🔥 Popular | Latest

anon-i-mus: WORLD EGO AWARENESS DAY - MAY 11 2020 On May 11th, we observe  World Ego Awareness Day (WEAD). We ask for your participation in this growing global movement to raise social awareness about the Egotism. While we hope that people will educate themselves and others throughout the year, this dedicated day gives us the opportunity to collaborate and amplify each other’s understanding. The Ego Awareness Movement and WEAD was established in 2018 to support all those that are affected with this mental condition and work towards preventing others from experiencing the effects of this invisible form of abuse. Through education and advocacy we can help reduce the number of people throughout the world who fall victim to egotism; to increase their ability to be centered in present-moment-awareness and experience life to the fullest.  Ego Awareness Day aims to highlight the issues surrounding egotism; encouraging everyone to be mindful, raise our consciousness and speak out against narcissistic or egotistic learned behavior. Together we can work to inform, educate, deter and prevent one of the major causes of human suffering on our planet. Research has shown that being influenced by the effects of the unobserved egoic mind can be responsible for most of our afflictions including a false sense of superiority, inferiority complex, prejudices, judging others, manipulation, rage, addictions, stress, violence, racism, sexism, the need for praise, approval, being reactionary, lack of empathy, loneliness, despair, false propaganda, religious and tribal wars and so on. All such negative and destructive traits have serious consequences in our personal relationships and the world at large. Why participate? Many people who suffer from egotism, which is a learned form of psychological and emotional abuse, are not even aware that what they are experiencing is this type of abuse.  When they become aware that they are a perpetrator or the one that is being abused, they have a difficult time articulating or describing it because it’s so hard to put a finger on. Therefore, resources for survivors have been made available. What can you do?  Join the movement.  Like-minded people, organizations and communities can help share information on this subject with their audience through various channels such as social media, blog pages, local events and community involvement.  You can also show support by distributing our ego awareness pamphlets and/or wearing badges. Talk to other advocates and other organizations dedicated to mindfulness, awareness, life-coaching, self-help, spirituality and so forth.  Organize events or incorporate messaging into existing events in order to educate your audience about egotism. We look forward to your participation this year! Anon I mus, founder of the Ego Awareness Movement - World Ego Awareness Day [WEAD] http://egoawarenessmovement.org/world-ego-awareness-day/ https://www.awarenessdays.com/awareness-days-calendar/world-ego-awareness-day-2020/https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/world-ego-awareness-day/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYAoQoFSURs&t=452s https://www.facebook.com/egoawarenessmovement.org/ : anon-i-mus: WORLD EGO AWARENESS DAY - MAY 11 2020 On May 11th, we observe  World Ego Awareness Day (WEAD). We ask for your participation in this growing global movement to raise social awareness about the Egotism. While we hope that people will educate themselves and others throughout the year, this dedicated day gives us the opportunity to collaborate and amplify each other’s understanding. The Ego Awareness Movement and WEAD was established in 2018 to support all those that are affected with this mental condition and work towards preventing others from experiencing the effects of this invisible form of abuse. Through education and advocacy we can help reduce the number of people throughout the world who fall victim to egotism; to increase their ability to be centered in present-moment-awareness and experience life to the fullest.  Ego Awareness Day aims to highlight the issues surrounding egotism; encouraging everyone to be mindful, raise our consciousness and speak out against narcissistic or egotistic learned behavior. Together we can work to inform, educate, deter and prevent one of the major causes of human suffering on our planet. Research has shown that being influenced by the effects of the unobserved egoic mind can be responsible for most of our afflictions including a false sense of superiority, inferiority complex, prejudices, judging others, manipulation, rage, addictions, stress, violence, racism, sexism, the need for praise, approval, being reactionary, lack of empathy, loneliness, despair, false propaganda, religious and tribal wars and so on. All such negative and destructive traits have serious consequences in our personal relationships and the world at large. Why participate? Many people who suffer from egotism, which is a learned form of psychological and emotional abuse, are not even aware that what they are experiencing is this type of abuse.  When they become aware that they are a perpetrator or the one that is being abused, they have a difficult time articulating or describing it because it’s so hard to put a finger on. Therefore, resources for survivors have been made available. What can you do?  Join the movement.  Like-minded people, organizations and communities can help share information on this subject with their audience through various channels such as social media, blog pages, local events and community involvement.  You can also show support by distributing our ego awareness pamphlets and/or wearing badges. Talk to other advocates and other organizations dedicated to mindfulness, awareness, life-coaching, self-help, spirituality and so forth.  Organize events or incorporate messaging into existing events in order to educate your audience about egotism. We look forward to your participation this year! Anon I mus, founder of the Ego Awareness Movement - World Ego Awareness Day [WEAD] http://egoawarenessmovement.org/world-ego-awareness-day/ https://www.awarenessdays.com/awareness-days-calendar/world-ego-awareness-day-2020/https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/world-ego-awareness-day/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYAoQoFSURs&t=452s https://www.facebook.com/egoawarenessmovement.org/
Save
feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  : INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
Save
ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews! : INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews!
