"I twittered about this earlier, but sometimes it feels as though talking about misogyny in this industry is like dealing with Groundhog Day: there seems to be a continuous reset, a collective male amnesia around the issue. As if, when a woman speaks out, it’s for the first time and everyone is shocked. Just shocked, I tell you. Sexism exists? OH MY GOD."

Veteran writer Marjorie Liu on sexual harassment/misogny in the comics industry—and the collective amnesia that hits much of the industry every time the topic ever gets broached. (via robot6)

"exceptionalism" excuses the violence of oppressive power. no exceptions.

(via aintgotnoladytronblues)


blackcatula:

thoughtnami:

Dear lord, I have to explain a Simpsons episode that came on almost 20 years ago in reference to this picture.
The episode, Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy, was inspired by real world events, namely a talking Barbie who ended up saying a bunch of vapid, cliched teen talk. A group of anti-consumerists calling themselves the Barbie Liberation Group took some of these dolls and switched out the circuitry that made them talk with those of talking G.I. Joes at the time. 
Lisa bought a talking Malibu Stacy doll (the equivalent of a Barbie doll in the Simpsonsverse)  expecting it to say something as iconic as someone of her pop cultural stature should say. Instead, 

Don’t ask me, I’m just a girl. [giggles]

The situation has infuriated Lisa, who confronted the makers of Malibu Stacy. They treated her condescendingly and let her go her way. After doing some research, Lisa enlists the help of Wayland Smithers (the owner of the world’s largest Malibu Stacy collection), who gives her the address of the original creator of Malibu Stacy, who is inspired and decided to help her rectify the sexist Talking Malibu Stacy with a more positive, empowering doll. Once the creators of the original Malibu Stacy hears about the new Lisa Lionheart doll, they come up with a plan to counter its potential popularity. 
On the day Lisa Lionheart is revealed, a new shipment of Malibu Stacy dolls is unpacked.
She now has a new hat.
That’s all. It’s still the same status quo, but folks are acting like they’re doing something dramatically different, which they aren’t. It’s just the old doll with a new hat, and the fans eat it up, and Lisa is left disappointed that despite confronting those in power about the problems she had with Malibu Stacy, they remained doing the same old tired stuff without changing a thing.
Except the hat. That’s new.  
Like I said, Cartoon Network recently got put on blast by one of the most prolific producers of action entertainment, who suggested that the reason high-rated shows like Young Justice, Green Lantern, and similar shows (definitely including ThunderCats and Sym-Bionic Titan in this discussion) got the boot is because they attracted more females than males, and the network felt that girls weren’t the target for merchandisers. The whole thing seems screwy and wrong, but not surprising, especially considering they gave the whole “merchandise wasn’t selling” excuse to shows that had no merchandise like Green Lantern: TAS (counting the leftover movie merchandise is not actually merchandise for the better-received show) and Sym-Bionic Titan, a show that just screamed mecha sets. 
And yet, I’m very cynical when, out of the blue and almost a year after its initial announcement,Cartoon Network is planning to finally announce the premiere of a new Powerpuff Girls special (the first made without series creator Craig MacCracken at the helm) less than 24 hours after the Dini interview got traction throughout the internet. 
What Cartoon Network is doing is essentially giving the audience a Malibu Stacy with a NEW hat. Nothing changed. Just something to quiet the masses who are easily distracted who are still huge fans of the original PPG series and will tell you to shut up about the misogyny that suddenly isn’t there. 
That’s how it goes, I guess. 

The truth hurts man.
But at least it’s the truth. 

blackcatula:

thoughtnami:

Dear lord, I have to explain a Simpsons episode that came on almost 20 years ago in reference to this picture.

The episode, Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy, was inspired by real world events, namely a talking Barbie who ended up saying a bunch of vapid, cliched teen talk. A group of anti-consumerists calling themselves the Barbie Liberation Group took some of these dolls and switched out the circuitry that made them talk with those of talking G.I. Joes at the time. 

Lisa bought a talking Malibu Stacy doll (the equivalent of a Barbie doll in the Simpsonsverse)  expecting it to say something as iconic as someone of her pop cultural stature should say. Instead, 

Don’t ask me, I’m just a girl. [giggles]

The situation has infuriated Lisa, who confronted the makers of Malibu Stacy. They treated her condescendingly and let her go her way. After doing some research, Lisa enlists the help of Wayland Smithers (the owner of the world’s largest Malibu Stacy collection), who gives her the address of the original creator of Malibu Stacy, who is inspired and decided to help her rectify the sexist Talking Malibu Stacy with a more positive, empowering doll. Once the creators of the original Malibu Stacy hears about the new Lisa Lionheart doll, they come up with a plan to counter its potential popularity. 

On the day Lisa Lionheart is revealed, a new shipment of Malibu Stacy dolls is unpacked.

She now has a new hat.

That’s all. It’s still the same status quo, but folks are acting like they’re doing something dramatically different, which they aren’t. It’s just the old doll with a new hat, and the fans eat it up, and Lisa is left disappointed that despite confronting those in power about the problems she had with Malibu Stacy, they remained doing the same old tired stuff without changing a thing.

Except the hat. That’s new.  

Like I said, Cartoon Network recently got put on blast by one of the most prolific producers of action entertainment, who suggested that the reason high-rated shows like Young Justice, Green Lantern, and similar shows (definitely including ThunderCats and Sym-Bionic Titan in this discussion) got the boot is because they attracted more females than males, and the network felt that girls weren’t the target for merchandisers. The whole thing seems screwy and wrong, but not surprising, especially considering they gave the whole “merchandise wasn’t selling” excuse to shows that had no merchandise like Green Lantern: TAS (counting the leftover movie merchandise is not actually merchandise for the better-received show) and Sym-Bionic Titan, a show that just screamed mecha sets. 

And yet, I’m very cynical when, out of the blue and almost a year after its initial announcement,Cartoon Network is planning to finally announce the premiere of a new Powerpuff Girls special (the first made without series creator Craig MacCracken at the helm) less than 24 hours after the Dini interview got traction throughout the internet. 

