tagged → #society #racism

alyseofwonderland:

petitedeath:

flightofthecoco:

nerdloveandlolz:

This is true. I saw a documentary about it. Men’s orgasm faces are allowed in teenage comedies rated PG13, but women’s orgasm faces can often push it into NC-17 territory, no joke. [x]

This is pretty much the equation:

women receiving abuse = PG-13/R

women receiving pleasure = R/NC-17

there is a whole documentary about women vs men and sex vs violence and film ratings. i recommend it

The Documentary is called “This Film Is Not Yet Rated”

tagged → #media #society #feminism
crazyawesomehair:

albinwonderland:

fandomsandfeminism:

betterthanabortion:

"My body, my choice" only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.
See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 
Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 
To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 
You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

reblogging for commentary 

But its still a life. I couldn’t be more grateful for my son. Id sacrifice my body for something I did, for my choices. Its not the child’s fault I had sex and didn’t want to own up to it. People need to be responsible and have a heart for the little life growing inside them.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and decisions. Its just bothers me when women do it for birth control..

Babies shouldn’t be a “punishment” for having sex. There shouldn’t be a consequence for having sex, especially if responsible. Having and enjoying sex is a basic human right.Most women who have an abortion do so only once in their life. It is not used as a form of birthcontrol in the way pro-lifers often paint it; as if women just go willy nilly with the abortions every time they forget their pill or a condom tears a bit. It is a medical procedure that is a big decision even for pro-choice women.
Why is it fair to expect a woman to rear (and presumably raise) a child because she enjoys sex? Especially when the same isn’t expected of the man who helps conceive it (or of men in general)? What if she can’t afford a baby at that point in her life? What if she isn’t ready to raise a child, or doesn’t want one? (And, yes!, you and be mature enough for sex and not for parenthood.) Why is the undeveloped, unconscious “life” of a woman’s foetus more valued than the established life and health of the person it would impede, and drastically alter?There are too many children who have had terrible lives even in the few years they’ve been here, too many in foster care, too many waiting to be adopted. A foetus’s life is a potential, not a given. The woman’s life is already well on its way and shouldn’t have to be unrooted unless by her choice.

crazyawesomehair:

albinwonderland:

fandomsandfeminism:

betterthanabortion:

"My body, my choice" only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.

See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 

Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 

To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 

You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

reblogging for commentary 

But its still a life. I couldn’t be more grateful for my son. Id sacrifice my body for something I did, for my choices. Its not the child’s fault I had sex and didn’t want to own up to it. People need to be responsible and have a heart for the little life growing inside them.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and decisions. Its just bothers me when women do it for birth control..

Babies shouldn’t be a “punishment” for having sex. There shouldn’t be a consequence for having sex, especially if responsible. Having and enjoying sex is a basic human right.
Most women who have an abortion do so only once in their life. It is not used as a form of birthcontrol in the way pro-lifers often paint it; as if women just go willy nilly with the abortions every time they forget their pill or a condom tears a bit. It is a medical procedure that is a big decision even for pro-choice women.

Why is it fair to expect a woman to rear (and presumably raise) a child because she enjoys sex? Especially when the same isn’t expected of the man who helps conceive it (or of men in general)? What if she can’t afford a baby at that point in her life? What if she isn’t ready to raise a child, or doesn’t want one? (And, yes!, you and be mature enough for sex and not for parenthood.) Why is the undeveloped, unconscious “life” of a woman’s foetus more valued than the established life and health of the person it would impede, and drastically alter?
There are too many children who have had terrible lives even in the few years they’ve been here, too many in foster care, too many waiting to be adopted. A foetus’s life is a potential, not a given. The woman’s life is already well on its way and shouldn’t have to be unrooted unless by her choice.

mmanalysis:

chirart:

NO GIRLS ALLOWED: Unraveling the story behind the stereotype of video games being for boys. 