Save
feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  : INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
Save
spacemonkeyg78: zombierightsactavist: Someone: hires a woman Men: “THIS IS LITERAL OPRESSION” The automatic assumption that recruiting women equals hiring less qualified people is some serious sexism at work. : Tweet Duolingo e @duolingo This year, we achieved a 50:50 gender ratio for new software engineer hires. V Next up: 50:50 companywide. This Women in Tech Week, we're proud to celebrate all of the incredible women who make Duolingo great #2018:WITW Tweet your reply Luis von Ahn @LuisvonAhn Duolingo just tweeted about how we achieved a 50% female ratio of new engineering college graduate hires. We're very proud of this. I'm disappointed that the top comments were all from men angrily arguing discrimination, and that we should hire the best people instead. Idiots. Luis von Ahn @LuisvonAhn T he women we hired had either perfect or near perfect GPAs from the best universities in the world, with stellar recommendations, and aced our very thorough interview process. We've gotten over 90K applicants for jobs throughout time, and we've made offers to under 250. 10/11/18, 9:42 AM 120 Retweets 880 Likes Luis von Ahn @LuisvonAhr We achieved a 50% ratio not by lowering our standards or by discriminating against men. We did it by only actively recruiting fronm colleges with higher female ratios in their computer science programs. These were also not shitty colleges -- CMU, MIT, Duke, Cornell, Harvard, etc. 10/11/18, 9:44 AM 244 Retweets 1,227 Likes Luis von Ahn @LuisvonAhn If other companies do this, colleges will be incentivized to have more diverse graduating classes. I'm amazed that it's 2018 and I still have to defend gender equality. 10/11/18, 9:44 AM 125 Retweets 1,259 Likes spacemonkeyg78: zombierightsactavist: Someone: hires a woman Men: “THIS IS LITERAL OPRESSION” The automatic assumption that recruiting women equals hiring less qualified people is some serious sexism at work.