What Cartoon Network is doing is essentially giving the audience a Malibu Stacy with a NEW hat. Nothing changed. Just something to quiet the masses who are easily distracted who are still huge fans of the original PPG series and will tell you to shut up about the misogyny that suddenly isn’t there. 

That’s how it goes, I guess. 

The truth hurts man.

But at least it’s the truth. 


smitethepatriarchy:

totally-stab-caesar:

almstsmpl:

marxistfeministsport:

george-blagden-though:

equalaccountability:

mansplainedmarxist:

When I say something that should not be controversial 

Why aren’t 50% of coal miners women? Why not 50% of janitors or pest control workers? Don’t forget front line military!Likewise, why aren’t men 50% of college enrollment and 50% of teachers?
We should eliminate the stupid “personal choice” thing because forcing people into certain professions is way more fun.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT FORCING PEOPLE INTO PROFESSIONSTHIS IS ABOUT WOMEN GOING INTO SCIENCE BEING DISCOURAGEDTHIS IS ABOUT WOMEN BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

FIRST, WHAT GBT SAID.^
SECOND…
FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION WOMEN COAL MINERS.  BECAUSE I STUDY THEM.  AND GUESS WHAT?
Women had to fight court cases to be allowed into coal mines as workers.  Once a few women paved the way, thousands of women followed in short suit because on average, their incomes increased 500% over working as domestic workers, doing textile piecework and waitressing.  Some saw their income jump 1000%.  
Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find women have been mining coal for centuries.  They were pushed out in the Victorian period because the mansplainers of the day could tolerate women wielding such a phallic object as a shovel underground with male workers present.  And wearing pants!  Still, women disguised themselves as men to work in the mines.
Oh, and World War II.  Where did all the coal come from then?  Oh, that’s right.  Women.  Women who were expected to stand aside and let the men take their jobs when the war was over and were denied benefits when they later developed black lung.

I feel like some people don’t realize the kind of discouragement women receive. It’s not like people stop them from majoring in science every chance they get, though that wouldn’t surprise me.
My brilliant friend was told she was trying to invade the “boys club of science” as an undergraduate by a male graduate student at a school not exactly hard to get into. She’s now studying at John Hopkins btw.
I know someone who was denied her degree by a man she had studied under because she switched labs since he was constantly commenting on her appearance and asking her out. When she tried to report him to the department head, she was told she dressed too revealingly and was just too flirty. In the end she got her degree because the other board members pressured him.
Another friend was constantly getting asked out by her boss but she couldn’t leave the lab because she needed the money.
The science itself can be sexist. In neuroscience, most experiments focus on males. The reason generally given: it’s easier. The menstrual cycle does have an influence on the brain but instead of looking into it, it’s widely ignored.

Can vouch for the science boys’ club thing…going from my undergrad (where the chemistry dept is mostly female professors, my research advisor was female, fellow researchers were all female) to grad school (male advisor, all male research group, and we shared lab space with another male-led all male group) was really intimidating and I felt really out of place. I didn’t feel like I could ask anyone for help and just felt really stupid in general.

Oh my god, I wonder why the military isn’t 50% women? Could it have anything to do with THE MASSIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT PROBLEM COUPLED WITH THE MASSIVE COVERING UP OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS PROBLEM? BUT SURE PERSONAL CHOICE BLAH BLAH BLAH WHAT IS CONTEXT.

smitethepatriarchy:

totally-stab-caesar:

almstsmpl:

marxistfeministsport:

george-blagden-though:

equalaccountability:

mansplainedmarxist:

When I say something that should not be controversial 

Why aren’t 50% of coal miners women? Why not 50% of janitors or pest control workers? Don’t forget front line military!
Likewise, why aren’t men 50% of college enrollment and 50% of teachers?

We should eliminate the stupid “personal choice” thing because forcing people into certain professions is way more fun.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT FORCING PEOPLE INTO PROFESSIONS
THIS IS ABOUT WOMEN GOING INTO SCIENCE BEING DISCOURAGED
THIS IS ABOUT WOMEN BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

FIRST, WHAT GBT SAID.^

SECOND…

FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION WOMEN COAL MINERS.  BECAUSE I STUDY THEM.  AND GUESS WHAT?

Women had to fight court cases to be allowed into coal mines as workers.  Once a few women paved the way, thousands of women followed in short suit because on average, their incomes increased 500% over working as domestic workers, doing textile piecework and waitressing.  Some saw their income jump 1000%.  

Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find women have been mining coal for centuries.  They were pushed out in the Victorian period because the mansplainers of the day could tolerate women wielding such a phallic object as a shovel underground with male workers present.  And wearing pants!  Still, women disguised themselves as men to work in the mines.

Oh, and World War II.  Where did all the coal come from then?  Oh, that’s right.  Women.  Women who were expected to stand aside and let the men take their jobs when the war was over and were denied benefits when they later developed black lung.

I feel like some people don’t realize the kind of discouragement women receive. It’s not like people stop them from majoring in science every chance they get, though that wouldn’t surprise me.

My brilliant friend was told she was trying to invade the “boys club of science” as an undergraduate by a male graduate student at a school not exactly hard to get into. She’s now studying at John Hopkins btw.

I know someone who was denied her degree by a man she had studied under because she switched labs since he was constantly commenting on her appearance and asking her out. When she tried to report him to the department head, she was told she dressed too revealingly and was just too flirty. In the end she got her degree because the other board members pressured him.

Another friend was constantly getting asked out by her boss but she couldn’t leave the lab because she needed the money.

The science itself can be sexist. In neuroscience, most experiments focus on males. The reason generally given: it’s easier. The menstrual cycle does have an influence on the brain but instead of looking into it, it’s widely ignored.

Can vouch for the science boys’ club thing…going from my undergrad (where the chemistry dept is mostly female professors, my research advisor was female, fellow researchers were all female) to grad school (male advisor, all male research group, and we shared lab space with another male-led all male group) was really intimidating and I felt really out of place. I didn’t feel like I could ask anyone for help and just felt really stupid in general.

