unscriptedmonologues:

Always reblog the Evil Giraffe

(Source: arakdy, via seananmcguire)




Anonymous asked:
Let me get this straight, Nicki Minaj can wiggle her butt six ways till Sunday and people can call her a black feminist messiah, but when there's a weak-ass Spider-Woman variant cover that make her look like she's posing like Nicki Minaj, it suddenly NOT okay and Marvel should be ashamed??? I'm honestly, seriously confused here :/

teacupnosaucer:

ohmygil:

Nicki Minaj is also a real person who makes real decisions for herself and made a video and song that celebrated her own body and her own sexuality while outright critiquing the Male Gaze through visual metaphor

Jessica Drew is not a real person and was drawn by a man in a submissive position who visually objectifies her (spandex doesn’t work on asses like that come on) and every female superhero he’s drawn. And he can’t even draw a background right.

repeat it with me now everybody: made up women drawn for gross men to jerk off to are NOT equivalent to real life women expressing their sexuality for their own benefit




whimsical-tail-flukes:

Procaps, It’s okay to change your mind. 

I was a SeaWorld supporter for a long time. Then I looked honestly at myself and realized I was visiting those parks for my own enjoyment more than anything else. I was being selfish. Yeah, it sucks to admit it. 

You truly think you love those animals. You love being able to go the park and watch animals that you can identify by name. You feel like you know them.

But what you actually love is being close those them. Which is not the same thing. To truly and unselfishly love those animals, you need to put their needs above your desires.

Anticaps say all the time: “You get to go home at the end of the day. But they don’t.” Have you ever thought about what that actually means? Yes, most of those animals were born in captivity, and captivity is the only “home” they’ve ever known. But as you leave the park, off to have dinner with your friends, or go literally anywhere else, those animals are still circling the same barren tanks over and over again again (or logging at the surface). This makes up the vast majority of their life - outside of shows and the occasional toy tossed in their pool. Is that fair to them?

Do you want to support a company that supports the Taiji slaughters under the table?

Do you really want to support a company that inseminates female animals whenever they see fit, even if the animals are not physically and mentally ready for a pregnancy? 

Do you want to support a company that doctors facts about wild animals to make captivity seem acceptable? A company that has a whole list of buzzwords in the education manual because they know the reality of what they’re actually doing and want to hide that reality from the public?

Do you want to support a company that flat-out refuses to own up to the awful things they’ve done in the past? A company that acts as though the hatred being spewed against it is completely unjustified?

Do you want to support a company that has proven over the last several months that, without a doubt, they care more about their public image than about the animals in their “care”? (Would these new tank plans exist if Blackfish had never come out? Absolutely not).

If you truly love animals, you should do the unselfish thing and stop visiting these parks. 




dark-blue-mondays:

scowlofjustice:

I got bored and started adding color to  this old Harrison lineart

At some point I’ll finish this (I still have to do his suit!)

(( Ooooh!!!  This is fantastic!  I always loved this piece because you captured both his loving gaze and his confident smirk!  It’s so neat to see you coloring it!  You are the best!!! *hugs*!!!

))




lollipvps:

The thing is when you’re bisexual, you’re not really surprised when a straight person is biphobic. Sure it sucks and you’re like “well fuck you too dude” to whoever the prick is; but it’s not so astonishing.

Biphobic gay people on the other hand, actually hurt like a motherfucker. Like bro you’re supposed to be on my side??? Like even “my people” can’t accept me?? That hurts so much more than some random dude who expects a threesome.

(via adventuresofcesium)




wereoctopus:

autisticfandomthings:

The sheer amount of energy, abilities, and organisation that you have to have to actually put into practice all these “rape prevention” things is impossible for a lot of people. Especially disabled people. 

People with physical disabilities may not be able to learn all this self-defense stuff. Actually that’s generally pretty expensive, and disabled people tend to be poor.

Lots of us don’t have the motor control or energy to use things like this new anti-date rape nail polish.

Autistic people sometimes can’t just tell when someone’s unsafe.