Save
theamazingcaptainspider: hayley566: waveringwannabevalkyrie: libertarirynn: hayley566: I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder Woman is more fantasy-esque and Captain Marvel is a more harsh reality. Let me explain, Wonder Woman grew up in a paradise without men or sexism and just now entered the world of man and just now experienced sexism. Carol grew up in the world of man and grew up within this system. That and Wonder Woman takes place further in the past, making it easier to think “wow, back then was awful but we’re way better now” while several comic fans grew up in the 90’s, making it feel not that long ago. While I love both films, I do feel like Captain Marvel took more risks than Wonder Woman in this sense and I applaud it for that. Miss me with that nonsense. The Carol we see at the start of the film only remembers her life on a planet where men and women were equally trained combatants and as far as we can tell have the respect of their male peers. Yes she was technically born on earth but until the latter half of the film she doesn’t remember that part. Her personality is shaped by the world that she remembers. And how is it “taking risks” to have a character that’s almost completely invulnerable and whose only “flaw” is not realizing how awesome she actually is, even though she was already practically all powerful? How is it taking risks to have a character who basically never learns or grows and is just already a badass who dispatches all enemies with little to no difficulty? Diana had to face defeat and the possibility that her simplistic belief in justice and the existence of war need to be re-examined. She had to work with others and listen to wisdom and advice in order to make informed decisions. She was powerful, but not invulnerable. She was relatable and likable. She didn’t go around being cold and rude to people for no damn reason and ooze pretension with every word she spoke. Y'all really can’t distinguish fiction from reality huh? I call bullshit on “wOrLd oF mEn” bullshit because CM’s writing was fucking trash. Literally every single fucking man she met besides Nick Fury and the Skrull guy was a complete misogynistic caricature, to the point that her FUCKING DAD’S first reaction to her getting in a go-cart accident was not desperate fear/concern for his only daughter, but to…immediately belittle her? No babe that’s not reality, that’s shit ass writers who have no sense of nuance and no sense of developing villains because “UHHHHH HERO IS WOMAN AND MAN HATE WOMAN SO ALL MEN BAD”.Take another example, the boot camp scene where apparently like 8 white guys have nothing to do except stand around and taunt Carol? Except in real life boot camp no one has fucking time to stand around, your ass is constantly being drilled and harassed by your drill instructor, and all of the recruits are being shaped into a unit to WORK TOGETHER, with everyone being treated equally harshly. (Also, I’m supposed to believe that boot camp back in the 80’s/90’s was unisex?) If it was just Carol training on her own, that again begs the question of why an entire group of guys was just staring at her while she was training instead of I don’t know… doing their own training? Relaxing on base during what little leisure time they had? But those questions don’t matter because the writers didn’t give a damn about reality. They only gave a fuck about pushing their bullshit man hating agenda, strawmanning all men, and creating a situation where Carol was nothing but a poor innocent victim of evil cruel men. They literally only existed to victimize Carol and make all of her behavior seem acceptable because “they were mean to her first, so if she decides to nearly break a man’s hand off and steal his motorcycle later, it’s okay!” That’s not fucking realism, that’s hack writing.Captain Marvel is bad, she’s not even remarkable by the standards of female characters, and quite frankly it’s insulting that you ignore and downplay other, far more iconic and well-written female heroes just because Carol plays to your politics. @waveringwannabevalkyrie “world of man” is a term used in the Wonder Woman comics several times to describe the world outside of themiscrya. That’s why I used it here. I would go over how abusive men do exist, just like abusive women do and how I’ve had my own experiences with an abusive father but from your tone, I think if I explain anymore you would make fun of me or something with the whole “aw you have daddy issues and that’s why you like the movie lol”. I’m so hope you’re not that cruel but knowing the internet, you cannot be safe. I just hope you’re not like those kind of people that I met and are willing to at least understand that just because you don’t experience something doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone else.