untitled
pixel skylines
macklin celebrini has autism
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
@theartofmadeline
No title available
🪼
RMH
Mike Driver
Fai_Ryy
No title available
Misplaced Lens Cap
Keni
YOU ARE THE REASON
No title available
Cosimo Galluzzi
No title available
★
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Doug Jones
seen from United States
seen from Pakistan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from Spain
seen from Germany
seen from Vietnam
@ancient-myth-daily
The Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad is, to a modern audiences, what classicists have called “boring as hell,” but I can’t help but think that if you were watching Homer recite it it would have been more like when comedians go, “anybody here tonight from Chicago?” and the Chicagoans in the back start cheering
Homer’s like, “and there were forty black ships from… LOCRIS” and the Locrians in the crowd start going absolutely nuts
In the colossal, cathedral sized water tank beneath the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey, several heads of Medusa have been used as pillar bases for the past 1.500 years. It is not entirely known where the heads came from, but they were believed to be taken from some other Roman ruin. The heads are upside down or sideways to inhibit the power of the Gorgon Medusa's gaze.
The water tank's existence was forgotten for hundreds of years, despite being beneath the Hagia Sophia. When it was rediscovered, explorers found fish inside of it.
i dont care about my doom swiftly approaching. i'm too occupied by my kleos.
Pierre-Yves TREMOIS Minotaur, 1952.
Reblogs in a chain now get their own notes
The reblog chain is one of the things that makes Tumblr unlike anywhere else. All the notes on reblogs are attributed to the original post, no matter which branch people actually liked or reblogged. We want to keep encouraging conversations, and give contributors the recognition they deserve.
Soon, you'll be able to like, reblog, or reply to any part of a reblog chain, and that note will go to that reblog's author. Each reblog will have its own counts, instead of one aggregated number from every version of the post. And yes, you’ll be able to like multiple posts in one chain.
If a reblog doesn't add anything, the love flows up to the last person in the chain who did. Your post doesn't lose notes just because people spread it quietly.
Past notes will stay on the original post — we're only changing what happens from here on out. Retroactively re-attributing all of them would be... a lot.
This is just the beginning. More changes are coming as we keep building this out – stay tuned!
It’s very clear that you all have strong feelings about Tumblr and about this change. We hear you. The passion people have for how Tumblr works is one of the things that makes this place special.
As this rolls out over the next few days and you explore it, we’ll keep reading your replies and reblogs, so please keep sharing your questions, concerns, and ideas.
Your creativity has always been the heart of Tumblr, whether you’re the original poster or adding something brilliant in the reblogs, and nothing about this change is meant to limit that.
If you’d like to talk directly beyond the comments, leave a reply and we’ll follow up with as many of you as we can. We want to work with you to make Tumblr better.
hey folks do we like this. reblog without commentary for reach
do we want this?
yes
no
Reblogs in a chain now get their own notes
The reblog chain is one of the things that makes Tumblr unlike anywhere else. All the notes on reblogs are attributed to the original post, no matter which branch people actually liked or reblogged. We want to keep encouraging conversations, and give contributors the recognition they deserve.
Soon, you'll be able to like, reblog, or reply to any part of a reblog chain, and that note will go to that reblog's author. Each reblog will have its own counts, instead of one aggregated number from every version of the post. And yes, you’ll be able to like multiple posts in one chain.
If a reblog doesn't add anything, the love flows up to the last person in the chain who did. Your post doesn't lose notes just because people spread it quietly.
Past notes will stay on the original post — we're only changing what happens from here on out. Retroactively re-attributing all of them would be... a lot.
This is just the beginning. More changes are coming as we keep building this out – stay tuned!
Hey just FYI, Automattic, the company who owns Tumblr has a phone number: 1-877-273-8550 If you don't like this particular change, and you've opened a support request I suggest you leave a message. In the US, its toll free!
the guy who wrote greek mythology
stolen off instagram but i laughed so hard when i saw this
[edit: image description written by @womanfredvonkarma ]
you want me to trust my father? the thing that killed iphigenia?
im always standing in contrapposto so that if any gorgons happen to gorgalyze me people will think im a renaissance statue
Achilles on Skyros, fresco in the Casa dei Dioscuri, Pompeii.
