In the Conan picture, why is the huge, unsheathed shiny sword there? If you’re not in combat, a sword is normally in a scabbard on your hip.
I imagine it’s awkward to wear a sword on a scabbard while seated, particularly if there are armrests on either side.
None so blind, I suppose.
And yet there’s some sort of holder for the halberd-type weapon.
Oh, come on. Conan is fully clothed, armored and fur-cloaked. The fact that the broadsword he’s resting his chin on (as well as the sceptre/halberd next to him) can be read as a sort of phallic symbol is not at all the same thing as showing off his own personal phallus. It is not at all comparable to the splayed tippy-toe posture of the near-naked Sonja emphasizing her crotch and boobs.
This sort of resolutely naive handwaving away of obvious sexist double standards is part of the reason systemic sexism is so hard to eradicate. If you look hard enough you can find superficial similarities in pretty much any double standard that enable you to ignore its more fundamental differences.
How does that equate to “highly sexualized?” I mean, I get “swords are penises hur hur hur*” angle, but in one picture you have a fully clothed man, leaning forward, the only visible skin on his hands and elbows, and in the second you have a woman wearing about six square inches of fabric, and posed so that the only thing preventing you from seeing directly up her cervix is her chain mail loin cloth, and you don’t see a difference in representation here?
*Direct quote from Sigmund Freud
I’d like to take a brief break from Fox Sunday Night Animation Domination to agree strongly with Miller and Kimstu
And I’m not quite sure how we got here from the topic of “Bullshit history that turned out to be true” anyway…
Having worn some in SCA combat, it is none of those things. Well, it ain’t cheap, but cheaper than many other armors.
Well, that looks like DeviantArt stuff. The Conan one reminds me of a bookcover.
Yes, Tamerlane’s quote shows how Robert E Howard visualized her. Okay, some sexy there, but practical.
Sure, that’s potentially a contributing factor in why the two images in question have such different degrees of sexualization. But it doesn’t in any way support Northern_Piper’s absurd claim that they don’t have significantly different degrees of sexualization.
Well, you are absolutely right.
I saw naught that was sexy or suggestive in the King Conan one. While the other is rather over the top.
… and the way Barry Smith drew her.
Just to be clear, though, although Howard wrote about swordswomen and also had a character named Red Sonya of Rogatino, she lived in the 16th century, not the Hyborian age. Red Sonya in the Hyborian age is a Marvel comics creation of Roy Thomas, who figured they needed a character like that (although there’s not much of a mentioon of the original Red Sonya in the Howard story “Shadow of the Vulture”. They probably got more of the character of the Marvel Red Sonya from Dark Agnes de Chastillon, whose background is given at length, and who appears in three stories. Intriguingly, she may have been inspire in part by Novalyne Price, Howard’s girlfriend, played by Renee Zellweger in the 1996 movie The Whole Wide World. Betcha that changes your mental picture of her.)
Not sure if this quite fits the topic:
Early humans assumed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Early cosmologists eventually figured out that is isn’t, and that it isn’t even the center of the solar system. But now, it is once again the center of the universe. It just so happens that everywhere is.
Yeah. On a related note, Hindu sacred texts use a chronology of time-units called kalpa and yuga that places the present day a little under two billion years into the current “lifetime of the universe”.
This was regarded as an obviously ridiculous grotesque exaggeration by westerners familiar with Biblical chronology, but it turns out to be many orders of magnitude closer to modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe than the five or six thousand years that Biblical chronology assigns.
The earth is the center of the observable universe, which in a roundabout way validates early observations of the universe. After all, when you look in every direction and see stuff it’s logical to assume you must be in the middle.
glaive
Most elegantly compact username/post harmony ever.
Well, by that logic, the belief that I am personally the center of the universe is validated by the fact I can look around myself in every direction.
Yeah, but everywhere else in the observable universe is also in the centre of its own bubble. It may be the case that the unobservable universe is different, but we can’t see that. Obviously.