@libertarirynn as someone who’s seen the movie, I feel like the struggle was more than just “not knowing how awesome she was.” She was being lied to about her entire life for six years and we even see her have a breakdown upon realizing this. We see her sobbing out in a field over finding all this out. The idea of finally being free from the control of others, whether male or female (people seem to forget that minn-erva was also a villain in the movie) in both a physical and emotional sense. Despite Carol having her memories wiped in the beginning, the audience gets flashes of the sexism she faced growing up. While I love both films, I will say that captain marvel spoke to me more than Wonder Woman because of my own personal experiences and if it didn’t do the same for you guys, that’s fine. I just feel that the movie gets misrepresented or misinterpreted a lot and that it is unfair. It sucks that Wonder Woman is used to bash captain marvel despite the different approaches the movies take towards women’s issues. In fact, that behavior has caused me to like Wonder Woman less and less and I really don’t want that to happen. Not only do I start to see the flaws in the film being put on a pedestal, I become more defensive of the one that’s being misrepresented. I still love the Wonder Woman movie but the internet makes it hard to sometimes.I guess what I’m saying is…I wish fans wouldn’t use one to bash the other. I honestly wasn’t trying to bash Wonder Woman or use captain marvel to do so in my last reply. I was just explaining how one is more successful since it tried to be more palatable while the other took more risks in being a feminist film. I hope you both can see that I am not looking for a fight and am just explaining myself. I hope this helped you understand where I’m coming from and that instead of arguing or throwing insults like what usually happens online, this can be handled amicably. Both are good movies.People who hate them or use one to trash the other are secist idiots. End of story Or maybe they just have a different opinion and maybe you need to learn how to spell “sexist” before calling anyone else an idiot.: GOTTA LOVE HOW PEOPLE ARE SO QUICK TO SLAM CAPTIAN MARVEL WHEN EVERYONE WAS CHEERING ON WONDER WOMAN. SO MUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE COMIC BOOK FANDOM IT'S SICKENING. SUPER-HERO-COonFESSIons theamazingcaptainspider: hayley566: waveringwannabevalkyrie: libertarirynn: hayley566: I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder Woman is more fantasy-esque and Captain Marvel is a more harsh reality. Let me explain, Wonder Woman grew up in a paradise without men or sexism and just now entered the world of man and just now experienced sexism. Carol grew up in the world of man and grew up within this system. That and Wonder Woman takes place further in the past, making it easier to think “wow, back then was awful but we’re way better now” while several comic fans grew up in the 90’s, making it feel not that long ago. While I love both films, I do feel like Captain Marvel took more risks than Wonder Woman in this sense and I applaud it for that. Miss me with that nonsense. The Carol we see at the start of the film only remembers her life on a planet where men and women were equally trained combatants and as far as we can tell have the respect of their male peers. Yes she was technically born on earth but until the latter half of the film she doesn’t remember that part. Her personality is shaped by the world that she remembers. And how is it “taking risks” to have a character that’s almost completely invulnerable and whose only “flaw” is not realizing how awesome she actually is, even though she was already practically all powerful? How is it taking risks to have a character who basically never learns or grows and is just already a badass who dispatches all enemies with little to no difficulty? Diana had to face defeat and the possibility that her simplistic belief in justice and the existence of war need to be re-examined. She had to work with others and listen to wisdom and advice in order to make informed decisions. She was powerful, but not invulnerable. She was relatable and likable. She didn’t go around being cold and rude to people for no damn reason and ooze pretension with every word she spoke. Y'all really can’t distinguish fiction from reality huh? I call bullshit on “wOrLd oF mEn” bullshit because CM’s writing was fucking trash. Literally every single fucking man she met besides Nick Fury and the Skrull guy was a complete misogynistic caricature, to the point that her FUCKING DAD’S first reaction to her getting in a go-cart accident was not desperate fear/concern for his only daughter, but to…immediately belittle her? No babe that’s not reality, that’s shit ass writers who have no sense of nuance and no sense of developing villains because “UHHHHH HERO IS WOMAN AND MAN HATE WOMAN SO ALL MEN BAD”.Take another example, the boot camp scene where apparently like 8 white guys have nothing to do except stand around and taunt Carol? Except in real life boot camp no one has fucking time to stand around, your ass is constantly being drilled and harassed by your drill instructor, and all of the recruits are being shaped into a unit to WORK TOGETHER, with everyone being treated equally harshly. (Also, I’m supposed to believe that boot camp back in the 80’s/90’s was unisex?) If it was just Carol training on her own, that again begs the question of why an entire group of guys was just staring at her while she was training instead of I don’t know… doing their own training? Relaxing on base during what little leisure time they had? But those questions don’t matter because the writers didn’t give a