The Witch of Endor Invoking the Spirit of the Prophet Samuel by Nikolai Ge, 1857.
its called alpha/beta/omega dynamics bc the ancient greeks wouldve loved them
u think they wouldntve loved it if cis men could reproduce by themselves? u think they wouldntve jumped at the opportunity to kick All Women down a comically long set of stairs???? be serious
a) please do not generalise Ancient Greece to be a monolith.
b) I'm speaking here specifically about women in Classical Athens - because this is my area of expertise - they did not hate them, they saw them essentially as perpetual children because they believed them to be irrational. This idea of them as irrational stemmed from the idea that women could not control their sexual desire (see Lysistrata as a prime example of this idea) vs men, who could control their desire [Walcot 1984]. This control, or absence of it, is why men could take up positions of leadership in their community and go to war, while women could not. They did not hate women, they saw them as incompetent. This is how we get texts like Xenophon's Oikonomikos, where he talks about guiding his hypothetical new wife in her new role a head of his household. He refers to her in a way that is condescending and in no way sees her as his equal, but there is no hatred in his tone. Classical Athens was extremely patriarchal and misogynistic, but they did not hate women.
c) This idea of their incompetence stemming from irrationality caused by sexual desire also explains why Athena was still able to be their patron, in spite of being a woman. In HAph. 7-11, she is described as immune to the powers of Aphrodite, in her [Aphrodite] capacity as a goddess of lust/love. Because she does not experience this lust/love she is capable of being rational like a man, and therefore holding patronage over Athens, and having domain over typically male spheres such as strategic warfare and wise council. This also applies to Artemis [HAph. 7-19; Sappho Frag. 44A] and is how she can hold domain over the hunt, again, a typically male sphere.
"they didnt hate women they were only extremely vitriolic towards women n despised them" is rly not the take u think it is
so did you not read what @brisim-claimhte wrote or do words not have meaning to you?
nothing they wrote about classical athens says "extremely vitriolic" or "despised". infantilization of women is still misogyny and it can be done without any vitriol; women may be treated affectionately.
misogyny takes many different forms. if you approach the world with the premise that all misogyny is hatred of, vitriol towards, and the desire to kill and/or do bodily harm (like kicking them down stairs) to women then you will fail to recognize other forms of misogyny.
its called alpha/beta/omega dynamics bc the ancient greeks wouldve loved them
u think they wouldntve loved it if cis men could reproduce by themselves? u think they wouldntve jumped at the opportunity to kick All Women down a comically long set of stairs???? be serious
a) please do not generalise Ancient Greece to be a monolith.
b) I'm speaking here specifically about women in Classical Athens - because this is my area of expertise - they did not hate them, they saw them essentially as perpetual children because they believed them to be irrational. This idea of them as irrational stemmed from the idea that women could not control their sexual desire (see Lysistrata as a prime example of this idea) vs men, who could control their desire [Walcot 1984]. This control, or absence of it, is why men could take up positions of leadership in their community and go to war, while women could not. They did not hate women, they saw them as incompetent. This is how we get texts like Xenophon's Oikonomikos, where he talks about guiding his hypothetical new wife in her new role a head of his household. He refers to her in a way that is condescending and in no way sees her as his equal, but there is no hatred in his tone. Classical Athens was extremely patriarchal and misogynistic, but they did not hate women.
c) This idea of their incompetence stemming from irrationality caused by sexual desire also explains why Athena was still able to be their patron, in spite of being a woman. In HAph. 7-11, she is described as immune to the powers of Aphrodite, in her [Aphrodite] capacity as a goddess of lust/love. Because she does not experience this lust/love she is capable of being rational like a man, and therefore holding patronage over Athens, and having domain over typically male spheres such as strategic warfare and wise council. This also applies to Artemis [HAph. 7-19; Sappho Frag. 44A] and is how she can hold domain over the hunt, again, a typically male sphere.
"they didnt hate women they were only extremely vitriolic towards women n despised them" is rly not the take u think it is
"In both literature and art, Greek gods are engaged in a wide range of activities that run the gamut from the domestic and all-too-human to the sublime and often reflect dominant aspects of their character or realm. ... The one thing they do not do is read and write."
Henrichs, A. (2003). Writing Religion: Inscribed Texts, Ritual Authority, and the Religious Discourse of the Polis. pp. 38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511497803.004.
I really hope your reading comprehension rivals that of Apollo, otherwise you just implied that you hate children?
