馃敟 Popular | Latest

what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That鈥檚 basically a naked woman I鈥檓 YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It鈥檚 like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into 鈥渟exy鈥 poses. Or how women in comics walk like they鈥檙e in high heels even barefoot.聽 It鈥檚 the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of聽鈥渨omen鈥 as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes鈥 narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.聽 I鈥檓 sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can鈥檛 apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.聽 Come on, let鈥檚 not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We鈥檙e going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you鈥檙e deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters鈥 clothing is asinine.聽 What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don鈥檛 think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how聽鈥渆mpowering鈥 and聽鈥渟trong鈥 it actually looks:聽 Also:聽 He got the painting for fighting against 鈥榗ensorship.鈥 Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don鈥檛 care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I鈥檝e seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men鈥檚 magazine. He鈥檚 shirtless and buff and angry. He鈥檚 imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it鈥檚 what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women鈥檚 magazine.聽 He looks like a dad. He looks like he鈥檚 going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn鈥檛 how fabric works Lol聽body painting literally Clothes don鈥檛 suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I鈥檇 be wearing hoodies all year i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it鈥檚 not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn鈥檛 harm the person and therefore isn鈥檛 relevant. it鈥檚 only something to bring into the conversation when you鈥檙e talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there鈥檚 a really good post with article links about this i鈥檒l try to find it), but these drawings don鈥檛 affect an actual personit鈥檚 a completely different subjectand i mean for god鈥檚 sake you can鈥檛 counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That鈥檚 basically a naked woman I鈥檓 YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It鈥檚 like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into 鈥渟exy鈥 poses. Or how women in comics walk like they鈥檙e in high heels even barefoot.聽 It鈥檚 the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of聽鈥渨omen鈥 as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes鈥 narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.聽 I鈥檓 sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can鈥檛 apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.聽 Come on, let鈥檚 not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We鈥檙e going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you鈥檙e deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters鈥 clothing is asinine.聽 What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don鈥檛 think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how聽鈥渆mpowering鈥 and聽鈥渟trong鈥 it actually looks:聽 Also:聽 He got the painting for fighting against 鈥榗ensorship.鈥 Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don鈥檛 care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I鈥檝e seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men鈥檚 magazine. He鈥檚 shirtless and buff and angry. He鈥檚 imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it鈥檚 what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women鈥檚 magazine.聽 He looks like a dad. He looks like he鈥檚 going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn鈥檛 how fabric works Lol聽body painting literally Clothes don鈥檛 suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I鈥檇 be wearing hoodies all year i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it鈥檚 not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn鈥檛 harm the person and therefore isn鈥檛 relevant. it鈥檚 only something to bring into the conversation when you鈥檙e talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there鈥檚 a really good post with article links about this i鈥檒l try to find it), but these drawings don鈥檛 affect an actual personit鈥檚 a completely different subjectand i mean for god鈥檚 sake you can鈥檛 counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
Save