Oh my god, I wonder why the military isn’t 50% women? Could it have anything to do with THE MASSIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT PROBLEM COUPLED WITH THE MASSIVE COVERING UP OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS PROBLEM? BUT SURE PERSONAL CHOICE BLAH BLAH BLAH WHAT IS CONTEXT.



espeonofficial:

"Walt Disney’s grandniece Abigail Disney — a filmmaker, scholar and social activist — addressed Streep’s comments last Friday on her Facebook page, according to The Hollywood Reporter. ”If you are going to have mixed feelings about a family member (and we all do) take it from me, you really need to be as honest as possible about those feelings, or else you are going to lead yourself into many a blind alley in life!!” she wrote.

She continued her candid views about Walt Disney, who is the subject of the current film Saving Mr. Banks, starring Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson.


"… Anti-Semite? Check. Misogynist? OF COURSE!! Racist? C’mon he made a film (Jungle Book) about how you should stay ‘with your own kind’ at the height of the fight over segregation! As if the ‘King of the Jungle’ number wasn’t proof enough!! How much more information do you need?" Abigail wrote. “But damn, he was hella good at making films and his work has made billions of people happy. There’s no denying it,” she added.

In another Facebook post, Abigail explained her position further. "I feel I have to clarify. I LOVED what Meryl Streep said. I know he was a man of his times and I can forgive him, but Saving Mr Banks was a brazen attempt by the company to make a saint out of the man."
lmao his own flesh and blood is less of a disney apologist than some people on this site

flutiebear:

disneyforprincesses:

Okay, so I’m responding to this garbage like I promised I would, but I’m doing it in an individual post so whoever the OP is doesn’t get all the drama in their notes, and also to keep that super long post from being all over your dash. I’ll tag anuvia so they can see/respond if they wish to. Otherwise it’s kind of like talking shit behind someone’s back hahah

just gonna take it piece by piece for my own sanity.

anuvia:

First of all, I’m not even going to acknowledge the “white voice actor” bullshit, because I don’t see why the ethnicity of the VA matters in comparison to the characters on screen?

It matters on a level outside of a child’s perception. It’s the same thing as Johnny Depp playing Tonto. White people should not be playing POC, even if it’s only voice acting. I guarantee you there are people of every possible ethnicity/race/heritage who are in that line of work. It’s not impossible to cast actors who are of the same race as the characters. And not only on a theoretical level is it wrong, it also takes away opportunities from POC who are often at the bottom of the barrel as it is because Hollywood likes to whitewash everything. It bleeds over into other ventures too. For example: Aladdin is coming to Broadway. But not a SINGLE actor—down to the chorus— is middle eastern.

I’m also not going to argue about “being an animal” because 24 of Disney’s 53 animated movies feature all or mostly animal casts and the connection you are trying to make is irrelevant, especially when White characters in Disney movies have transformed into animals as well. That’s just reaching.

There’s a huge fucking difference between having a movie with a cast of animals and having a movie where the main character (emphasis on main) is turned into an animal for the majority of the film while Disney still pats itself on the back for being inclusive. It’s not inclusive when the only black princess in disney canon only spends 19 minutes of her film as a human. Emperor’s New Groove is more of an ensemble cast so the impact is not as great as it is for Brother Bear and Princess and the Frog, but Kuzco is still the titular character and he spends nearly the entire movie as an animal. And whereas there are a couple of examples of white supporting characters turning into animals, there has only been one main character who turned into an animal (that I can remember but as always correct me if I’m wrong): Pinocchio. And he spends all of five minutes as a donkey. 

Also, you need to take into account that since there are so few leading POC protagonists (Kida and Esmeralda are not protagonists. They are love interests to the protagonists) that even just three turning into animals erases a huge chunk of that visibility. It’s called Invisible Diversity and it’s when you try and say you had a black princess without forcing people to look at the black princess. 

FURTHER, the turning-into-an-animal thing is something Disney added in all three cases. Brother Bear is an original story. There is no “sticking to the text” defense here. The Emperor’s New Groove is based on the Emperor’s New Clothes, and you’ll notice there’s no species switching in that story. And with the Princess and the Frog, rather than adapt the actual story (the Frog Prince), Disney instead chose a modern adaptation to then go ahead and adopt. Why? Who knows. But I find it suspicious that for their first black princess, instead of taking an original story in which the heroine is already a princess and who doesn’t change into anything herself, they chose to base their film off the one that keeps her dark skin and decidedly non-anglo features off the screen.

In addition, I will state that some movies do alter the historical accuracies in ways to both make the film appealing to a broader audience but also children. But the claim for this in just movies with POC is outright hilarious as it’s done in many movies featuring white cultures as well. It’s hard to hold that criticism so highly when Disney is crafting “family entertainment” and not historical documentaries.

Except Disney doesn’t take the lives of actual people and use them as the basis for their stories. Pocahontas existed. Mulan existed. And rather than look within those cultures and find a myth that would be easily adaptable (something I guarantee you would have been easy as pie) they decided to take two actual people. And when you do that, when you take the lives of people who really lived, people who have such an intense meaning to their respective cultures—yeah, you have a responsibility to get it right. Do it right or don’t do it at all. There’s a difference between saying “you know, Snow White’s dress might not be historically accurate to the time period in which the movie is influenced” and “there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that grown man John Smith actually raped pre-teen Pocahontas but hey why not age her up so we can turn their story into one of romance”

Brother Bear:This movie is a lose representation of the native people of the Pacific Northwest. It did not bastardize the concept of a spirit/power animal but rather uses it as a device to teach the male main character about a concept that is a predominately female attribute and smashes the gender stereotype around the concept of love. The movie focuses on the PNW Natives culture, the power of love between family and the ability to overcome mistakes and do the correct thing. This movie is actually VERY underrated and deserves much more praise than it gets.

