Video 21 Oct 1,192 notes
Video 21 Oct 3,612 notes
Video 21 Oct 8,018 notes

"No woman should ever have to go through that, and no woman strong enough to wear the mantle of ‘vicious bitch’ would ever put up with it."

Text 21 Oct 1,807 notes

shinymeowstic:

instead of ‘genderbending’, try trans headcanons instead. try drawing them as a different gender that doesn’t hold up to the cissexist ‘genderbending’ ideas. Instead of swapping cis girl for cis boy, and the reverse, try going from cis girl to trans boy, or cis boy to trans girl, or draw the character as a demiboy, non-binary, genderfluid, anything! there are far more fun ways to explore a character’s gender than swapping cis for cis.

Video 21 Oct 2,391 notes

daenystormborn:

Firefly Rewatch: 1.08 (Out of Gas) - I already know what I’m gonna call her

Quote 21 Oct 1,667 notes

Pointing out Marvel Studios’ lack of on-screen diversity is nowhere near a new phenomenon. As ComicsAlliance’s Andrew Wheeler has memorably pointed out, “If Marvel makes Thor 3 [as its first 2017 release], it will have made ten movies headlined by blond white men named Chris before it makes one movie headlined by someone who isn’t even white.” While not besmirching the talent or integrity of Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pratt, that’s taking lack of diversity to admirably comic levels.

Additionally, the studio’s lack of a movie with a female lead — specifically, a Black Widow feature starring Scarlett Johansson, although fans would also accept a Captain Marvel movie, or even a Squirrel Girl one by this point — has been commented on to such an extent that Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige recently weighed in, saying that he “very much believe[s] in doing it” in concept. “I hope we do it sooner rather than later,” he added at the time, while simultaneously pointing out that Marvel’s ongoing successful franchises make finding slots for new characters and concepts challenging.

That is somewhat of a smokescreen, in terms of excuses. As this summer’s Guardians of the Galaxy shows, Marvel has no problem introducing new characters and concepts — in fact, we’re due to have one per year for the next couple of years, with Ant-Man coming next year and Doctor Strange landing in 2016. In both of those cases, however, Marvel is sticking closely to white male leads. (Admittedly, the lead role in Doctor Strange is not cast, and it’s not impossible that Marvel will choose to break with tradition and cast a non-white male as its Sorcerer Supreme — but, given some of the actors rumored to have been considered for the role, that doesn’t look likely.)

Of course, there’s still an obvious opportunity for Marvel to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat on the subject of diversity in casting. Both Wonder Woman and Sony’s mystery Spider-Man project are scheduled (in the latter case, rumored) for 2017 release, and Marvel has an unnamed project scheduled for release May 5 of that year — almost two months before the June 23 bow for Wonder Woman. What if it snuck in a female-led movie just under the wire in order to be “first”?

Similarly, Aquaman isn’t due until July 2018, and there are three unknown Marvel projects scheduled before then. Black Panther, Falcon or even an upgrade from Netflix to theaters for Luke Cage could help Marvel become the first studio to put a superhero of color on the big screen since 2008’s Hancock — if it wanted to.

That, ultimately, is what this comes down to: what Marvel wants to do. As arguably the most successful movie studio around these days, and one that has demonstrated no problem in convincing mainstream audiences to accept a dancing tree and a talking raccoon as heroes, it’s not a question of whether Marvel could make a movie with a woman or person of color in the lead role, or even could make such a movie a hit. It’s a question of whether that’s something that the studio is interested in doing. Whenever Marvel announces its next projects — something which may be sooner than later, given this week’s Warner Bros. schedule announcement — we’ll get the answer to that question.

Quote 21 Oct 1,878 notes

The ‘victim’ approach to the study of white women in the slave formation, therefore, has severe limitations… while white males were the predominant owners of slaves in the plantation sector, the same cannot be said for the urban sector. White women were generally the owners of small properties, rather than large estates, but their small properties were more proportionately stocked with slaves than the large, male owned properties.

In 1815, white women owned about 24 percent of the slaves in St Lucia; 12 per cent of the slaves on properties of more than 50 slaves, and 48 per cent of the properties with less than 10 slaves. In Barbados in 1817, less than five of the holdings of 50 slaves or more were owned by white women, but they owned 40 percent of the properties with less than 10 slaves…

White women also owned more female slaves than male slaves. The extensive female ownership of slaves in the towns was matched by the unusually high proportion of females in the slave population; female slave owners owned more female slaves than male slave owners….

