set of nostalgia drawings by gabriel picolo. i don’t think i have enough space on my tumblr for all his works that i’d like to post.
these are incredible
“We went to Kineshma, that’s in Ivanovo region, to visit his parents. I went as a heroine and I never expected someone to welcome me, a front-line girl, like that. We’ve gone through so much, we’ve saved lives, lifes of mothers, wives. And then… I heard accusations, I was bad-mouthed. Before that I’ve only ever been “dear sister”… We had tea and my husband’s mother took him aside and started crying: “Who did you marry? A front-line girl… You have two younger sisters. Who’s going to marry them now?” When I think back to that moment I feel tears welling up. Imagine: I had a record, I loved it a lot. There was a song, it said: you have the right to wear the best shoes. That was about a front-line girl. I had it playing, and [his?] elder sister came up and broke it apart, saying: you have no rights. They destroyed all my photos from the war… We, front-line girls, went through so much during hte war… and then we had another war. Another terrible war. The men left us, they didn’t cover our backs. Not like at the front.” from С.Алексеевич “У войны не женское лицо”
In Soviet Union women participating in WWII were erased from history, remaining as the occasional anecdote of a female sniper or simply as medical staff or, at best, radio specialists. The word “front-line girl” (frontovichka) became a terrible insult, synonimous to “whore”. Hundreds thousand of girls who went to war to protect their homeland with their very lives, who came back injured or disabled, with medals for valor, had to hide it to protect themselves from public scorn.
This has always happened in history: Women do something important. Then they get shamed for it (so nobody will talk about it) and it gets erased from history.
And then certain men will say: “Women suck, they’ve never done anything important.”
Look into history and learn that women have played a far greater role then douches (present and past) wanted you to know.
Hey Will (and Jack) I got you something.
So this is important. Let me tell you a story.
All the time I spend debating about women in combat, I’ve picked up on a trend that disturbs me. Supporting or attacking, people are quick to draw on biology, psychology, law, but very rarely - almost never - do I hear about the history of women in combat, and the evidence their service lends to this debate.
Hundreds of thousands of women faced combat in WW2, and on both sides, and on all fronts, and it is a history that has been almost completely erased from contemporary awareness. I have been given arguments about how women can not psychologically handle combat. And about how women in mixed-gender combat units will automatically disrupt group cohesion - the brotherhood, if you will. Both of these assertions are erasure.
Women have not lived in a protective bubble untouched by combat for all of history. Women have been killed, wounded, and captured in combat, and tortured after. We are not living a world where these are hypothetical situations women have yet to prove they can handle. Unfortunately, they have, they can, in the future, they probably will, again and again. Soviet women served as partisans, snipers, tank drivers, fighter pilots, bombers. And more.
Both British and American women served in mixed-gender AA units. I could drag you through several examples of British women performing exemplarily despite being wounded, or seeing their comrades die. The Luftwaffe did not discriminate. Between the British and the Americans, it was determined that mixed gender units actually performed much better than all male units, because of teamwork. Because women are better and certain tasks, men are better at certain tasks, and at other tasks they are comparably efficient, and in a team, hopefully, in combat, you let the best do what they are best at. For the most part, they were proud to serve together.
German propaganda never commented on the British AA units, but they thoroughly smeared the Soviet fighting woman - flitenweiber. People often argue with me that women are a threat to group cohesion because men naturally give women preferential treatment. Which certainly explains why men are more likely to survive shipwrecks. And history shows us that Germans soldiers had no chivalrous compunction when it came to shooting captured Soviet women who were armed.
We’re fed a history of war that almost exclusively features white male figures, most of whom fit into this destructive constructed myth of the soldier that is somehow both chivalrous and charmingly womanizing and who’s sense of brotherhood is unshakably dependent on the band being all man. There is no history of woman at war, none. I hear a lot about how women have no upper body strength, I hear nothing about the Front-Line Female Comrade.
THE WORD FRONTOVICHKA BECAME A TERRIBLE INSULT - are you fucking kidding me? Fuck, that made me cry. At first when I started reading I thought I was reading alernate history fiction. I’m ashamed to be ignorant about this, and full of rage and much worse bitter shame that this history is constantly repressed, suppressed, hidden. WHAT THE FUCK. D: D: D:
I didn’t know that bit about the AA (Anti-Aircraft) units.
And even in this article I don’t see a mention of the women of the Israeli Army, or women of the resistance if we’re just sticking to WWII. I didn’t know about the Russian soldiers, only the fighter pilots, the night witches, and I’ve spent years poking into the corners of history trying to find women who will serve as ammunition when men tell me women can’t fight.