damn about reality. They only gave a fuck about pushing their bullshit man hating agenda, strawmanning all men, and creating a situation where Carol was nothing but a poor innocent victim of evil cruel men. They literally only existed to victimize Carol and make all of her behavior seem acceptable because “they were mean to her first, so if she decides to nearly break a man’s hand off and steal his motorcycle later, it’s okay!” That’s not fucking realism, that’s hack writing.Captain Marvel is bad, she’s not even remarkable by the standards of female characters, and quite frankly it’s insulting that you ignore and downplay other, far more iconic and well-written female heroes just because Carol plays to your politics. @waveringwannabevalkyrie “world of man” is a term used in the Wonder Woman comics several times to describe the world outside of themiscrya. That’s why I used it here. I would go over how abusive men do exist, just like abusive women do and how I’ve had my own experiences with an abusive father but from your tone, I think if I explain anymore you would make fun of me or something with the whole “aw you have daddy issues and that’s why you like the movie lol”. I’m so hope you’re not that cruel but knowing the internet, you cannot be safe. I just hope you’re not like those kind of people that I met and are willing to at least understand that just because you don’t experience something doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone else.@libertarirynn as someone who’s seen the movie, I feel like the struggle was more than just “not knowing how awesome she was.” She was being lied to about her entire life for six years and we even see her have a breakdown upon realizing this. We see her sobbing out in a field over finding all this out. The idea of finally being free from the control of others, whether male or female (people seem to forget that minn-erva was also a villain in the movie) in both a physical and emotional sense. Despite Carol having her memories wiped in the beginning, the audience gets flashes of the sexism she faced growing up. While I love both films, I will say that captain marvel spoke to me more than Wonder Woman because of my own personal experiences and if it didn’t do the same for you guys, that’s fine. I just feel that the movie gets misrepresented or misinterpreted a lot and that it is unfair. It sucks that Wonder Woman is used to bash captain marvel despite the different approaches the movies take towards women’s issues. In fact, that behavior has caused me to like Wonder Woman less and less and I really don’t want that to happen. Not only do I start to see the flaws in the film being put on a pedestal, I become more defensive of the one that’s being misrepresented. I still love the Wonder Woman movie but the internet makes it hard to sometimes.I guess what I’m saying is…I wish fans wouldn’t use one to bash the other. I honestly wasn’t trying to bash Wonder Woman or use captain marvel to do so in my last reply. I was just explaining how one is more successful since it tried to be more palatable while the other took more risks in being a feminist film. I hope you both can see that I am not looking for a fight and am just explaining myself. I hope this helped you understand where I’m coming from and that instead of arguing or throwing insults like what usually happens online, this can be handled amicably. Both are good movies.People who hate them or use one to trash the other are secist idiots. End of story Or maybe they just have a different opinion and maybe you need to learn how to spell “sexist” before calling anyone else an idiot.
Save
hayley566: I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder Woman is more fantasy-esque and Captain Marvel is a more harsh reality. Let me explain, Wonder Woman grew up in a paradise without men or sexism and just now entered the world of man and just now experienced sexism. Carol grew up in the world of man and grew up within this system. That and Wonder Woman takes place further in the past, making it easier to think “wow, back then was awful but we’re way better now” while several comic fans grew up in the 90’s, making it feel not that long ago. While I love both films, I do feel like Captain Marvel took more risks than Wonder Woman in this sense and I applaud it for that. Miss me with that nonsense. The Carol we see at the start of the film only remembers her life on a planet where men and women were equally trained combatants and as far as we can tell have the respect of their male peers. Yes she was technically born on earth but until the latter half of the film she doesn’t remember that part. Her personality is shaped by the world that she remembers. And how is it “taking risks” to have a character that’s almost completely invulnerable and whose only “flaw” is not realizing how awesome she actually is, even though she was already practically all powerful? How is it taking risks to have a character who basically never learns or grows and is just already a badass who dispatches all enemies with little to no difficulty? Diana had to face defeat and the possibility that her simplistic belief in justice and the existence of war need to be re-examined. She had to work with others and listen to wisdom and advice in order