First thing first. I, me, myself, the person talking to you, am a member of an indigenous tribe from the Pacific North West. And I am telling you that the idea of “spirit animals” is not something that came from this area. Spirit animals are Algonquian in origin. And they have a much deeper significance to those people than what was shown in the 

And I realize that in the film they talk about ~finding your totem~ but that is a complete misrepresentation of what a totem means. Totems were from the Ojibwe, who are also not from the Pacific North West and the European equivalent would be like a coat of arms or a family crest. It donated your clan and was a marker for groups of people rather than individualized. Totem poles, which are from the Pacific North West, do literally nothing but function like mailboxes that have people’s names and addresses painted on them. Literally they were meant to be like “this person/this family lives here”.

So, yeah, it was a bastardization. AS WELL as a homogenization of over 600 culturally, linguistically and ethnically diverse tribes/nations of people from an entire continent.

Also intent does not absolve someone of wrong doings. I love Brother Bear. I agree that it’s underrated as a film. the animation and the music is beautiful. the message is great. But it doesn’t change the fact that the film makers took several elements of many different people’s cultures and blended them together and that’s not right. 

The Princes and the Frog

Being a strong and independent woman is not exclusive to black women but is a trait that MOST women hold. The hard working character of Tiana is a WONDERFUL character for children to look up to because unlike other Disney princesses, she is not handed the good life, is grounded in reality and works hard to make her own dreams come true.

This is where I know for sure without a doubt you do not have the insight, the experience or the knowledge to talk about these things with any sort of nuance. There is term called intersectionality, and it refers to how things such as feminism  and feministic ideas relate differently to women of different circumstances (such as race, class, sexual orientation, trans women, etc) as well as men of different circumstances.

Historically black women are constantly assigned the role of the strong, independent black woman. White women are constantly assigned the role of damsel in distress. One doesn’t “need help” (which is really just code for an excuse for others not to help her even if she does need help) while as the other cannot function without help (even if she’s perfectly capable of saving herself). And sure, to you the idea of a woman who takes control of her own destiny, who doesn’t need a white in shining armor, who defeats her demons herself and achieves her dreams through hard work after decades of princesses in tall towers, maids in glass slippers and asleep on beds is appealing and seems like a feminist move. A proactive woman in charge of her own destiny IS a great thing—but when you apply that same trope to black women, women who have only ever been told from the day they were born that nobody is going to look out for them and that their lives are going to be defined by how hard they work, it’s hurtful. We’ve had white princesses over the years who have fit every role of self agency and sufficiency, but when we get our first black princess ever, instead of giving her a story in which she is allowed to be taken care of, cherished, have somebody do something *for her*, she gets a story where she is completely defined by how hard she works, she gets no help, and for the first 3/4 of the movie, she’s practically babysitting Naveen. In the song “When We’re Human”, Naveen is playing music and lounging around while Tiana is laboring over steering and paddling them through the bayou. If that isn’t a perfect summation of how black women have been treated through out the history of media, I don’t know what is. Tiana wasn’t allowed to be soft because black women aren’t allowed to be soft. That’s why Tiana’s characterization was, at the very least, disappointing to many people.

She is probably one of my FAVORITE Disney princesses because of her personality. Prince Naveen is a take on the princess sterotype; He prefers to party, he’s a womanizer (Which women of all colors, by the way. Watch the movie, notice his lines in “When we’re human), and his interests depend on income and greed.

And you don’t think there’s something wrong with the first Prince of Color (and I mean prince. Born and raised a prince, not a soldier or an urchin who becomes a prince through marriage) is such a useless asshole at the beginning of the movie? Compare the Prince, Prince Charming, Prince Phillip, and Prince Eric with Naveen. All of them raised with every opportunity, privilege and comfort possible and which turns into the asshole? Naveen. Of course, Beast is also a dickhead at the beginning of his movie but the source material demanded that— I mean, he has to be a Beast after all, and they actually made him nicer in the film than the original story. The Frog Prince is just a prince who ran into a witch. But in the film, he’s totally slimy way before he ever secretes any mucus. 

It takes spending time with Tiana, a grounded and down to earth female to save him on several occasions and teach him that there is more to life than living on the wealth of others and the party life style. A movie where a -female character- is needed to set the male on the correct path.

Once again, this doesn’t function the same way between white and black women. Refer to a couple of paragraphs above: Tiana is forced into doing the saving— something that in a traditional narrative sense is seen as masculine and hard, while Naveen is saved by Tiana. Tiana isn’t allowed to be dainty and soft. Nobody’s coming to put her on the back of his horse. 

Mulan:

While not entirely an accurate representation of Chinese culture in that time period, it should be noted that this movie -is a piece of children’s media- and some subjects need to be altered for that sake. While I agree on the aspect of some misrepresentation, Mulan delivered a strong character of color, and she was very much my favorite as a child for it. She was a tomboy that didn’t fit into the gender stereotypes held for girls, and as a girl who went through that myself as a child, I loved having that representation on screen. That being said, where the movie lacked in historical accuracy, it made up for representing a person of color strongly, and that is the most important in this instance.

Mulan is a strong character, I agree. But it’s like you didn’t read anything I wrote in my original rebuttal. Disney crammed as many Asian jokes as they could into the film through the minstrel-like character that is Eddie Murphy’s Mushu. Even Mushu’s name is a pun. You also totally disregarded what I said about the character design for the Huns and the Emperor. Just because something is your favorite doesn’t mean it’s above criticism. 

The Emerpor’s New Groove

The only complaint you could muster is that the Voice Cast was mostly white with the exception of Eartha Kit. What about the fact that The Emperor’s New Clothes is a European story that could have been told with white people without any change in the plot but instead was chosen to for a South American cast?

True, I only wrote that but I had meant to also denote once again the whole main character turning into an animal thing. It’s also one of Disney’s more sexist stories, at least in its near total exclusion of women. There are two female characters with names: one who is defined by being a homemaker/mother (she’s pregnant the entire film and she literally says things like “I have to go clean something” when she’s stressed), and one who is defined by the others by her age. She’s fired for being old and ugly. She’s taunted constantly (not just from the shallow Kuzco but also the kindhearted Pacha and her own sidekick Kronk) for being old and ugly. And let’s not forget the scene with the potential princesses. 

