Women invented all the core technologies that made civilization possible. This isn’t some feminist myth; it’s what modern anthropologists believe. Women are thought to have invented pottery, basketmaking, weaving, textiles, horticulture, and agriculture. That’s right: without women’s inventions, we wouldn’t be able to carry things or store things or tie things up or go fishing or hunt with nets or haft a blade or wear clothes or grow our food or live in permanent settlements. Suck on that.

Women have continued to be involved in the creation and advancement of civilization throughout history, whether you know it or not. Pick anything—a technology, a science, an art form, a school of thought—and start digging into the background. You’ll find women there, I guarantee, making critical contributions and often inventing the damn shit in the first place.

Women have made those contributions in spite of astonishing hurdles. Hurdles like not being allowed to go to school. Hurdles like not being allowed to work in an office with men, or join a professional society, or walk on the street, or own property. Example: look up Lise Meitner some time. When she was born in 1878 it was illegal in Austria for girls to attend school past the age of 13. Once the laws finally eased up and she could go to university, she wasn’t allowed to study with the men. Then she got a research post but wasn’t allowed to use the lab on account of girl cooties. Her whole life was like this, but she still managed to discover nuclear fucking fission. Then the Nobel committee gave the prize to her junior male colleague and ignored her existence completely.

Men in all patriarchal civilizations, including ours, have worked to downplay or deny women’s creative contributions. That’s because patriarchy is founded on the belief that women are breeding stock and men are the only people who can think. The easiest way for men to erase women’s contributions is to simply ignore that they happened. Because when you ignore something, it gets forgotten. People in the next generation don’t hear about it, and so they grow up thinking that no women have ever done anything. And then when women in their generation do stuff, they think ‘it’s a fluke, never happened before in the history of the world, ignore it.’ And so they ignore it, and it gets forgotten. And on and on and on. The New York Times article is a perfect illustration of this principle in action.

Finally, and this is important: even those women who weren’t inventors and intellectuals, even those women who really did spend all their lives doing stereotypical “women’s work”—they also built this world. The mundane labor of life is what makes everything else possible. Before you can have scientists and engineers and artists, you have to have a whole bunch of people (and it’s usually women) to hold down the basics: to grow and harvest and cook the food, to provide clothes and shelter, to fetch the firewood and the water, to nurture and nurse, to tend and teach. Every single scrap of civilized inventing and dreaming and thinking rides on top of that foundation. Never forget that.

Violet Socks, Patriarchy in Action: The New York Times Rewrites History (via o1sv)

Reblogging again for that paragraph because that is the part we forget the most.

(via girlwiki)

Reblogged from Margaret's Tumblr
hemipelagicdredger:

mermaidskey:

mermaidskey:

oxidoreductase:

Lavoisier is having none of your shit.

Heeeey so fun fact: the woman in that painting is Lavoisier’s wife, Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze, who not only acted as Lavoisier’s lab assistant but also translated English and Latin texts into French so he could read them. But she didn’t just translate, she pointed out errors in the chemistry in some of the texts. Her observations of these errors convinced Lavoisier to study combustion, which led to his discovery of oxygen. She was also critical to the publication of Lavoisier’s Elementary Treatise on Chemistry in 1789. She kept strict records of every experiment they conducted together and drew detailed diagrams of all their equipment. She also threw amazing parties and invited all the brightest minds in science so her husband could pick their brains. After Lavoisier was guillotined she secured all of his notebooks and equipment for posterity.
In short: NOBODY KICKS MADAME LAVOISIER OUT OF THE LAB.

Also, a side note: My historian husband-to-be pointed some things out to me about this painting. Notice that Madame Lavoisier is looking at the viewer, and all the light is on her, while Lavoisier himself is physically smaller than her, in shadow, and looking up to her in reverence. This isn’t a candid photograph- all of these choices are deliberate. The painting isn’t of Lavoisier- Madame Lavoisier is meant to be the central subject. 
I can just imagine Lavoisier telling all his colleagues that his wife is really the one with all the clever ideas, and them patting him on the back and telling him he’s sweet for saying so.

more like

hemipelagicdredger:

mermaidskey:

mermaidskey:

oxidoreductase:

Lavoisier is having none of your shit.

Heeeey so fun fact: the woman in that painting is Lavoisier’s wife, Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze, who not only acted as Lavoisier’s lab assistant but also translated English and Latin texts into French so he could read them. But she didn’t just translate, she pointed out errors in the chemistry in some of the texts. Her observations of these errors convinced Lavoisier to study combustion, which led to his discovery of oxygen. She was also critical to the publication of Lavoisier’s Elementary Treatise on Chemistry in 1789. She kept strict records of every experiment they conducted together and drew detailed diagrams of all their equipment. She also threw amazing parties and invited all the brightest minds in science so her husband could pick their brains. After Lavoisier was guillotined she secured all of his notebooks and equipment for posterity.

In short: NOBODY KICKS MADAME LAVOISIER OUT OF THE LAB.

Also, a side note: My historian husband-to-be pointed some things out to me about this painting. Notice that Madame Lavoisier is looking at the viewer, and all the light is on her, while Lavoisier himself is physically smaller than her, in shadow, and looking up to her in reverence. This isn’t a candid photograph- all of these choices are deliberate. The painting isn’t of Lavoisier- Madame Lavoisier is meant to be the central subject. 

I can just imagine Lavoisier telling all his colleagues that his wife is really the one with all the clever ideas, and them patting him on the back and telling him he’s sweet for saying so.

more like

image

Reblogged from Katie Moest

ihearsamwilson:

The day Sam (the Eagle) met Sam (the Falcon).

