it’s sad that we have to get that kind of news from cobbled-together screenshots of twitter posts by journalists who are collecting together links to various articles and pieces of evidence themselves, on their own social media accounts, this is who is putting the pieces together now because our news media is completely pathetically useless. New York Times, CNN, Reuters, fucking useless. The whole point of professional journalists is that they have the resources and the platform to hunt down complex information and share it with the world, and instead they just pass on press releases and quote people and leave it to us to connect these dots.

Reblog / posted 1 week ago with 14 notes

a list of tags 4channers seem to be spamming

reyairia:

translightfield:

pls reblog with more! these are taken straight from posts. keep yourself safe, and 4chan users, kiss my feminist ass :*

do not check these tags, they’re being spammed by gore and the like


whoisdeshmund:

ATTENTION FANS: history is our playground and the possibilities are endless. you have told us your opinions and we have heard you LOUD AND CLEAR, and this year, we at ubisoft bring you not one, not two, not even three but fOUR WHITE MEN WITH STUBBLE
image
join us

#ugh

missl0nelyhearts replied to your post: I am using one of those capsicum pain-…

and the smell is such a bonus, too.

it seems to be a requirement. topical pain relief? Let’s make it extra-smelly.


An equally awful article about domestic adoption, where an adoptive family is frustrated that they can’t just take the baby and run.

How dare mothers go through nine months of pregnancy, give birth, hold their babies and decide they can’t give them up? That nice wealthy family was entitled to that baby. These low-income mothers are all liars and cheats. Their babies would obviously be better off somewhere else. Etc.

It must be very painful to want a child and be unable to have one, but the lack of empathy at work here is just staggering.


riseofthecommonwoodpile:

yeah, I’m really into graffiti and street art. banksy changed my life. what? who is Julio 204? *gets shown a picture of Julio 204’s tag* that’s not art. that’s just some letters on a wall. now let me show you this billboard banksy did of the pulp fiction guys with bananas in their hands instead of guns. makes u think


I have taken a whole lot of cold medicine and I apologize in advance for any poor decision-making that may result


womenovertea:

Fanatic vegans launch website to name and shame ex-vegans who now eat meat | Mail Online
—- how can this be allowed… what is next? Forming of group to stake carrots to their doors. 
What would happen if meat eater did this? would we be arrested for hate? Think about it!

yikes

womenovertea:

Fanatic vegans launch website to name and shame ex-vegans who now eat meat | Mail Online

—- how can this be allowed… what is next? Forming of group to stake carrots to their doors. 

What would happen if meat eater did this? would we be arrested for hate? Think about it!

yikes


"As a Native American, I can’t tell you what an absolute pain it is to traverse through aisles of costumes this time of year, especially with children in tow. Mommy doesn’t like explaining why Party City is selling a “Cheeky Cherokee” teen costume that promises to send its wearers “heading for the woods,” or why Spirit Halloween is displaying a “Naughty Navajo” mini dress that will have women “sending out smoke signals.” Like any decent parent, I try to teach my daughter to carry herself with pride and dignity. These racist costumes, that specifically target her purely because of her race, send her the message that Native American women are viewed as sex objects. It makes her sad and angry. She knows those costumes are not who we as Native women are, and that we should not be depicted that way. Statistically, a shocking one in three Native American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Encouraging the public to view Native American women as disposable sex toys is more than a grave insult, it’s irresponsible and negligent."
— Ruth Hopkins The Difference Between Being a Slut & a Racist: Pochahottie Hottentot (via wocinsolidarity)

vsthepomegranate:

nezua:

youarenotyou:

2brwngrls:

brashblacknonbeliever:

Totally Biased: Kamau Speaks with Tim Wise (Extended Interview)

One thing Tim said stuck out to me in particular:

"If you don’t like white allyship in general, that’s a problem. If you don’t like the fact that every now and then, those of us who are trying to be allies screw up, then you’re not really prepared for this work because that’s what people do. They make mistakes, they screw up, they don’t treat each other very kindly. We’ve got a lot bigger fish to fry than to sit and fight amongst each other about who has the best and most responsible Facebook page or the most responsible and respectful twitter feed. The history of white allyship is way too important for me or anyone else to sort of walk away from it because we get beef with somebody."

What the holy shit is that?! He just insinuated that if we don’t like white allies, we shouldn’t be doing anti-racist work. He just insinuated that if we don’t like the fact that white allies constantly fuck up, we’re not “ready” for this. He just insinuated that the criticism that white allies (namely himself) gets is based around Facebook pages and twitter feeds.

This is the man that people herald as some type of “savior” to the anti-racism movement! This man just went on national television and tone policed a massive swath of the movement, dismissed his most vocal critics (who just so happen to be WoC) as “trolls,” downplayed everything he’s done up to that point, and spewed out some of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard come out of a human mouth. While he did this, Kamau sat there and ate that mess up like it was a three course meal from a five star restaurant.