But again the voice actor thing is still huge. David Spade, John Goodman, Eartha Kitt, while all lovely voice actors, are all not Peruvian, or even Latin@. And that matters on a meta level.

But I will give this film props for being the perfect example of how it is not hard to take a European fairytale and set it somewhere else. You can just do it without erasing half of your leading characters. 

But there’s also no referencing to actual Inca or even Peruvian culture. I mean tbh they’re practically white characters with a light light tan. 

Pocahontas:

First of all, Raping, Pillaging, ect do not a family movie make. Instead, they followed the story loosely and used different strengths to pull the character together.

IT’S NOT A STORY, IT’S THE LIFE OF A REAL PERSON WHO WAS BRUTALIZED AND DISNEY TURNED HER LIFE INTO A KUMBAYA WANK OF A MOVIE . If Disney had done a film based on the life of Anne Frank, but they had aged her up ten years and had her fall in love with a Nazi and sing songs about how they’re not so different after all, would you be saying the same thing?

First of all, Pocahontas was not a tool of the “super dreamy” white man; In fact, despite loving him she chose to stay with her people where she was needed and -she rescued him-.

You don’t seem capable of understanding that the writing of these films does not happen in a vacuum and that the writers of the film were using Pocahontas’ life and legacy as a tool within the film and that in Pocahontas’ actual life, she was used as a tool by European colonizers more than once. That is even touched upon in her sequel, even if it is totally skewed as well. 

The stereotype of “Native Americans being one with nature” is not only a widely accepted stereotype, but was very romanticized and glorified to almost push a eco message on the side because white people are too disassociated with nature to value it’s importance.

This is genuinely disgusting and I can’t believe you wrote this thinking it could be taken in any way that didn’t make you look glaringly racist. “Native Americans being one with Nature” is only a widely accepted stereotype among white people. Among Natives, it’s not only annoying, it’s infuriating and you’ve literally just said “Meh. us whiteys like it so it’s a good thing.” Don’t use our bodies and our histories to “push an eco message”. Push your own damn message your own damn self. Call out your own people for destroying everything they come into contact with. But turn us into fucking elves to do it.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

This one is hilarious as to how you could disregard it’s significance. The movie centers over the tyranny of a white religious official using his beliefs to oppress and murder the people of Romanian descent.

That…I mean…. you do realize that the name Rroma has nothing to do with Romania, right? Like you realize that while there are Rroma in Romania, they don’t originate in Romania. Esmeralda is not Romanian. I can’t even.

Esmeralda is sexualized not only because her appeal is what causes the villain to lust after her and take out his frustration even further on the Romanian people but also because classically speaking, Gypsy women used sexual displays to garner attention and make money on which they survived.

WOW. I mean. Just… WOW. You are literally pulling this out of your ass. Or a Cher song. Either way, you’re full of racist shit. And stop using the woryd g*psy. It’s a slur. I said that the first go around. Esmeralda is sexualized because she’s a WOC surrounded by white men. It’s not an accident. Aside from Jessica Rabbit, no other Disney character has been drawn to look as objectively sexual as Esmeralda. It’s not a coincidence that she’s also Rroma which you so disgustingly proved in your above statement. It’s not because Romani women used their bodies to make a living, it’s because white Europeans wanted an excuse to rape and exploit Romani women. 

This aspect is also one of the few they stuck to that was present in the Novelization. Esmeralda sings a song about the plight of her people, about how they are all people under the same god and how they did not deserve prosecution, they emphasized the plight of her people in such a way that is was central to the story and the removal of the oppressor was the revitalization of Paris.

I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say here. “God Help the Outcasts” is a beautiful song but it didn’t bring about the end of Frollo and his reign. That started when one white man (Phoebus) was suddenly not okay with persecuting the Romani people after he had fallen for Esmeralda. Notice he didn’t defy Frollo when he was shown the torture chambers, or when Frollo openly declared his intentions for an ethnic cleansing while crushing the ants. No, it wasn’t until they were hunting for Esmeralda and he refused to burn down a house in which a white family was locked up. 

Quasimodo’s own act of defiance that leads to the defeat of Frollo stems from his love and desire for Esmeralda herself, not any kind of kinship he develops between him and the people who are in reality his real family.

I also see that you ignored the part about Quasimodo being white even though his parents had similar appearances to Esmeralda. 

Lilo and Stitch

While stitch is main marketing point, the movie is very much about Lilo and her sister Nani and the hardships they endure after losing their parents and dealing with the harsh reality that they may not be able to stay together. The Hawaiian culture is very emphasized in this movie and while the term “Ohana” may be overused, the film still makes a strong point about the racism the natives encounter from the white tourists.In fact, there was a deleted scene dedicated to it.

The fact that they deleted it and did not include it in the final cut of the film is proof enough that they didn’t really want to concern themselves with the abuse native Hawai’ians face at the hands of white tourists and colonizers. The only other instance of that would be maybe Nani saying she didn’t want to work at a fake luau. I said originally that Lilo & Stitch did probably the best job of including culture in a way that wasn’t exotifying but it still isn’t person. “Ohana” is the central theme of the movie and it’s literally just a word that a Disney writer heard a tour guy say when the writer visited Hawaii to research the film. 

NOW, I incited specifics from each movie for a reason; They were all explaining the amazing aspects of the characters and what made them stand out. They may have been POC, but they were still strong characters all the same. These are the important aspects when we talk about the representation of POC in movies because the quality of the person matters so much more than the little idiosyncrasies of a culture.

Racist tropes, stereotypes and erasure of characters are not “little idiosyncrasies of a culture” omg. Don’t presume to tell people what is important about a discussion, especially when you are jumping in with no idea what the hell you are talking about. This conversation has been going on for literally decades and it was never about you or people like you. But you felt the need to jump in and spew what you consider logic but what was really just a whole bunch of racism and a “i don’t care how it makes entire groups of people feel because i like it as a novelty” attitude.