to make informed decisions. She was powerful, but not invulnerable. She was relatable and likable. She didn’t go around being cold and rude to people for no damn reason and ooze pretension with every word she spoke.: GOTTA LOVE HOW PEOPLE ARE SO QUICK TO SLAM CAPTIAN MARVEL WHEN EVERYONE WAS CHEERING ON WONDER WOMAN. SO MUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE COMIC BOOK FANDOM IT'S SICKENING. SUPER-HERO-COonFESSIons hayley566: I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder Woman is more fantasy-esque and Captain Marvel is a more harsh reality. Let me explain, Wonder Woman grew up in a paradise without men or sexism and just now entered the world of man and just now experienced sexism. Carol grew up in the world of man and grew up within this system. That and Wonder Woman takes place further in the past, making it easier to think “wow, back then was awful but we’re way better now” while several comic fans grew up in the 90’s, making it feel not that long ago. While I love both films, I do feel like Captain Marvel took more risks than Wonder Woman in this sense and I applaud it for that. Miss me with that nonsense. The Carol we see at the start of the film only remembers her life on a planet where men and women were equally trained combatants and as far as we can tell have the respect of their male peers. Yes she was technically born on earth but until the latter half of the film she doesn’t remember that part. Her personality is shaped by the world that she remembers. And how is it “taking risks” to have a character that’s almost completely invulnerable and whose only “flaw” is not realizing how awesome she actually is, even though she was already practically all powerful? How is it taking risks to have a character who basically never learns or grows and is just already a badass who dispatches all enemies with little to no difficulty? Diana had to face defeat and the possibility that her simplistic belief in justice and the existence of war need to be re-examined. She had to work with others and listen to wisdom and advice in order to make informed decisions. She was powerful, but not invulnerable. She was relatable and likable. She didn’t go around being cold and rude to people for no damn reason and ooze pretension with every word she spoke.
Save
ithelpstodream: excerpt: “If girls say they are depressed, we owe it to them to listen. Furthermore, we can no longer afford to ignore the effect of a highly gendered culture on the mental wellbeing of girls. If we’re able to draw links between masculinity and high suicide rates in men, we can surely do the same with femininity and female despair. If the past is another country, female adolescence is a war zone. Puberty transforms you into a walking target overnight. If you’re lucky, other girls get there before you and become your shields. Pity the girl who’s wearing a bra before she leaves primary school; already she’s ventured over the top, into a no man’s land of groping, cat calls and adult disapproval. Girls need support in getting through this. They need coping methods. But they also need a different society, one which permits them to take up space, to express their fears and passions rather than internalise them. It should not be the role of mental health services to patch girls up and arm them to face another onslaught of patriarchal slings and arrows. There has to be a ceasefire. Girls shouldn’t have to be so brave.” read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mental-health-teenage-girls-quarter-rise-patriarchy-sexism-abuse-a7957441.html : INDEPENDENT LIKE Voices There is a way to revent so many eenage girls being deprešsed - but no one wants to admit it ity the girl who's wearing a bra before she leaves primary school already she's ventured over the top, into a no man's land of groping, cat calls and adult disapproval ithelpstodream: excerpt: “If girls say they are depressed, we owe it to them to listen. Furthermore, we can no longer afford to ignore the effect of a highly gendered culture on the mental wellbeing of girls. If we’re able to draw links between masculinity and high suicide rates in men, we can surely do the same with femininity and female despair. If the past is another country, female adolescence is a war zone. Puberty transforms you into a walking target overnight. If you’re lucky, other girls get there before you and become your shields. Pity the girl who’s wearing a bra before she leaves primary school; already she’s ventured over the top, into a no man’s land of groping, cat calls and adult disapproval. Girls need support in getting through this. They need coping methods. But they also need a different society, one which permits them to take up space, to express their fears and passions rather than internalise them. It should not be the role of mental health services to patch girls up and arm them to face another onslaught of patriarchal slings and arrows. There has to be a ceasefire. Girls shouldn’t have to be so brave.” read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mental-health-teenage-girls-quarter-rise-patriarchy-sexism-abuse-a7957441.html

ithelpstodream: excerpt: “If girls say they are depressed, we owe it to them to listen. Furthermore, we can no longer afford to ignore...