Lots of us don’t have the funds or organisation to do things like getting taxis all the time.

So, what? Are we supposed to be the collateral damage for when all the “good” women are sensible and do all the rape prevention things we can’t? Are we just supposed to accept that we get raped at rates that are at least twice that of non disabled people? That about 80% of developmentally disabled women get sexually abused?

Is it our fault if we can’t do these things because we’re disabled?

Rape prevention does worse than nothing for disabled people.

Why is this never brought up when feminists criticise “rape prevention” things?

I’ve heard the excellent argument that “rape prevention” just means “making sure he rapes the other girl”. But I think the implication is usually that the other girl is more promiscuous, more willing to go out at night, etc.

Putting an end to “slut-shaming” is important, yes, but in future when I use the “other girl” argument, I should make it more explicit that “the other girl” is a very heterogeneous group that also includes women with disabilities.

(via evelark)




nodaybuttodaytodefygravity:

nantli-miquitzlin:

zarabithia:

ericscissorhands:

“A villain is just a victim whose story hasn’t been told.”

Why is this one of the things recommended for me on my dash.

There’s so much wrong with this.

1. The quote is bullshit, and indicative of everything terrible about our society, which constantly puts the pain of the abuser above those they abuse. 

2 It also grossly furthers the idea that all victims are potential abusers. Which has real life ramifications, because this is actually something that survivors of child abuse fear and one of the reasons they do not always come forward.

3. Bucky has no goddamn business being in this set. He wasn’t a villain. He actually was a victim.

4. We saw Anakin’s story. We KNOW his story. Cool story, bro, but you still murdered children. You are not now and never shall be a fucking victim, but those babies were, so fuck you and fuck your defenders and especially fuck anyone who would think that you are a goddamn victim.

5. We know Magneto’s story intimately. It has been told often. He was a victim once. And then he decided that Genocide was okay. 

6.  Fuck Fake White Khan and we do in fact know Real Khan’s story. He did think he was a victim, but no, he was not. He was a complicated and amazing villain that went against the typical type of POC villains that we get - he was brilliant and clever and not just a “thug.” But he was not a victim (no, not even after the neighboring planet went boom.) 

7. We know Loki’s story too. It’s one of a whiny spoiled brat who keeps trying to commit genocide. 

tldr: Bucky has no business being in this set. The rest of these people are murderous terrible people. They are not victims, though some of them were once. 

I waited to reblog this, specifically for someone to express this^^. tumblr delivered.

image

(via thoughtful-raven)




"

The thing that’s most striking about the opposition to Sarkeesian’s work is that while her opposition comes in very different forms, ranging from simple criticism, to faux-intellectual documentarians, to outright virulent abuse, it’s all pretty lightweight. There’s a striking inability or unwillingness to grapple honestly or seriously with her arguments, to take her interest in the topic at face value, or to listen and understand to what she’s even arguing in the first place.


"

-  Criticism Of Anita Sarkeesian & “Women Vs. Tropes” Comes In 4 Groundless Forms | Bustle (via feministlibrarian)

(via feministlibrarian)




thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

tyleroakley:

THE ACCURACY IS OVERWHELMING.

The most perfect description of Sarah Palin I’ve ever seen O.O;

(Source: sandandglass, via scowlofjustice)




What Scooby Doo REALLY taught us is that once you pull off the mask, the real villain is usually an old white man thing to steal everyone’s land or money.

bitteroreo:

image

(Source: myegotisticalindulgences, via scowlofjustice)




dead-eyedplasticdesktoy:

nl-rummi:

Megamind “Arrested”

(Or: A Crossover of Two of David Cross’ Amazing Characters!)

Did you make this??? I want more of this!!!!

Dad likes leather.  LOLOLOLOL  




Megamind/Arrested Development Crossover!

nl-rummi:

Well, sort of.