While not always historically accurate, I would say the POC mentioned here have a good representation and Disney exhibited no sign of racism in using them.The definition of Racism does not bend or alter because you need an excuse to be mad.

You’re an objectively disgusting human being. And I mean that on a very sincere level. You are not a good person. The things you just wrote above prove that you are not a good person. The proof is there for all of us to see. You’re a racist piece of shit. 

Furthermore, to attack these movies for cultural inaccuracies is hysterical because even for films where white characters are the stars and source of the culture, they often don’t follow it as precisely either.

I’m glad you find the pain that so many POC feel about being the victims of racism funny, but what I find funny is you thinking that most of the films surrounding white characters are set in real places that have real cultures. Because they aren’t. They are set in mythical lands that may be influenced in design but actual locations in Europe, but in reality given ambiguous settings as to make them ubiquitous. White people don’t have to prove their right to exist in a fantasy setting, but POC sure do. China, Virginia, Paris, Hawai’i, New Orleans. With the exception of Aladdin, none of them are set in a fantasy land where the culture is literally created for this world. No one ever claimed to be representing the culture of 18th century France in Cinderella but they sure as hell did presume to represent the cultures of the indigenous people of what is now known as Virginia. And they did it poorly and they did it offensively. And they get called out on it. Simple as that.

Instead, they craft entrainment for children and adding POCs is a wonderful way to boost the confidence in younger children of color. I’d LOVE to see Disney continue this and I’m hoping Moana will be wonderful! I’m going to make a guess that the movie centers around the Māori, and they are a very under represented culture that I personally loved learning about.

I appreciate the sentiment here but you clearly do not understand the many levels on which children of color digest media and how things you consider innocuous can actually really be damaging them, and you also don’t understand how those same levels are digested by white children and turn into stereotypes about others that they grow up believing.

Then again, judging by the vitrol you spewed all over this, I’m not really getting the feeling that you actually care.

You should take some time to actually educate yourself about these matters before jumping into conversations like these, because you did not come of well at all. But I’m sure you know that.

—Lauren

Great post. If I may, I’d like to add a little more on The Emperor’s New Groove, because while it is a very funny movie, it’s also incredibly racist, for much the same reasons as Brother Bear, listed above. Yet apart from the issue of the all-white voice cast, I rarely see anybody talking about its blatant racism, maybe because there’s such a black hole of knowledge about South America in the States? (Caveat: I’m not an expert on this by any means, so please don’t think I’m trying to present myself as one. I’m just someone who’s spent time in Peru, as limited as it was, and is passionate about the country. I know I missed a LOT here also, so please feel free to chime in.)

Read More


ftm-transscribed:

As a friend of mine put it: “I’m glad this guy realized how awful it is to be a woman online, but wouldn’t it sure be nice if dudes, you know, actually listened to women’s experiences in the first place?”


melancholyromantics:

egalitarian-princess:

Maybe that person you called racist or homophobic or accused or being sexist is secretly breaking down inside. Maybe they’re crying as they see your hate. Maybe they have feelings just like you 

maybe being upset isn’t an excuse for being oppressive

maybe remorse is a good thing to feel after being oppressive

maybe having hurt feelings doesnt take away the right of the people you’re hurting to be angry with you for hurting them

It’s like they think people point out things like sexism, racism, and homophobia just as an insult. To be mean. Like, haha, I burned them, *high-five*. Made you cry.

If you honestly react like this, I’m gonna assume it must not fully register for you why racism, homophobia, and sexism are bad things that oppress real people.


abbyjean:



The chart above is from a study just published in Nature, showing that articles published with women as first authors are cited less frequently than articles with male first authors. Since citations are an important currency by which scientists are rewarded, this matters a great deal. (Monkey Cage)



The order in which authors are listed is a VERY big deal. Both the first and the last author are important. These are the people who get the majority of the credit for the work.
A lot of times the first author is simply a leading authority that supported the work, maybe mentored a little, maybe reviewed the paper, and adding their name is a bit of prestige to help get the paper published. The last author is traditionally the Investigator who directly oversaw the work and is credited with producing the results.
Your publications are essentially your resume in this field. These impact who will get funding in the future, and who will have bigger publishing opportunities. But it doesn’t stop at just getting published - the number of times your paper is mentioned as an authority in the bibliography of other papers is carefully tracked. The number of times a paper is cited measures its overall impact, its worth, in the field.
Basically you can’t be regarded as an expert in your field unless you’re publishing and the papers you publish are getting cited. A lack of female last authors leads inevitably to a lack of female first authors, and even a frequently-published last author without citations will never be listed as first author on other people’s papers.
So there’s a lot happening here, and the gender proportions of both slots are very telling.
Important to note that most publications list authors with simply initials, so that the gender of the author isn’t immediately apparent. So a lot of this is a reflection of who gets published, who has the resources to get published, who had the resources to do good work, who is getting the education they need, etc etc etc. However when it comes down to who’s a leader in the field, everybody knows who these authors are, and they know their gender, and that certainly has an impact.

abbyjean:

The chart above is from a study just published in Nature, showing that articles published with women as first authors are cited less frequently than articles with male first authors. Since citations are an important currency by which scientists are rewarded, this matters a great deal. (Monkey Cage)

The order in which authors are listed is a VERY big deal. Both the first and the last author are important. These are the people who get the majority of the credit for the work.

A lot of times the first author is simply a leading authority that supported the work, maybe mentored a little, maybe reviewed the paper, and adding their name is a bit of prestige to help get the paper published. The last author is traditionally the Investigator who directly oversaw the work and is credited with producing the results.

Your publications are essentially your resume in this field. These impact who will get funding in the future, and who will have bigger publishing opportunities. But it doesn’t stop at just getting published - the number of times your paper is mentioned as an authority in the bibliography of other papers is carefully tracked. The number of times a paper is cited measures its overall impact, its worth, in the field.

Basically you can’t be regarded as an expert in your field unless you’re publishing and the papers you publish are getting cited. A lack of female last authors leads inevitably to a lack of female first authors, and even a frequently-published last author without citations will never be listed as first author on other people’s papers.