From these data the image that emerges of the white female slaveowner is that she was generally urban, in possession of less than ten slaves, the majority of whom were female. That female slaveowners generally owned female slaves, indicates the nature of enterprises, and hence labour regimes, managed and owned by white women. It is reasonable, then, to argue that any conceptualization of urban slavery, especially with reference to the experiences of enslaved black women, should proceed with an explicit articulation of white women are principal slaveowners.

— 

excerpt from Centering Woman: Gender Discourses in Caribbean Slave Society by Hilary McD Beckles  (via daniellemertina)

White feminists tend to conveniently forget this and pretend that they don’t benefit from white supremacy like white men (via thisisnotjapan)

this is some boston harbor level spilt tea

(via mimicryisnotmastery)

Photo 21 Oct 56,160 notes 4gifs:

Turtle dances while showering. [video]

4gifs:

Turtle dances while showering. [video]

(Source: ForGIFs.com)

Video 20 Oct 8,209 notes
via waterever.
Photo 20 Oct 96,850 notes gehayi:

youmightbeamisogynist:

naamahdarling:

mythosidhe:

Although I have to point out that there was a piece of speculative science fiction called The Blazing World published by one Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1666, slightly predating Mary Shelley.

This is the thing. Women have been doing awesome shit since there was awesome shit to do, we’ve BEEN THERE, if anyone bothered to look.

Oh, they looked. And then maliciously and willfully erased us from the books to keep anyone else from “getting ideas.”

Hell, the first named author in history? Enheduanna, a Sumerian high priestess, poet and lyricist. She’s known as the Shakespeare of Sumerian literature.

gehayi:

youmightbeamisogynist:

naamahdarling:

mythosidhe:

Although I have to point out that there was a piece of speculative science fiction called The Blazing World published by one Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1666, slightly predating Mary Shelley.

This is the thing. Women have been doing awesome shit since there was awesome shit to do, we’ve BEEN THERE, if anyone bothered to look.

Oh, they looked. And then maliciously and willfully erased us from the books to keep anyone else from “getting ideas.”

Hell, the first named author in history? Enheduanna, a Sumerian high priestess, poet and lyricist. She’s known as the Shakespeare of Sumerian literature.

(Source: dovsherman)

Video 20 Oct 17,353 notes

catsbeaversandducks:

"… om nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom
*breathes*
nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom…”

Photos via Sad and Useless 

Photo 20 Oct 43,732 notes

(Source: chotronette)

Video 20 Oct 780,521 notes

concernedresidentofbakerstreet:

i think we found the opposite of nash greir

(Source: the90sk-i-d-s)

Video 20 Oct 111,743 notes

herbertbillings:

100 Reasons (Why I’m Not Out To My Family)” pt. 2

(in which members of the lgbtq community speak out about why they’re not open about their sexuality with their families.)

poster series

Shari Heck, 2014.

(Source: 151crumb)

Text 20 Oct 3,345 notes There were lies you were told about WWII, Hitler being evil wasn’t one of them

theroguefeminist:

I remember a while back there was this immensely popular post with a gif of Hitler flattering his wife, that had tons and tons of notes from all these people gushing about how they had no idea Hitler was human too. When I criticized it, this older blogger claimed all these tumblr teens were taught in school to “dehumanize” Hitler, and now they were learning more than the simplistic narrative they were taught in school. It was, according to them, mind-broadening and important. The dehumanization of Hitler they claimed is a huge problem, and a bigger problem was young people thinking too simplistically about this complex person.

But this is the thing:

It’s true you are taught a simplistic and misleading narrative about World War II and the Nazis in school. But the problem isn’t that you’re taught to think badly of Hitler and Nazis, who committed mass murder, torture, enslavement, and other human rights abuses. The problem is you are taught that the US was the good guy and the Nazis were the antithesis to everything the US represented and now represents. You’re taught that the US came in and saved everyone in the name of freedom and democracy and crushed those Nazi fascists! And everyone lived happily ever after.