I posted the Arrested Development clip the other day because (a) I felt like a laugh, and (b) it was one of my favorite jokes of the series.  Then I remembered that I had dubbed that scene (as well as another one) over a sequence of Megamind clips way back during the heyday of the LJ community.  (Because, you know, David Cross!)  I’d never posted it to the Comm because, originally, I’d submitted it for the next “Megamind Hell” vid, but now I feel the need to go looking for it to post it here!

It’s probably still on my old laptop.  If I can find it I’ll put it up!

Ooh!  Yes yes!  I want!




roachpatrol:

court-of-ocelot:

laureljupiter:

court-of-ocelot:

culturalrebel:

aka “Elitism is my middle name”

I like how Moffat would say that Reinette - a female character that he wrote into the show - is obviously a perfect match for the Doctor based on her level of ‘civilization’ and education.

As opposed to oh say…Rose Tyler - a lower-class girl who never went to university - whom the Doctor actually fell in love with and did settle down with in another universe.

This quote just has it all, doesn’t it?

- The elitism

- The dig at Rose Tyler and RTD, by extension

- The elevation of ‘his’ character at the expense of existing ones.

- The implication that Madame de Pompadour - one of the most powerful women in the country - would of course drop everything she had worked for to go and ‘settle down’ with a man who is basically a homeless spacehobo.

People who call Moffat a talentless hack are mistaken.  It takes some skill to cram that much fail into just three sentences.

Hah, excellent Moffat-criticism here. He is so petty, and so unequipped to write insightful sci-fi.

Like, okay, let’s pretend for a second that by “educated and civilised” he means “has a lot of knowledge and social insight” (which is a valid thing to look for in a romantic partner) rather than, you know, “rich, fancy and subservient” (which is what Moffat expects people to look for in a romantic partner).

… I really don’t think that an 18th century aristocrat has more understanding of science and society than a 21st person without A levels but with a working television. And in any case, if the Doctor was really looking for people who are Intellectual Equals, he’d surely look in the future, when people understand time travel, and have wikipedia installed in their brains, or whatever. Or AIs! I can’t imagine anyone more educated and ‘civilised’ than AI people!

Just, one thing I really loved about RTD’s Who arcs - which Moffat clearly didn’t understand at all - was that EVERYTHING the companions knew was useful - Harry Potter trivia! Game-show quickness! Fast typing! - and that the, like, real-world hierarchy of skills and marketability was always shown as less important than courage and compassion.

WITHOUT A LEVELS BUT WITH A WORKING TELEVISION

YES THIS.

I’m imagining the real Madame de Pompadour and how very unimpressed she would be by Steven Moffat declaring his ~admiration for her, but

wow

did this man just admit that he think the position of Companion is actually the Doctor’s maîtresse-en-titre?  Jesus wept.

That is exactly what this man thinks, and what he writes also. He thinks women are wired to ‘cling’ and men are wired to want to escape them, and the only way a relationship can be agreeable to both parties is if the woman accepts that they can only spend time together when the dude initiates it.

… Suddenly I am kinda surprised that Sherlock and Irene didn’t set up a long-distance relationship where she spends her days in an orientalist parody of a villa, waiting for Sherlock and passing the time taking luxurious bubble-baths and emotionlessly spanking female nobility.

Oh my god this is some sick shit— and really, really, really highlights how much Moffat doesn’t understand the fundamental heart of the show he’s fucking running. If the Doctor was so hot for intelligent, well educated, civilized women why the fuck did he ever leave his home planet? Why has he only ever had one Gallifreyan companion after he left his granddaughter to go her own way? Romana was foisted on him by the time lord ellimist, he didn’t go picking her out of a catalogue. 

The Doctor runs around with soldiers and schoolkids and teachers and sailors and students and journalists and shop girls and alien refugees and orphans and robot dogs and barbarians and private detective penguins and renegade archaeologists. If he wanted a slice of properly civilized girlfriend he had the whole universe to go pick one out from, and he never did till Moffat wrote him launching himself smooch-first at the lady in the fancy dress and historically inaccurate boobies.

Goddamn I am so mad. 

(Source: badwollf)




(Source: justice4mikebrown)




theme by silencePRESS