So there’s a lot happening here, and the gender proportions of both slots are very telling.

Important to note that most publications list authors with simply initials, so that the gender of the author isn’t immediately apparent. So a lot of this is a reflection of who gets published, who has the resources to get published, who had the resources to do good work, who is getting the education they need, etc etc etc. However when it comes down to who’s a leader in the field, everybody knows who these authors are, and they know their gender, and that certainly has an impact.


So apparently Brian Wood is a sack of shit.


"

Holy shit you’re all dialoguing about this. I have a handful of stories throughout my career like the one I shared and I was told for so long that it was my fault and it was normal and I had to be more aware and I am here now, older, wiser and I have felt so isolated in my efforts to talk to my fans/followers. Like I was the only one seeing it. The only one speaking out.
The day I took the teenage girl out of the bar in Phoenix and told her to dial her mother’s number I knew she would hate me but the bar was full of grown goddamn men and they refused to protect her. I know now that one of them (a VERY popular artist) slept with her while his longtime girlfriend was at home and now that artist is known for being drunk and off the rails and GODDAMNIT I tried. I tried to help her. I talked to her mother. I talked to the pro who brought her in. I fought. I have always been fighting it feels like.
My first con one of my heroes offered to let me stay in his room so I wouldn’t have to ride the train back and forth to my sister’s and he then told a line of his fans what he was going to do to me that night. Graphic descriptions. The wife of another artist at the booth I was working took me aside and gave me a talking to about how this industry is full of dogs. And how best to be vigilant and avoid them. She told me all these men would ever see in me was the chance to take advantage of me. Unless I wisened up. She talked about me having stars in my eyes. But she also talked to me about my skills I look back now on that day almost 10 years ago and I realize that it is because of those men that I eventually stopped pursuing major publishers.
The editor that stood there, drunk, denying me my box of comps at a show and asking me to keep talking because watching my lips move turned him on. That was the day I cracked, and I left the road for the dirt path less traveled. I still have heroes who’s work I admire. But I stopped wishing to meet them. I stopped feeling like I could be a part of this world I yearned for since childhood.
I live in my cave and I make my comics and I do it for ME. Independent. I will make it alone, or not at all. I just felt like no one cared about change. I fought to hone my craft so I could compete with the boys and then I realized most of the boys don’t like girls so I made my own sandbox. Now, after the BC article, I hear so many voices and my heart hurts, people. I’ve fought from my little corner for quite awhile now and I really felt like I’d be talking about these issues alone FOREVER. Then the cavalry came in. Holy hell.

I don’t hate men in comics as a whole. I met some awesome pros along my journey. #1 on the list of men who have always looked after the womenfolk? Tony Parker. Kevin Eastman brought me in, gave me my foot in the door and took care of me. Lorenzo Sperlonga, too. Craig Hamilton is another awesome guy. Joe Phillips too. I’ve met some awful men. But I’ve met some random gems too. George Perez is one. Joshua Dysart is another. Good men. Strong men all. And madly skilled.
If you’re male and a comic book pro I’m asking you to listen now. It’s just you and me here. I don’t want a job. I make my own way in the world and now that I’m free I don’t know if I’ll ever go back. This isn’t about my career. This is about the fact that the world is watching. The boom has happened. The industry isn’t what it was in the golden years or even in the Image renaissance. This is big, brother. And more and more little girls are growing up believing in the medium. I’m asking you (Yes YOU) to make a point of not being quiet. I know you’re worried about job security, especially with the economy being what it is.I get it. But you’re paving the way for the kids of tomorrow my friend. Do something drastic. Use your imagination. That’s what it’s there for. Be the change you want to see. Don’t just sit there being thankful you’re not “That Guy”. And if you ARE “That Guy”, I don’t hate you. I know you far too well for that. I understand you. You were most every man I knew as a child. You are that which causes so many of us to doubt ourselves. You are the reason I fought for so long to win the game. Only to realize your game isn’t for me. So enjoy your time while it lasts. Comic Book Society won’t look the same once I’m done here. =) I’m not going to be quiet anymore.

I commented on Brandon’s thread because he was being called out for speaking openly about a misogynistic creator who I knew was misogynistic. I’ve told the story before. This time it just happened to be reposted for a larger audience and has sparked debate. I’m not asking anyone to boycott the creator in question. I just agree that the books leave a bad taste in my mouth when they are touted as being the “breath of feminist fresh air” in comics. Irony= misogynist man making comics for women. It’s funny. It’s sad. And don’t you dare call out Brandon or anyone else for speaking truth.
I’m being asked a lot of questions. So here are more answers: Why didn’t I take to social media immediately? I was afraid of being THAT GIRL. I’d been warned it was my responsibility to watch my own back. And I believed it. Why am I willing to talk about it now? Because a MAN in the industry spoke his name first, and was attacked for it. Every time I have talked about it to any of my followers I never revealed his name. Brandon’s tweets made me think twice. Especially now that I am independent. Again, I don’t hate said creator. I never did. It made me feel dehumanized at the time. Even worse was his half hearted apology AFTER giving me a ration of shit, and only because I requested it. Is he a good writer? Of course. Does it make me ill when I see a book of his on the shelf? Indeed. But look at it this way. He is a part of what I had to overcome to find my true path. I’m who I am in part because one of my heroes pretended to like me and tried to trick me into the sack. It took me years to figure out why that situation made me so upset.
My art, for me, is pure. Yes I know I sound crazy. I was young, naive, and got hit on a lot. But to use my work and my hopes for a career against me? That shit left a mark. I didn’t have anyone to look up to as a shining example of how to handle those situations. I knew how to deal with regular guys making passes or being weird. But a man I respected, who worked in the magical industry I thought was full of rebels and freaks like me? The fact that he went out of his way to let me know he thought I was talented and then when he met me and hunted me, and then wrote his room number ON A PIECE OF MY ART?
It still burns, people. I’m allowed to be mad. I’m allowed to talk about it. No matter when it happened. Talking about it is healing. I was hoping to defend a creator by telling my truth. I tripped and found some really awesome folks who fight their own good fights daily. For those worried about him hurting me: He can’t. I’m in my own sandbox, and he’s just some comics guy. What’s he going to do? Tell his friends not to hire me? I’m nobody to him. He made sure to let me know that I was supposed to be grateful for his attention. That I was nothing. He claimed he wanted us to be cool afterwards. I actually tried (oh the stupidity of youth). But he promptly ignored me after that. I picked up. I moved on. I grew up. I met many more of his kind. I got stronger, quicker, bigger and meaner. Now I’m Brienne instead of Book 1 Sansa.