Sam the Eagle was not nervous. American icons did not get nervous. He was merely looking forward to an opportunity to meet a fellow patriot.

Sam Wilson was okay with admitting that he was just a little nervous. I mean, okay, they’re talking puppets? And it’s not like people take Sam the Eagle that seriously. It’s just that the poor guy takes himself so seriously, you know? And you don’t want to mess with that.

Neither Steve nor Kermit, watching fondly from the sidelines, is at all surprised when they immediately hit it off.

Sam the Eagle whips around when he hears Steve’s camera go off. 

"Don’t worry," Steve says. "You look great." 

Sam Wilson adds, “We can take another one, if you want. Maybe pose with the suit, salute a flag or something,” and Kermit beams proudly, because it’s obvious that Sam understands Sam the Eagle. 

I don’t think Sam the Eagle gets enough respect.

Reblogged from Katie Moest
scienceisbeauty:

“…What takes an elementary school student just seconds to do; takes a high school student several minutes; takes a college student half and hour and up; and takes a Ph.D a lifetime…”
Good, so my brain seems to be in elementary school, I do not know if it’s positive or negative….
Source: Hong Kong Elementary School Admissions Test Question #21 (chinaSMACK)

Less than a minute, but I still felt stupid that it took me so long…

scienceisbeauty:

…What takes an elementary school student just seconds to do; takes a high school student several minutes; takes a college student half and hour and up; and takes a Ph.D a lifetime…

Good, so my brain seems to be in elementary school, I do not know if it’s positive or negative….

Source: Hong Kong Elementary School Admissions Test Question #21 (chinaSMACK)

Less than a minute, but I still felt stupid that it took me so long…

Reblogged from Science is Beauty
Another backyard baby

Another backyard baby

Backyard Baby Bunny

For ritasv

William Darcy’s Parade of Casual Lovers

You know that rumored Gigi audition scene for LBD in which Darcy makes a remark about his hypothetical parade of casual lovers, the one I was hoping would show up as a video on the DVD extras? Was that video ever posted anywhere?

based-on-fiction:

I choose to believe this is the truth. 

Reblogged from Katie Moest
indypendenthistory:

Alta Weiss “Girl Wonder” - 
A seventeen year old girl who broke the gender barrier and played semipro baseball in 1907.
(via http://www.historybyzim.com/2014/01/alta-girl-wonder-weiss/)

indypendenthistory:

Alta Weiss “Girl Wonder” - 

A seventeen year old girl who broke the gender barrier and played semipro baseball in 1907.

(via http://www.historybyzim.com/2014/01/alta-girl-wonder-weiss/)

Reblogged from Pemberley Dreams
ritasv:

gunmetalskies:

Just a small PSALast month’s issue of Medieval Warfare Magazine is all about Women warriors. (It’s carried at most Barnes & Noble stores, or can be requested there.) You can also buy it online here.My book store got it a month late, which is why this post is so late.While you can smell the neck-beard in a couple of the articles (One starts off “in this era of gender enlightenment and social understanding” HA!) it’s still worth a read, especially if you’re a woman in the field of medieval study, a hobbyist / reenactor. The thing is… There aren’t that many female (presenting) warrior reenactors / enthusiasts. And that’s precisely because SO MANY people have no clue that they actually existed. That they are anything but a fantasy novel hallucination in bikini armor.I’ve turned so many women onto reenacting just by pointing out that medieval women weren’t all the homebodies that 19th & 20th century historians have led media, and thus the public to believe. (Not that there’s anything wrong with reenacting that, but there’s so much more.)This issue gives (neckbeard or no) a host of examples, and a great starting point to reinvent what you might think of women in history.PS: Also look at that guys face… I mean yeah it could be a war shout, but it also looks like someone said something about his lady and he was like “Oh no you didn’t!”

I’m kind of getting a kick out of waffle cone man, myself…

There was a female warrior among the group that presented at the Ren Faire I went to last weekend, but they said it was because they were enlightened enough not to discriminate against women who wanted to participate. Hmmm…

ritasv:

gunmetalskies:

Just a small PSA

Last month’s issue of Medieval Warfare Magazine is all about Women warriors. (It’s carried at most Barnes & Noble stores, or can be requested there.) You can also buy it online here.
My book store got it a month late, which is why this post is so late.

While you can smell the neck-beard in a couple of the articles (One starts off “in this era of gender enlightenment and social understanding” HA!) it’s still worth a read, especially if you’re a woman in the field of medieval study, a hobbyist / reenactor. 

The thing is… There aren’t that many female (presenting) warrior reenactors / enthusiasts. And that’s precisely because SO MANY people have no clue that they actually existed. That they are anything but a fantasy novel hallucination in bikini armor.

I’ve turned so many women onto reenacting just by pointing out that medieval women weren’t all the homebodies that 19th & 20th century historians have led media, and thus the public to believe. (Not that there’s anything wrong with reenacting that, but there’s so much more.)

This issue gives (neckbeard or no) a host of examples, and a great starting point to reinvent what you might think of women in history.


PS: Also look at that guys face… I mean yeah it could be a war shout, but it also looks like someone said something about his lady and he was like “Oh no you didn’t!”

I’m kind of getting a kick out of waffle cone man, myself…

There was a female warrior among the group that presented at the Ren Faire I went to last weekend, but they said it was because they were enlightened enough not to discriminate against women who wanted to participate. Hmmm…

Reblogged from Pemberley Dreams