In my very humble opinion, it is way past time for people to stop being lulled into a false sense of security by Tim Wise’s words and actually listen to what this fool is telling you. He’s shown us time and time again that he is no “ally” in the true sense of the word. What he’s telling us is that he is an attention loving white man who thinks that white “allies” like him are, and should be, front and center in the anti-racism movement. He thinks that white “allies” are so damn important that if you don’t like them or you have questions/comments about them, you need to get the hell out the movement. He does go on to say that white allies shouldn’t look at this as “missionary work,” and I do believe that he does think that’s true. He doesn’t look at this as “missionary work” at all. No! He’s here to get his name in the news and make some good ass money while he’s at it.

what the fuck…

white supremacy is when white people take over anti racism and tell poc they aren’t capable of ending their own oppression so they should just let the white people do the work (as whitey is obviously more qualified)

Exhibit A: White man tells us that if we are not ready to do “Anti-Racism” his way, then we — People of Color – are not ready for “this work.”

Exhibit B: White “Ally” will now please tell us how a Person of Color can NOT be ready for “this work” when “this work” most definitely and primarily means fighting for your own survival and dignity and life in a white supremacist culture.

Exhibit C: White man will now, based on the two prior exhibits, refute the obvious implication that without the white man’s approval, the person of color has no right to their own life—and finally, differentiate this attitude from the most violent and base of white supremacy’s standing dictates.

I have never taken Tim Wise seriously as an anti-racist thought-leader because it is incredibly difficult to critique a system that benefits you directly (see also: Hugo Schwyzer). There are excellent examples of people leveraging their privilege to support social justice movements (White freedom riders, Jews who place their bodies between IDF soldiers and Palestinians, etc.) Such people are notable and heroic but Tim Wise has never been one of them. Anti-racism is a business for him— Wise is an author and paid speaker. In other words he has made critiquing whiteness, which benefits him, into a business model, which benefits him. So I am not surprised that he reacts so badly to criticism from PoC, because it is an implicit attack on his brand. I am not suggesting that he is manipulating anti-racist rhetoric cynically to get paid— I have no way of knowing his heart. And I am not suggesting that PoC who were invested in Tim Wise and feel betrayed by his recent outbursts were wrong—I think he has said some good things over the years and it’s a compelling thing when a white person talks sense about racism. But, speaking for myself I never had any illusions that Tim Wise was a “cool white guy who gets it.” Because if he really “got it” his work would center on his own experience of whiteness (which would be a valuable contribution to a larger anti-racist discourse, I think) instead of lecturing PoC about our experience of his whiteness. He had an opportunity when all of this first happened to grow from it personally and model a kind of constructive engagement between white people and PoC, but instead he doubled down. That tells me everything I needed to know. 


okay come on I don’t expect the Emmys to do the right thing or anything but JEFF DANIELS??? WHAt????

Uh, he doesn’t deserve to even carry the award for anyone else in that category, are you kidding me?

Reblog / posted 1 year ago with 2 notes

"LYDEN: You commissioned a dozen studies on women in media from the Annenberg School at USC. Some of the figures just really boggled the imagination when you think that women are half of all moviegoers. If we didn’t go to the movies, maybe this would make more sense. But we turn out in droves.

DAVIS: I know. It really does boggle the mind. In family films and kids television shows, for every one female character, there are three male characters. But lest people think that it’s all bad news, we were able to see an increase in the percentage of female characters in family films, such that if we add female characters at the rate we have been for the past 20 years, we will achieve parity in 700 years.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVIS: And my institute, we have dedicated ourselves to cutting that in half. And we will not rest until it’s only 350 years.

LYDEN: Why is this the case?

DAVIS: My theory is that since all anybody has seen when they are growing up is this big imbalance that the movies that they’ve watched are about, let’s say, five-to-one as far as female presence is concerned. That’s what starts to look normal. And let’s think about in difference segments of society - 17 percent of cardiac surgeons are women, 17 percent of tenured professors are women. It just goes on and on. And isn’t that strange that that’s also the percentage of women in crowd scenes in movies? What if we’re actually training people to see that ratio as normal so that when you’re an adult, you don’t notice?

LYDEN: I wonder what the impact is of all of this lack of female representation.

DAVIS: We just heard a fascinating and disturbing study where they looked at the ratio of men and women in groups. And they found that if there’s 17 percent women, the men in the group think it’s 50-50. And if there’s 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.

LYDEN: Oh, my goodness.

DAVIS: So is it possible that 17 percent women has become so comfortable and so normal that that’s just sort of unconsciously expected?

LYDEN: Why else, Geena Davis, do these kinds of disparities matter?