The best explanation I’ve heard of what happened to women after WWII comes from “A League of Their Own,” the publicist’s character: “What is this—the war is over, Rosie, turn in your rivets?” Women all over the world had to step into the same old ruts.
I don’t think it’s any mistake at all that Betty Friedan wrote her ground-breaking text for the second wave of feminism, THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE, just 10 years after WWII, after women had dined on a full plate of the same old, same old.
And shame on the men who never stood up for the women who worked and fought beside them, and saved their lives.
There were Soviet AA units that absolutely wrecked the Nazis on several occasions. I was reading about them recently because the most recent Jucifer album has some pieces about them. and women in WWII in general.
According to Mann, working-class people tend to embrace dominant values as abstract propositions but often grow skeptical as the values are applied to their everyday lives. They endorse the idea that everyone has an equal chance of success in America but deny it when asked to compare themselves with the lawyer or businessman across town.
Richard Sennet and Jonathan Cobb explored the psychic significance of this ambivalence in The Hidden Injuries of Class. Their respondents knew quite well that there were class inequalities in America, that rewards were distributed unfairly. And they had their own resources for dignity and solidarity. Yet they could not escape the effect of dominant values: they deemed their class inferiority a sign of personal failure, even as many realized they had been constrained by class origins that they could not control. In one breath, a garbage collector told the interviewer: “Never learning to read good… it was out of my hands… I mean I wanted to, but I got bad breaks.” In the next breath, the same man said: “Look, I know it’s nobody’s fault but mine that I got stuck here where I am, I mean… if I wasn’t such a dumb shit … no, it ain’t that neither… if I’d applied myself, I know I got it in me to be different, can’t say anyone did it to me.” […] Hidden Injuries implies that workers have internalized a class struggle in their own minds, punishing themselves for their failure to acquire the culture’s badges of ability even as they recognize that those badges are often a sham.
- T.J. Jackson Lears, The Concept of Cultural Hegemony, page 577-578
one thing ive noticed about liberal versions of history is that it likes to make every radical action seem spontaneous. Like the Bolsheviks and the russian revolution and even here in america when they talk about the civil rights movement like rosa parks comes to mind and liberal revisionist history likes to leave out the fact that rosa parks was a seasoned activist and that her actions were planned. We see this alot liberal revisionist history likes to erase connections and make radical action seem spontaneous because it makes it so that people looking back can say “wow this was an spontaneous action taken by an extraordinary person i could never do that” when in reality most of these (the sit in movement comes to mind) were a result of very careful planning and in the case of the russian revolution careful planning and deep ties to the working masses.
A weird thing I’ve seen on top of this is liberals (and rightists too) that find out all these actions weren’t spontaneous and then act like they were fraudulent or don’t mean anything as a result. I’ve seen people do this a lot with Rosa Parks specifically.
Or most recently with Sandra Fluke. “She was a reproductive-rights activist this whole time!” Uh yeah, why else would she be testifying in front of Congress about birth control? Do you think she just wandered in off the street and then ad-libbed her statement?
To me it, in the US at least, it feels less like the purpose is “I could never do that” and more like some weird exaltation of individuality. Like if you do something as part of a movement, it’s sullied by the attendant politics, but if you just do it as a pure expression of your Self, then it’s inherently honest and noble. Then the action has no agenda, it’s just an individual trying to meet individual needs without asking society for help in any way. And that’s somehow the way all social changes should be effected, even the ones we pretty much all agree were positive (like Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement).
reblogging again because yeah that’s really solid, it IS all about the worship of individualism
hi yes hello, i just want to respond to this because although this is an accurate criticism of a failure of liberalism it’s missing the important critique that the long-term planning and organizing behind radical actions has been written out of history on purpose. it’s not as if large numbers of liberals have a full understanding of radical social movements and organizing laid out before them, but choose to ignore it in favor of individualism and hero worship. rather, it’s that they don’t have this knowledge because it’s been taken out of the general body of knowledge, precisely because of how dangerous it is.
when people like mlk or malcolm x or rosa parks are raised up out of their historical and social context, they are made into gods or heroes. for those of us who aspire to be like them, we are taught the lesson that we must make ourself into a god or hero (which is obviously impossible), or wait around for someone who is. if we were all taught that these ‘heroes’ did things like learn their skills over time, went to school and joined programs to affect change, and worked with everybody around them, the takeaway would be that we should do the same, which is actually achievable. and that’s dangerous!
so, yes, liberals have a problem with hero worship and not understanding radical history or the context of working as one part of a larger social movement, but let’s be clear: this is a problem actively cultivated by the larger power structure. it is not a problem unique to liberals, but with our society as a whole. blaming liberals for hero worship would only be accurate if conservatives and the politically apathetic did not also share this problem.