Save
lastsonlost: siryouarebeingmocked: jlongbone: Batwoman: First Look | TRAILER REACTION @hello-kitty-senpai @formallyknownasjoesmother @nunyabizni @the-mighty-birdy @libertarirynn @robert-the-redhead-lover @omega-bellum @odinoco @thesocialjusticecourier @siryouarebeingmocked @cisnowflake @lastsonlost Turn down the volume or put on headphones, folks. Thaaat said, I bet her main character arc is going to be about being an edgy lesbian rebel. Kind of like Arrow, except Ollie’s always had to subvert the System, not flout it entirely. Like someone on Youtube said, the line should’ve been “when it fits me”. The Alfred-like character is Lucius Fox’s son, Luke. And in the comics, he’s Batwing II. In fact, he actively wanted to get recruited by Batman. If this version is anything like that, it would explain the Taser. “No guns, no killing!” But that version had MMA experience, and homeboy here certainly does not. Five bucks says Kate disarms him. Oh, and of course they think she’s Batman, because she stole his costume and doesn’t have the red wig yet! Duh! That’s not sexism, that’s branding! Incidentally, she started with short hair in the comics. The red wig is a decoy, so bad guys pull it, it comes off, and then she turns around and ruins their whole career. So it’s not actually the CW’s fault. Honestly, I gave up hope for any subtlety in this series when Kate conspicuously flirted with Kara less than five screentime minutes after she first appeared. “Did I mention I am a lesbian?” WHAT THE FUCK did they Luke Fox? The man is a brick shithouse made of Genius not a frightened little bitch with a stun gun. Wow that was… Something. I never dreamed it would be that bad. I would literally rather watch Captain Marvel.: lastsonlost: siryouarebeingmocked: jlongbone: Batwoman: First Look | TRAILER REACTION @hello-kitty-senpai @formallyknownasjoesmother @nunyabizni @the-mighty-birdy @libertarirynn @robert-the-redhead-lover @omega-bellum @odinoco @thesocialjusticecourier @siryouarebeingmocked @cisnowflake @lastsonlost Turn down the volume or put on headphones, folks. Thaaat said, I bet her main character arc is going to be about being an edgy lesbian rebel. Kind of like Arrow, except Ollie’s always had to subvert the System, not flout it entirely. Like someone on Youtube said, the line should’ve been “when it fits me”. The Alfred-like character is Lucius Fox’s son, Luke. And in the comics, he’s Batwing II. In fact, he actively wanted to get recruited by Batman. If this version is anything like that, it would explain the Taser. “No guns, no killing!” But that version had MMA experience, and homeboy here certainly does not. Five bucks says Kate disarms him. Oh, and of course they think she’s Batman, because she stole his costume and doesn’t have the red wig yet! Duh! That’s not sexism, that’s branding! Incidentally, she started with short hair in the comics. The red wig is a decoy, so bad guys pull it, it comes off, and then she turns around and ruins their whole career. So it’s not actually the CW’s fault. Honestly, I gave up hope for any subtlety in this series when Kate conspicuously flirted with Kara less than five screentime minutes after she first appeared. “Did I mention I am a lesbian?” WHAT THE FUCK did they Luke Fox? The man is a brick shithouse made of Genius not a frightened little bitch with a stun gun. Wow that was… Something. I never dreamed it would be that bad. I would literally rather watch Captain Marvel.