But the process of breaking down the widely held stereotype of games being for boys doesn’t end with game-makers targeting diverse audiences, Bogost says. In fact, he doesn’t believe that is the right approach, in the same way he doesn’t believe that the industry going after the male audience was a smart idea. “It seems to me an enormously stupid idea, actually,” Bogost says. “All you have to do is look at the most successful games to see that it’s only been possible for them to be massively successful if they don’t systematically exclude half the population.”
In order for video games to overcome their existing stereotype, they have to be sold to us as general purpose products. Bogost uses bookstores as an example. No one is surprised when they go into a bookstore and find that there are books for children, books about gardening or books about cooking. It’s accepted that books are a general purpose medium that can address lots of interests. The same applies to television — it doesn’t surprise people that there are channels dedicated to cooking, sports, animals or news. Bogost says that games are already there in terms of there being a diverse variety that can do different things — it just hasn’t effectively gotten the message out there yet.
When the message gets out there — when video games are seen as a general purpose medium, and a person who plays Angry Birds can associate that with playing games on a PlayStation 4 — then perhaps the stereotype will begin to fade. It would be a big marketing challenge, but it’s not impossible.
"Given enough money, I could make guys buy tampons," says Roeser. “I mean, I could figure out something to do with them. It all comes down to how somebody like me, and there’s frighteningly thousands of me across the country and the world, creates a campaign that specifically targets an audience.” Roeser believes that if the makers of Call of Duty came to him and said they wanted to pursue the female market, it could be done. It would just be a matter of making the message appealing to women and reaching them through the right channels.
[…]
"The way we relate to consumer products through marketing is real," Bogost says. "In this industry, we think of marketers as these evil-doers who take the product and ruin it by hocking it in the wrong way to the public. And that might be true. I don’t know. But advertising is enormously powerful.”

I really enjoyed this article from Polygon, which talks about the history of marketing and the female relationship to video game advertizing and perception. Also, suspecting that hell froze over, I was also pleased by the calm, thoughtful discussion in the comments.

Seriously, this is worth a read. 
Interestingly enough, I think this is why, for me, I’ve always been played on Nintendo systems and wasn’t interested in Playstation or X-Box. Nintendo has and continues to market itself as the console for everyone and from a marketing point ti should be. Console should be treated like a DVD player in that you buy it to play the genres you want to play on it.

mmanalysis:

chirart:

NO GIRLS ALLOWED: Unraveling the story behind the stereotype of video games being for boys. 

But the process of breaking down the widely held stereotype of games being for boys doesn’t end with game-makers targeting diverse audiences, Bogost says. In fact, he doesn’t believe that is the right approach, in the same way he doesn’t believe that the industry going after the male audience was a smart idea. “It seems to me an enormously stupid idea, actually,” Bogost says. “All you have to do is look at the most successful games to see that it’s only been possible for them to be massively successful if they don’t systematically exclude half the population.

In order for video games to overcome their existing stereotype, they have to be sold to us as general purpose products. Bogost uses bookstores as an example. No one is surprised when they go into a bookstore and find that there are books for children, books about gardening or books about cooking. It’s accepted that books are a general purpose medium that can address lots of interests. The same applies to television — it doesn’t surprise people that there are channels dedicated to cooking, sports, animals or news. Bogost says that games are already there in terms of there being a diverse variety that can do different things — it just hasn’t effectively gotten the message out there yet.

When the message gets out there — when video games are seen as a general purpose medium, and a person who plays Angry Birds can associate that with playing games on a PlayStation 4 — then perhaps the stereotype will begin to fade. It would be a big marketing challenge, but it’s not impossible.

"Given enough money, I could make guys buy tampons," says Roeser. “I mean, I could figure out something to do with them. It all comes down to how somebody like me, and there’s frighteningly thousands of me across the country and the world, creates a campaign that specifically targets an audience.” Roeser believes that if the makers of Call of Duty came to him and said they wanted to pursue the female market, it could be done. It would just be a matter of making the message appealing to women and reaching them through the right channels.

[…]

"The way we relate to consumer products through marketing is real," Bogost says. "In this industry, we think of marketers as these evil-doers who take the product and ruin it by hocking it in the wrong way to the public. And that might be true. I don’t know. But advertising is enormously powerful.



I really enjoyed this article from Polygon, which talks about the history of marketing and the female relationship to video game advertizing and perception. Also, suspecting that hell froze over, I was also pleased by the calm, thoughtful discussion in the comments.

Seriously, this is worth a read. 