DAVIS: What we’re in effect doing is training children to see that women and girls are less important than men and boys. We’re training them to perceive that women take up only 17 percent of the space in the world. And if you add on top of that that so many female characters are sexualized, even in things that are aimed at little kids, that’s having an enormous impact as well."
— NPR, “Casting Call: Hollywood Needs More Women” [x] (via mswyrr)
Reblog / posted 1 year ago via foxghost · © mswyrr with 12,956 notes

"What reason have we to suppose the African would be more just and generous than the Saxon has been?…how insulting to put every shade and type of manhood above our heads, to make laws for educated refined, wealthy women….The old anti slavery school says women must stand back and wait until the negroes shall be recognized. But we say, if you will not give the whole loaf of suffrage to the entire people, give it to the most intelligent first. If intelligence, justice, and morality are to have precedence in the government, let the question of the woman be brought up first and that of the negro last."

American Hero and seminal feminst, Susan B. Anthony (via thisiswhiteprivilege)


In 1940, the Saturday Evening Post reported that while the still new Superman was making millions, his creators, writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, were paid just $130 for Superman himself, and $210 per issue thereafter (the original cheque itself sold for $160,000 last year). The pair sued National Allied Publications (the predecessor of DC Comics) for ownership of Superman and Superboy, who was obviously a spin-off of their own character, but both were paid to drop all subsequent claims and their bylines were removed. In 1973 Siegel and Shuster again took up their case to claim ownership of Superman, and the battle rages to this day. 

Both men died without ever reclaiming their creation, while DC continues to make millions from the superhero’s image. It was only in 1975, when Superman first hit the cinema screen, that a public outcry began. Joe Shuster was then blind, living in a shabby apartment and dependent on his brother; Jerry Siegel was recovering from a heart attack and working in a mail room. Their medical bills had driven them further into destitution. The pair, living in complete poverty despite several previous lawsuit payments, were awarded a small pension and health care from their previous employers. Their credit line on each appearance of Superman was restored, but any ownership of the hero was still denied.

Kirby, Siegel and Shuster are far from alone in their exploitation at the hands of their publishers. Back in the days when comics sold millions of copies, it was expected that work for hire artists and writers would simply be worked into the ground, with all profits going to the publisher. It has been argued that the ambitious creators knew what they were doing when they signed their contracts, yet it is hard to view the publishers as maligned innocents when those same iconic creations now pull in billions of dollars at the box office. Young artists, desperate for their big break, are not quite on a level playing field with experienced corporations and their binders full of laywers.

Go read the rest of the article, which is a good summary of what’s been going on. I just wanted to mention, since he’s not listed in the article, that we met the creator of Ghost Rider Gary Friedrich at New York Comic Con. When we asked him what he thought of the movies, he told us that not only did he not make a dime from the Ghost Rider movies, Marvel actually went after him for drawing pictures of the character he created at cons to try to make a living. The guy is 68 years old and broke, and just wanted a piece of the millions of dollars Marvel was making off a character he created before he even signed a contract with them, and they sued him. He ended up owing them $17000 in legal fees (which was recently overturned, after even more litigation).

Anyway: Marvel and DC are a bag of dicks, and copyright law is deeply stupid.

Reblog / posted 1 year ago with 7 notes

dansphalluspalace:

queenfattyoftherollpalace:

thedailywhat:

Weird Stats of the Day: Toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists did this year
Opposing Views brings some frightening (though obviously tongue-in-cheek) statistics about the future of America: more American lives have been claimed by gun fatalities involving American toddlers than terrorist attacks this year. In the past five months, a total of 11 people were killed by preschoolers with firearms compared to the four that perished in the Boston explosions — the only terrorist attack to occur this year. We can only hope the NSA will ramp up surveillance on children less than 5 years of age in order to counter this threat to national security.

welp

And we don’t want to regulate gun control though recently a guy was killed by his four year old son who happened upon the gun in the house.
Mmmmmhmmmm.

no of course there aren’t too many guns in america why do you ask?

dansphalluspalace:

queenfattyoftherollpalace:

thedailywhat:

Weird Stats of the Day: Toddlers killed more Americans than terrorists did this year

Opposing Views brings some frightening (though obviously tongue-in-cheek) statistics about the future of America: more American lives have been claimed by gun fatalities involving American toddlers than terrorist attacks this year. In the past five months, a total of 11 people were killed by preschoolers with firearms compared to the four that perished in the Boston explosions — the only terrorist attack to occur this year. We can only hope the NSA will ramp up surveillance on children less than 5 years of age in order to counter this threat to national security.

welp

And we don’t want to regulate gun control though recently a guy was killed by his four year old son who happened upon the gun in the house.

Mmmmmhmmmm.

no of course there aren’t too many guns in america why do you ask?