thewickedverkaiking: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That鈥檚 basically a naked woman I鈥檓 YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It鈥檚 like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into 鈥渟exy鈥 poses. Or how women in comics walk like they鈥檙e in high heels even barefoot.聽 It鈥檚 the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of聽鈥渨omen鈥 as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes鈥 narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.聽 I鈥檓 sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can鈥檛 apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.聽 Come on, let鈥檚 not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We鈥檙e going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you鈥檙e deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters鈥 clothing is asinine.聽 What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don鈥檛 think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how聽鈥渆mpowering鈥 and聽鈥渟trong鈥 it actually looks:聽 Also:聽 He got the painting for fighting against 鈥榗ensorship.鈥 Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don鈥檛 care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I鈥檝e seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men鈥檚 magazine. He鈥檚 shirtless and buff and angry. He鈥檚 imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it鈥檚 what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women鈥檚 magazine.聽 He looks like a dad. He looks like he鈥檚 going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE : Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA thewickedverkaiking: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That鈥檚 basically a naked woman I鈥檓 YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It鈥檚 like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into 鈥渟exy鈥 poses. Or how women in comics walk like they鈥檙e in high heels even barefoot.聽 It鈥檚 the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of聽鈥渨omen鈥 as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes鈥 narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.聽 I鈥檓 sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can鈥檛 apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.聽 Come on, let鈥檚 not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We鈥檙e going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you鈥檙e deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters鈥 clothing is asinine.聽 What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don鈥檛 think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how聽鈥渆mpowering鈥 and聽鈥渟trong鈥 it actually looks:聽 Also:聽 He got the painting for fighting against 鈥榗ensorship.鈥 Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don鈥檛 care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I鈥檝e seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men鈥檚 magazine. He鈥檚 shirtless and buff and angry. He鈥檚 imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it鈥檚 what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women鈥檚 magazine.聽 He looks like a dad. He looks like he鈥檚 going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE
Save
ambermusicbox: overherewiththequeers: overherewiththequeers: castielcampbell: jaydenthorne: No. Hollywood has an older man problem. this is so gross I wish I could remember the name of the actress who went ballistic after being told that, at 35, she was too old to play the love interest for the 55-year-old lead. It was Maggie Gyllenhall.聽 And I stand corrected, she was 37. Damn : EMMA STONE 54 Sean Penn, 54 Colin Firth, 53 EMMA STONE'S AGE Edward Norton, 45 LOVE INTEREST'S AGE Joaquin Phoenix, 40 Bradley Cooper, 40 an Gosling 30 Andrew Garfield, 28 Penn Badgley, 23 Chris Lowell 26 Irrational Birdman, Man Jesse Eisenberg, 25 Gangster 26 26 Squad, 2!5 Jonah Hil 23 24 The Help, 23 Easy A, 21 Aloha, 26 Superbad 18 The Amazing Spider-Man Zombieland 20 Crazy, Stupid, Love Magic in the Moonlight 16 2007 2008 2009 2010 201 2012 2013 2014 2015 YEAR ULTURE SCARLETT JOHANSSON 54 Bill Murray 52 SCARLETT JOHANSSON'S AGE Mark Ruffalo, 47 LOVE INTEREST'S AGE Jon Favreau, 47 Billy Bob Thornton, 46 Aaron Eckhart, 38 Matt Damon, 41 Javier Bardem, 39 Hugh Jackman, 37 Joaquin Phoenix, 39 Joseph Gordon- 32 Ewan McGregor, 34 Bradley Cooper 34 Her 29 Jonatharn Rhys Meyers, 28 Chris Evans, 26 We Bought a Zoo, 27 Chef. Don Jon, 29 28 Lost in Translation, 18 The Nanny 24 Match Diaries, 23 Point 22 He's Just Not Vicky That Into You The 21 21 Island, 20 Cristina 21 Bcelona Avengers: Age of Ultron 30 The Man Who Wasn'tv There 16 The Black Scoop Dahlia 16 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 YEAR ULTURE JENNIFER LAWRENCE 54 JENNIFER LAWRENCE'S AGE LOVE INTEREST'S AGE Christian Bale, 39 Bradley Cooper 40 Bradley Cooper 37 Edgar Ramirez, 38 Michael Fassbender 34 Liam msworth 23 Max Thieriot, 23 Silver Linings Hunger Playbook American Hustle, 23 Serena, 24 The Anton Yelchin, Games, Joy 25 21 23 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Like X-Men: Crazy First Class, 21 Josh the End of Hutcherson, the Street 20 19 16 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 YEAR VULTURE ambermusicbox: overherewiththequeers: overherewiththequeers: castielcampbell: jaydenthorne: No. Hollywood has an older man problem. this is so gross I wish I could remember the name of the actress who went ballistic after being told that, at 35, she was too old to play the love interest for the 55-year-old lead. It was Maggie Gyllenhall.聽 And I stand corrected, she was 37. Damn
Save