Interestingly enough, I think this is why, for me, I’ve always been played on Nintendo systems and wasn’t interested in Playstation or X-Box. Nintendo has and continues to market itself as the console for everyone and from a marketing point ti should be. Console should be treated like a DVD player in that you buy it to play the genres you want to play on it.

femfreq:

Our latest episode of Tropes vs Women in Video Games focuses on the Ms. Male Character trope and briefly discusses a related pattern called the Smurfette Principle. You can watch, share and “like” it on YouTube now!

wednypls:

thisisnotjapan:

thebolditalicsf:

Why Yellow Fever is Different Than “Having a Type”

Yeessss awesome article

I’m so tempted to tweet this at my ex you have no idea
Racial fetish is also different than other types of kinks because it’s not just about a self-chosen lifestyle (S&M, for example), a self-determined action (thanks for making Golden Shower well-known, R. Kelly), or sexualizing a body part (feet fetishism seems pretty prominent). Yellow/Jungle/Salsa/Curry Fevers are about exotification of groups of people based on a part of their identity that they have no control over.

wednypls:

thisisnotjapan:

thebolditalicsf:

Why Yellow Fever is Different Than “Having a Type”

Yeessss awesome article

I’m so tempted to tweet this at my ex you have no idea

Racial fetish is also different than other types of kinks because it’s not just about a self-chosen lifestyle (S&M, for example), a self-determined action (thanks for making Golden Shower well-known, R. Kelly), or sexualizing a body part (feet fetishism seems pretty prominent). Yellow/Jungle/Salsa/Curry Fevers are about exotification of groups of people based on a part of their identity that they have no control over.

tagged → #racism #feminism #society

aclockworkcupcake:

babylizard:

lgbt-supporters:

I’ve also seen a bunch of people say that a good quality in an ally is to “shut up” or “be quiet”. Guess you guys don’t want your rights then…

how good does it make you feel to be able to hold absolute basic equality over queer…

tagged → #lgbt #bad ally
thepanicmoon:

zsazsanotgabor:

sophienorthcott:

high-functioningginger:


There is a trend in media for strong women who are outwardly so. They are witty, snarky, toned, and know how to hold a gun. The role model being pushed is that of the ultimate woman. It’s progress – I wouldn’t trade River Song for a hundred people from Hollywood’s past – but there’s a silent repercussion, a fortification of the idea that women have to be twice as accomplished to be considered half as good, to deserve this screen time at all. They are always extraordinary, always the one in a million. Importantly, there’s no variety – only one mould to fit ourselves into. A great mould, yes, but not if you don’t fit into it.
Molly Hooper is different. Molly Hooper is kind, thoughtful, always smiling, and intelligent in a way that you don’t really notice until you remember she’s a pathologist. She asks after people and cares about the answers, remembers little details because everything someone says is important. She probably still remembers how Sherlock likes his coffee. Her blog is pink, covered in kittens, and uses Comic Sans. She blunders her way through speaking, has serious foot-in-mouth syndrome, and can’t put on a pair of plastic gloves without making faces. She is one of the strongest women I have ever seen.
She puts up with what can only be described as “total bullshit.” You might say that makes her a bit of a doormat, but for people like Molly (like me), who like kindness and hate conflict, it takes serious guts to call someone on their behaviour and say you’re hurting me. It takes guts to carry that kind of unrequited love and still first and foremost be a friend, to ask what do you need? Molly Hooper makes Sherlock Holmes, a man who can barely articulate anything beyond the scientific, try to be kinder. In the end, Molly isn’t the woman who counts [like Irene Adler], but the friend.

The Real Woman: Why Molly Hooper Is The One Who Counts


^THIS YES THIS 1000 TIMES OVER

how people can still think that Moffat is sexist is merely beyond me

HERE’S HOW I THINK HE’S SEXIST: THERE ARE FOUR RIVER SONGS IN HIS WORK AND ONLY ONE MOLLY HOOPER, AND MOLLY DOESN’T GET NICE THINGS. EVER.

ZSAZ, YOU ALWAYS FIND ME THE MOFFAT-LOVERS TO SHATTER. ~okay, let’s get down to business~

There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands. - Steven Moffat on Female Characters. 