I am the subject of 4Chan threads now. But not only do I have sensible defenders there…the first comments were about how they don’t care what I said because they love my art. Then they shared my art. Repeatedly. #mustbedoingsomethingright No. I don’t hate the creator in question. I just think he’s an asshole. I’m NOT the only woman he’s done this to. But that doesn’t mean I’m asking you to boycott him. If you enjoy his books, more power to you. I don’t. Because he is using women in the industry and female characters as tools for his own gain. He’s a faux feminist. And he smells like butt. And his mama dresses him funny. :) Okay, I might have some minor resentment about his track record of female abuse. Dude. Come on. I’m a free agent. I make comics about a monster, a kid and a drunk cat that are about gender spectrums, old people and muffins. No one can touch me. I’m so far out in left field I can’t even see the stands.

"

Collecting Tess Fowler’s tweets from last night, because this stuff is important and people need to read it. (via iandsharman)

I’m not sure which creator in particular is being discussed here and the sad thing is it could be any one of a whole, whole lot of people. Grossness is really RAMPANT in mainstream comics. Especially at cons.

Indie comics are better anyway.


lissomesimplicity:

lovechafes:

boojeo:

scarlettingridjo:

i need feminism because people like this still exist and take themselves seriously

Ahhhhh there’s so much wrong with that article I can’t even wrap my head around ot

Everything hurts

the worst part about it is the comments. Read only if you have a strong stomach because it’s fucking painful.

One of the most commonly repeated tropes of feminists and manboobs goes something like this: ‘You should be happy that women nowadays are independent, because it means that they’re with you because they WANT to be with you, not because they’re dependent on you.’ This is a fundamental violation of the relationship between men and women. Part of our identity as men based in women needing us.”

Translation: nobody wants me


"I personally feel like a lot of the ways people (and critics…usually men) talk about Newsom and discuss her music is really, really intensely sexist. Like that SO much of the language used for her (‘fey’, ‘precious’, ‘elfin’, etc) are really just code-words for ‘feminine.’ And related to this, she gets described as ‘crazy’ and as being some wild muse that needs to be hemmed in by the more ‘rational’/’intellectual’ male collaborators like Callahan, O’Rourke, Banhardt, and [Van Dyke Parks]. But the thing is, Newsom IS intelligent, and her music isn’t some ‘wild’ thing, nor is it ‘precious’ or ‘childlike’ or ‘fey’. It’s complex, intelligent, intricate, creative, technical and also very mature. It feels to me like Newsom is a very extreme example of people’s perceptions of gender conditioning and distorting their perceptions of art and artists. The Newsom I read about in reviews has NOTHING to do with the Newsom I actually encounter in her music. And the former seems like it’s just a myth mostly constructed from fear of recognition of women’s intelligence, creativity, and proficiency. They’d rather cling to a storybook wild pixie filled with some magical, incomprehensible female inspiration than actually accept that a woman can be every bit as capable a songwriter as their beloved Leonard Cohens, Tom Waitses, Bob Dylans and so on, and as capable a composer as their [Van Dyke Parkses]…Seems to me a perfect example of sexism prevalent in music journalism and ‘hipster’/indie sub-culture, amongst people who pose themselves as more ‘enlightened’/sensitive than the rest of society."

Natalie Reed, in conversation with me on twitter, on the sexist, infantilizing, and reductive media narratives about Joanna Newsom. She brilliantly synthesizes what we have been saying at Blessing All the Birds since the beginning.

I also think the “fey” words are code for “we do not want to actually engage with this music because doing so would actually mean acknowledging a woman’s words are powerful and intellectual and thus, threatening to patriarchy in music (and the world).” Those words, most importantly, bespeak of the fear of Newsom’s intense and subversive femininity. 

(via allthebirds)

I was going to excerpt some of this but it’s all too good and too true to leave out. This goes right back to the classical conception of form (male, intelligent, active) vs. matter (female, instinctive, passive). When you have a musician like Newsom or Bjork or what have you their art is usually presented as something that’s happening through them or to them, like a Delphic oracle. Whereas with a man, a Tom Waits or whoever, they’re always presented as harnessing these forces, as exerting a form of craftsmanship. It’s bullshit, it makes no actual sense, it’s actually harmful, and it’s been happening at least since Plato. And it needs to stop.

(via imathers)


I would like to Fed Ex printed copies of this to every single video game developer in the world. With stink bombs, for the most grievous offenders.


chancemaycrown:

silverdreaming:

ineedaconsultingdetective:

The Sexual Objectification Checklist

scientificinqueery:

scientificinqueery:

transformfeminism:

stfufauxminists:

isaywesay:

1. Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualized person’s body?

image
BMW

2. Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object?

image

Four Loko

3. Does the image show sexualized persons as interchangeable?

image

Mercedes Benz

4. Does the image affirm the idea of violating the bodily integrity of a sexualized person who can’t consent?

image

Duncan Quinn

5. Does the image suggest that sexual availability is the defining characteristic of the person? 

image

American Apparel

6. Does the image show a sexualized person as a commodity that can be bought and sold?

image

Red Tape Shoes

Not sure if I’ve reblogged this before but it’s worth it if I have because so many people get this wrong.

so gross

An excellent list with examples to better understand sexual objectification.

Putting this back on my blog because it’s important.

This rape society didn’t just come out of nothing

This is disgusting.

Reblog / posted 10 months ago via voldymore · © with 21,537 notes