When in reality, the US invented eugenics which inspired the Nazis’ Aryan racial ideals in the first place. The Nazis modeled their treatment of Jews, Romani and other minorities after how the US treated Black people. Not only that, but the US refused the entry of many European Jews fleeing the Holocaust into this country. The US refused to help the Jews and other minorities targeted by Nazis. The US ignored please begging them to destroy gas chambers when they were so close within striking distance in Europe that they hit one accidentally.

What happened was after Pearl Harbor put the US at risk, they got involved and then they made up a story about why they were the good guys and why the Germans were the bad guys, about how they were now all about saving the world and the poor Jews. And the truth about antisemitism in the US (there were literal signs saying NO JEWS and shit, which you never learn about in school), about eugenics in the US, about the US’s deadly passivity for much of WWII, is actively erased, glossed over or explained away. And meanwhile, irony of ironies, the US sent thousands of Japanese Americans to internment camps—which of course were not the same as Nazi Germany’s extermination and concentration camps, but weren’t exactly the kind of thing someone who was ideologically opposed to Nazis would do. (You’re taught about the internment of Japanese Americans in school, but you aren’t encouraged to think about it as compromising the US’s alleged position as ideologically opposing Nazi Germany).

The US has used WWII to its advantage to create a particular narrative. It’s arguably a big reason antisemitism in the US changed and Jews started to achieve much greater access to whiteness. Associating Jews with whiteness dissociates Nazis from American racism and eugenics, despite how much mental gymnastics you have to do to ignore the fact white supremacy was at the core of Nazi ideology (people continually allege Jews were white in Nazi Germany despite the fact Nazis killed them, literally, to purify the white race). It takes the conversation away from the end result of white supremacy: genocide and brutality. Think about how important that would have been in the 1930s and 40s when the US was even more overtly racist than it is now. How would the US look: a nation where PoC, and Black people especially, were constantly exposed to violence and oppression? When what allowed the concentration camps in Nazi Germany to exist was a change to their constitution that allowed the deprivation of human rights in particular spaces, and all Roosevelt had to do was write an executive order depriving Japanese Americans of rights just as easily. Criticisms of white supremacy and human rights violations in Nazi Germany open up the same criticisms toward the US. I’m not the first to have that idea. Harper Lee tackles it in To Kill a Mockingbird.

Tumblr SJ who complain the Holocaust gets “too much attention” compared to other social injustices also seem to miss this point—they suggest it’s ~Jewish privilege~ or white privilege that explains why everyone cares more about the Holocaust, ignoring the fact that the mainstream narrative in the US about the Holocaust and WWII also often erases the long history of antisemitism in Europe and the history of it in the US. The narrative suggests Nazis arbitrarily decided on Jews as a scapegoat and ignores the racialization of Jews in Europe. There’s also an implication that with the end of the Holocaust came the end of antisemitism. Many aspects of the mainstream narrative around the Holocaust is hurtful to Jews. Ignoring the role of white supremacy in the Holocaust does no marginalized people any favors: as well as making it too easy to let the US off the hook for creating eugenics in the first place, it also erases Romani, who were targeted in the genocide, and are still definitely not racialized as white to this day.

The US is a racist empire (and I say empire because we currently live on colonized land and also exert worldwide control) and while I don’t like comparing Nazi Germany to anything, we’re not the opposite of Nazi Germany by any means—we certainly were not in the 1940s when we fought them. I don’t think the US is the same or even similar to Nazi Germany (as I said, I don’t like making lazy comparisons like that), but I think both the US and Nazi Germany have two terrible things in common: white supremacy and a government that has the power to deprive citizens of their basic rights at a moment’s notice.

That’s the story you’re not taught in school. That’s the mind blowing epiphany that actually matters.

Hitler being human is a fact of course. But he was a horrible, horrible human being, probably one of the worst in history. And making excuses for him being primarily responsible for wiping out one third of population of a people (Jews; edit: see here), 90% of the population of another (Romani), as well as countless other atrocities doesn’t make you interesting, edgy or counter-culture. It makes you downright despicable.

Sadly, it seems tumblr’s teens find the idea of Hitler flirting with his wife more interesting and mind-blowing than the idea that everything they were taught about the US’s role in WWII is slanted to mislead them.


Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.