“Well, the world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level - except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male.” -more assholery from Steven Moffat
How about I list all the characters he’s written/created that either go through with, or intend, to have the doctor meet her as a young child, then go back and be sexually involved/attracted to her as an adult. 
Rose-  Turns out, the original plan (Devised by Paul Abbott) was to have the Doctor influence Rose’s life from the start; this was changed later on, either because it was turned into a love story and thus changed to make it less creepy, or two, because it always was a love story and someone pointed out how creepy it was. The only writer who didn’t erase references to the meta? Moffat. (“Red bicycle when you were 12”.)
Sally Sparrow: In the original Ninth Doctor short story “What I Did On My Christmas Holidays by Sally Sparrow”, which Moffat wrote for the 2006 Annual and that he then re-worked into the episode “Blink”, she was a 12-year-old girl. In the end, it turns out that the Doctor only got into contact with her because he met her older self first - a spy on mission in ‘exotic’ Istanbul, whom the Doctor calls “beautiful” and an “amazing woman” in front of the girl. 
Amy, River, and Clara are all obvious examples that I don’t need to go into detail for. Shorthand: CREEPY AS FUCK, sexualizes young girls to an extent, CREEPY AS FUCK. (This particular information/certain sections of summary comes from here)
“I remember when I was reading that story as a kid, Sherlock goes on and on about The Woman, the only one who ever beat him, and you’re thinking, he’s had better villains than this. And then you click: he fancies her, doesn’t he? That’s what it’s about.” -Moffat, talking about  Irene Adler and why she’s a romantic interest in his version. 
“And I thought, ‘well she’s really good. It’s just a shame she’s so wee and dumpy…When she was about to come through to the auditions I nipped out for a minute and I saw Karen walking on the corridor towards me and I realised she was 5’11, slim and gorgeous and I thought ‘Oh, oh that’ll probably work’.” -moffat, talking about hiring Karen to play Amelia in the Doctor Who confidential ‘All about the Girl’
“Your wife turns into a boat, and shortly after that, you never sleep again and you clean shit off someone. It doesn’t seem like a very appealing prospect. Obviously, the moment I saw my child, that was different, but up until that point, I was thinking, ‘how long before she gets back to normal size? Will this damage anything?’” -Moffat, talking about his wife being pregnant. 
To finish off, here’s a lovely essay on why Moffat sucks, covering his sexism, and his shoddy writing as a whole

STFU-Moffat is a great resource for examples of why he shouldn’t be given large amounts of creative control.

thepanicmoon:

zsazsanotgabor:

sophienorthcott:

high-functioningginger:

There is a trend in media for strong women who are outwardly so. They are witty, snarky, toned, and know how to hold a gun. The role model being pushed is that of the ultimate woman. It’s progress – I wouldn’t trade River Song for a hundred people from Hollywood’s past – but there’s a silent repercussion, a fortification of the idea that women have to be twice as accomplished to be considered half as good, to deserve this screen time at all. They are always extraordinary, always the one in a million. Importantly, there’s no variety – only one mould to fit ourselves into. A great mould, yes, but not if you don’t fit into it.

Molly Hooper is different. Molly Hooper is kind, thoughtful, always smiling, and intelligent in a way that you don’t really notice until you remember she’s a pathologist. She asks after people and cares about the answers, remembers little details because everything someone says is important. She probably still remembers how Sherlock likes his coffee. Her blog is pink, covered in kittens, and uses Comic Sans. She blunders her way through speaking, has serious foot-in-mouth syndrome, and can’t put on a pair of plastic gloves without making faces. She is one of the strongest women I have ever seen.

She puts up with what can only be described as “total bullshit.” You might say that makes her a bit of a doormat, but for people like Molly (like me), who like kindness and hate conflict, it takes serious guts to call someone on their behaviour and say you’re hurting me. It takes guts to carry that kind of unrequited love and still first and foremost be a friend, to ask what do you need? Molly Hooper makes Sherlock Holmes, a man who can barely articulate anything beyond the scientific, try to be kinder. In the end, Molly isn’t the woman who counts [like Irene Adler], but the friend.

