try their damned best to twist the Bible to match their own bigotry with the whole "Jesus hates gays" bullshit (he would never), but it's met with equal amounts of 'misrepresentation' that are actually fully well-read and are intentionally subverting and changing things to either critique, parody, or restore the original intent of a lot of stories in the Bible without all the manufactured right-wing crap.
Greek myth, on the other hand, has some stories that are well preserved, and others, not so much. And in the modern day outside of the poems and hymns, you'll also rarely, if ever, see anyone use stories from Greek myth to ostracize, torture, and murder other people. "Misrepresenting Christianity" is more often done by actual Christians who are using the Bible to commit hate crimes than the people who have actually read the Bible and are just taking creative liberties with it for the sake of deconstructing / parodying / analyzing / subverting it. Veggie Tales "misrepresents" Christian stories because obviously Moses wasn't a fucking cucumber lmao but it still accomplishes its goal by retelling Christian stories in a way that's fun and educational for children.
By comparison (on the whole, I'm not comparing LO to Veggie Tales LMAO) LO just isn't clear in its intentions beyond Rachel's initial statements that she was trying to "deconstruct" the myths, while labelling herself as a folklorist. Therefore, I'm going to criticize how she does it because the way she's done it up until now has been very mishandled and has resulted in a lot of misinterpretations of the myths simply for the sake of fandom. And yes, these people exist in Christian media as well - they're called TV evangelists.
And that's my (very heavy) two cents.
169 notes
·
View notes
One thing I find funny/interesting is that Odysseus constantly refers to himself as "Telemachus' loving father" (or at least some variant of that depending on the translation) during the Iliad, which is something only he is shown to do compared to his fellow Achaeans. (Maybe the others would have done this themselves but since most of the other kings/commanders either didn't have kids yet or they had more than one child so they just didn't want to show favoritism, as Odysseus only has one.)
I think we all can agree that it's just him being his weird self and loving his baby boy so much. He doesn't even know if he made it past infancy but he knows he's proud of Telemachus and that he loves him.
In the ODYSSEY, however, he never refers to himself as that. It's always "Son of Laertes". I don't think he stops because he's "not proud of his son anymore." I think it's because he's no longer among friends/fellow kings. He's now dealing with monsters and immortals.
I love this quirk he has as it's so endearing but I'm also SO thankful that he didn't tell Polyphemus about Telemachus. I know it probably doesn't mean much as he still is saying who he is but in a way he's protecting his son from possible enemies.
I guess it means Odysseus doesn't mind if Laertes has to deal with a cyclops but whatever
384 notes
·
View notes
After Abel, Dante Émile // sportingnews // Cain, José Saramago (trans. Margaret Jull Costa) // Dave Sandford // Kin, Clan and Community in Proto-Indo-European Society, Birgit Anette Olsen // ESPN // Wikipedia // ESPN // Jeff Vinnick // Genesis, Valzhyna Mort // Puckprose // I Cast It Away, My Body, William Bearhart // Puckprose // Cain slaying Abel, Abraham Bloemaert (1590) // NHL // Clive Baker // Puckprose // NHL // Murder Ballad in the Land of Nod, Traci Brimhall // Freep // The Changes of Cain: Violence and the Lost Brother in Cain and Abel Literature, Ricardo J. Quinones // penticton western news // The Book of a Monastic Life, Rainer Maria Rilke (trans. Anita Barrows and Joanna Macy) // "A Brother Named Gethsemane", Natalie Diaz // NHL // NHL // Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan on 16 November 1581, Ilya Repin (1883-1885) NHL // Brothers, Dan Pagis (trans. Shirley Kaufman) // Fox News // NHL // NHL // Wikipedia // Fox News // NHL // Cain, José Saramago (trans. Margaret Jull Costa) // Allaboutthejersey // Allaboutthejersey // Jewish Literacy, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin
431 notes
·
View notes