Save
Save
wrangletangle: marzipanandminutiae: fandom-is-my-middle-name: alwayslabellavita: oh, it’s still 2012 and we’re doing that thing where a woman can only be badass and strong if she acts and looks in ways that are stereotypically manly???? lol ok Ok I’m just gonna rant about this into the void and not give a shit if anyone comes after me for having an opinion. No one who has a problem with this scene has a problem with make up overall. We stan any awesome human being irrespective of their make up choices. We just have a small teeny tiny issue with the fact that a woman whose signature look is grunge (leather + bike + rock and roll (notice the lack of make up on that list)) has suddenly found the time, in the middle of an apocalypse no doubt, to put on perfectly winged eyeliner and a very flattering shade of lipstick to pair with a sexy top. Not that she looks bad cuz she looks fucking awesome with or without make up and my very bi ass should know. But we just think it’s a teeny tiny coincidence that when a woman was directing this character, she was rocking a typical grunge look and the second the she was put in a dude’s hands, she has on make up that doesn’t fit in with their predicament at all. (this is probably the most polite I can be about this…. Ask @albarosa27. I spent an entire screaming about this with her.) it’s like when Emma Swan got Stepford-ized on Once Upon A Time all over again. there’s nothing wrong with the look in general, but it contradicts the character’s established aesthetic preferences Real life women can wear whatever they want, and I better not hear a word about it from anyone. Female characters who suddenly change their styles when given to the control of a male creator are deeply suspect. The difference is agency. Stop making excuses for blatant sexism; sexist men love it when women lay covering fire for them. : priscilla page @BBW_BFF 2h maybe when she returned to earth this time, she crash-landed into a Sephora I am actively angry about how the Russo brothers have Carol styled for Endgame. Why would Captain Marvel suddenly start doing full glam makeup after she's been rocking a minimalist look and then spent even more years in space??? Show this thread ti 54 18 404 wrangletangle: marzipanandminutiae: fandom-is-my-middle-name: alwayslabellavita: oh, it’s still 2012 and we’re doing that thing where a woman can only be badass and strong if she acts and looks in ways that are stereotypically manly???? lol ok Ok I’m just gonna rant about this into the void and not give a shit if anyone comes after me for having an opinion. No one who has a problem with this scene has a problem with make up overall. We stan any awesome human being irrespective of their make up choices. We just have a small teeny tiny issue with the fact that a woman whose signature look is grunge (leather + bike + rock and roll (notice the lack of make up on that list)) has suddenly found the time, in the middle of an apocalypse no doubt, to put on perfectly winged eyeliner and a very flattering shade of lipstick to pair with a sexy top. Not that she looks bad cuz she looks fucking awesome with or without make up and my very bi ass should know. But we just think it’s a teeny tiny coincidence that when a woman was directing this character, she was rocking a typical grunge look and the second the she was put in a dude’s hands, she has on make up that doesn’t fit in with their predicament at all. (this is probably the most polite I can be about this…. Ask @albarosa27. I spent an entire screaming about this with her.) it’s like when Emma Swan got Stepford-ized on Once Upon A Time all over again. there’s nothing wrong with the look in general, but it contradicts the character’s established aesthetic preferences Real life women can wear whatever they want, and I better not hear a word about it from anyone. Female characters who suddenly change their styles when given to the control of a male creator are deeply suspect. The difference is agency. Stop making excuses for blatant sexism; sexist men love it when women lay covering fire for them.
Save
A call to action, for holiday family gatherings and beyond: dare-i-say-asexual Can we please be the generation that stops putting up with the family child molester? The grown uncle who dates teenage girls, the husband who makes uncomfortable comments about young women's clothing, or the cousin who raises red flags with their behavior towards children but no one wants to talk about all need to go Children, especially young women, are expected to "keep the family together" by not making a fuss over incredibly traumatic behavior Children don't deserve to suffer trauma for adults' feelings of togetherness. They're more worthy of protection than predators. A healthy family is not built on the backs of abuse survivors expected to live their lives in silence without justice, support, or protection baamilk * to-Price ladyfatmouse We are that's why a lot of the generations before us don't like us clarknokent Facts, as call them out on their shit soon as we find out. Or let it be known that we not going to stuff they're gonna be at yourunclesatan one other thing don't limit your vigilance to men. female abusers almost never get caught, reported, or even spoken of. i never got help because everybody assumed that a mother was incapable of sexually abusing her own kids. nobody was looking out for me or my brothers and if they had been, they would have automatically suspected my dad who never lifted a finger to harm us. the nurturing gentle woman stereotype/gender role held in place by sexism allows abusers to get away with everything - don't buy into it and don't assume that women can't be abusers too root out every abuser in your family, even if they 're women. Source: dare-i-say-asexual 32,544 notes Dec 6th, 2018 A call to action, for holiday family gatherings and beyond
Save