^THIS YES THIS 1000 TIMES OVER

how people can still think that Moffat is sexist is merely beyond me

HERE’S HOW I THINK HE’S SEXIST: THERE ARE FOUR RIVER SONGS IN HIS WORK AND ONLY ONE MOLLY HOOPER, AND MOLLY DOESN’T GET NICE THINGS. EVER.

ZSAZ, YOU ALWAYS FIND ME THE MOFFAT-LOVERS TO SHATTER. ~okay, let’s get down to business~

There’s this issue you’re not allowed to discuss: that women are needy. Men can go for longer, more happily, without women. That’s the truth. We don’t, as little boys, play at being married - we try to avoid it for as long as possible. Meanwhile women are out there hunting for husbands. Steven Moffat on Female Characters. 

Well, the world is vastly counted in favour of men at every level - except if you live in a civilised country and you’re sort of educated and middle-class, because then you’re almost certainly junior in your relationship and in a state of permanent, crippled apology. Your preferences are routinely mocked. There’s a huge, unfortunate lack of respect for anything male.” -more assholery from Steven Moffat

How about I list all the characters he’s written/created that either go through with, or intend, to have the doctor meet her as a young child, then go back and be sexually involved/attracted to her as an adult. 

Rose-  Turns out, the original plan (Devised by Paul Abbott) was to have the Doctor influence Rose’s life from the start; this was changed later on, either because it was turned into a love story and thus changed to make it less creepy, or two, because it always was a love story and someone pointed out how creepy it was. The only writer who didn’t erase references to the meta? Moffat. (“Red bicycle when you were 12”.)

Sally Sparrow: In the original Ninth Doctor short story “What I Did On My Christmas Holidays by Sally Sparrow”, which Moffat wrote for the 2006 Annual and that he then re-worked into the episode “Blink”, she was a 12-year-old girl. In the end, it turns out that the Doctor only got into contact with her because he met her older self first - a spy on mission in ‘exotic’ Istanbul, whom the Doctor calls “beautiful” and an “amazing woman” in front of the girl. 

Amy, River, and Clara are all obvious examples that I don’t need to go into detail for. Shorthand: CREEPY AS FUCK, sexualizes young girls to an extent, CREEPY AS FUCK. (This particular information/certain sections of summary comes from here)

I remember when I was reading that story as a kid, Sherlock goes on and on about The Woman, the only one who ever beat him, and you’re thinking, he’s had better villains than this. And then you click: he fancies her, doesn’t he? That’s what it’s about.-Moffat, talking about  Irene Adler and why she’s a romantic interest in his version. 

“And I thought, ‘well she’s really good. It’s just a shame she’s so wee and dumpy…When she was about to come through to the auditions I nipped out for a minute and I saw Karen walking on the corridor towards me and I realised she was 5’11, slim and gorgeous and I thought ‘Oh, oh that’ll probably work’.” -moffat, talking about hiring Karen to play Amelia in the Doctor Who confidential ‘All about the Girl’

“Your wife turns into a boat, and shortly after that, you never sleep again and you clean shit off someone. It doesn’t seem like a very appealing prospect. Obviously, the moment I saw my child, that was different, but up until that point, I was thinking, ‘how long before she gets back to normal size? Will this damage anything?’” -Moffat, talking about his wife being pregnant. 

To finish off, here’s a lovely essay on why Moffat sucks, covering his sexism, and his shoddy writing as a whole

STFU-Moffat is a great resource for examples of why he shouldn’t be given large amounts of creative control.

tagged → #feminism #society #moffat

femfreq:

Damsel in Distress: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games

This video explores how the Damsel in Distress became one of the most widely used gendered clichés in the history of gaming and why the trope has been core to the popularization and development of the medium itself.  As a trope the Damsel in Distress is a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and must then be rescued by a male character, usually providing a core incentive or motivation for the protagonist’s quest.

ABOUT THE VIDEO SERIES
The Tropes vs Women in Video Games project aims to examine the plot devices and patterns most often associated with female characters in gaming from a systemic, big picture perspective. This series will include critical analysis of many beloved games and characters, but remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects.

For more examples of the Damsel in Distress see our Tumblr for this series: http://tropesversuswomen.tumblr.com

Visit http://www.feministfrequency.com for more information, videos and a full transcript.

Found some enraging Facebook.