lostinsidethetardis:

fuckyeahfeminists:

What people mean when they say they’re not having kids.

preach.

ratingbisexuals:

#Bones acts as if everything in the galaxy is Jim’s fault #the kid is seventeen Jim why the fuck is the kid 17 what did you do 

ant-eros:

resident-tofu:

middle-women:

A Bunch Of Sad, Insecure Dudes Attacked A Woman And Everyone Got What They Deserved

When Anita Sarkeesian announced plans to do a video series exploring the portrayal of women in video games, she became the victim of a massive online attack choreographed by members of the gaming community who cast her as the “villain” in their online “game” to ruin her life. It did not go well for them. But for Anita, things ended up going very well indeed. 

You definitely want to watch the whole thing, but here are some highlights: at 1:00 she talks about why she loves video games, at 2:02 just try to imagine yourself in her shoes, at 3:45 she sticks the people attacking her under a microscope, and at 8:15 she doesn’t just win the game, she absolutely destroys it.

Watch this.

And this is why only 13% of computer science department students (on average) are sexually active. Smh.

sinidentidades:

I am not quiet during sex. I communicate my desires and ask the same of my partners. I believe that this not only creates a safe sexual environment but makes for the most pleasurable experience for everyone. If I’m making sounds that aren’t words, that more or less means I’m having a good time. People generally respond well to this type of nonverbal feedback; I’ve only had one person object to my use of nonverbal expression, and that was Peter.

Peter is a gay man I slept with once. I met him in a gay bar when I was living in New York, and I thought he was perfect. He worked with homeless queer youth. He had a dog. He was a little taller than average, and stocky, wearing jeans, a T-shirt and Puma high tops. He was bearded. He said things like “you’re so unlike everyone your age” (he was 11 years older than I) and “I never go home with anyone the night I meet them.” When he did come home with me and we were naked in my bed, he kissed my neck, and I moaned, high-pitched and breathy. He stopped, looked me in the eye and said, “Don’t do that. It’s faggy.”

Now, this was several years ago, and I hadn’t yet learned that people like Peter are to be either ignored, laughed at or taught, so I became a caricature of “not faggy”: I grunted (no more moaning), I pretended that I wasn’t hurt by what he said (feelings are for girls, as I recalled learning during childhood), and I tried to act as masculine as possible, because that is the opposite of faggy, the opposite of the femme gay man who gestures, speaks quickly in a high-pitched voice and says “darling.” I became that silly thing because I wanted Peter to love me.

He stood me up on our next date, and I never heard from him again.

Eventually surpassing the typical “what did I do wrong?” stage of self-hatred, I asked myself, “What does it mean that Peter called me faggy for expressing pleasure?” And so I learned that people like Peter are part of a larger problem: pervasive misogyny.

Typically we say that “fag,” “sissy,” “nancy,” “nelly” and “fairy” are homophobic words, and although they certainly are used to perpetuate homophobia, they are not homophobic in and of themselves; the usage of any of these words as slurs usually targets people with male-sexed bodies who do not act sufficiently masculine. They prize masculinity by demonizing femininity. This is probably rooted in some outdated, essentialist reading of gender where women are biologically the weaker, pathetic sex, but we know today that in addition to being totally offensive, gender essentialism is more or less bullshit, because women can vote and work and beat men into submission, and men can cook and clean and stay at home with the kids. But although it was relatively easy to deconstruct the misogyny in Peter’s abuse, getting to the root of why a man, while lying naked with another man and kissing him, would call that man’s expression of pleasure too gay is a more complicated subject. I would suggest that Peter calling me faggy is part of a larger queer cultural heritage.

Queer people live in a constant narrative of struggle; today we struggle for legally recognized marriage, and in 2003 we struggled for the right to have consensual sex, but 60 years ago queer role models fought for the right to exist in public or private. To gain those rights, they used an effective strategy called assimilation, which dictated that queer people look and act as much as possible like straight people. The Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis both did it intentionally in the ’50s, and it was probably the most aggressive option to say “we are normal, just like you” at a time when police were encouraged to raid gay bars, arrest patrons and publish their names and faces in the newspaper the following day. However, “just like you” literally bleached queer people of color from the movement and rendered trans people invisible, because “just like you” referred to white men in power and their wives who had the sway to validate any queer identity legally. Assimilation was successful in that discrimination against LGBT people is now illegal in many forms, but it also created an “acceptable gay man,” and he was white and masculine and certainly did not say “darling.” It also created and validated a favorite excuse for anti-gay bigotry, “I’m fine with gay people as long as they don’t flaunt it,” because suddenly there were gay people who were not “normal.” “Normal” gay men today ape that heterosexual excuse for bigotry by blaming “abnormal” gays for the the maltreatment of gays as a whole.

Peter is a “normal” gay man, so when my behavior started to drift outside “normal,” he reprimanded me much in the same way that police officers, gym teachers or parents might have done in the ’50s (and today, to be fair). And although the ’50s were over 60 years ago, that attitude remains pervasive: Look at any on gay dating website or smartphone app and you’ll see our twisted heritage as “preferences” based on a hierarchy of who can pass as a successful straight man: “Looking for masc, musc, no femmes, white only.” Though the irony that none of us is straight does not escape me, I’d like to focus more on how regressive this is; we are literally contributing to our own oppression by upholding this bizarre heritage of misogyny created in the ’50s.

So let’s make life easier on all queer people and stop mimicking the worst parts of heterosexism. Who knows? We could even begin to support each other. How revolutionary.

Would you be surprised if I told you that, according to the Bechdel Test website, only 5 of IMDB’s Top 250 passed all three Bechdel criteria in 2010? Are we really asking too much of the film industry to include two women, who talk to eachother, about something besides a man? Surely this is the bare minimum of female representation we should expect from films. Women populate more than half of the world and yet we are still so often consigned to being the ‘love interest’ whose lives centre wholly around the male protagonist even to the point where the majority of mainstream films in our cinemas seem to find it impossible, in their entire run-time, to imagine a world in which a woman conducts a conversation that is not about a man.

moniquill:

No guys, I need to stop and talk about something in this movie and how fucking revolutionary it was; something that I haven’t seen in a movie before or since.

This is a movie about a kid who leaves her birth family.

Not a kid who find that they have a secret lineage or something that allows them to find their ‘true family’ - this is a movie about a kid whose true birth family is made up of bad people. So she gets out. And that is played as the right thing to do. She isn’t punished for it or made to feel bad about ‘abandoning her family’. There isn’t an underlying ‘but they’re your family and you have to love them’ or ‘they’re your family and they love you even if they don’t show it well or do hurtful things’ message of the kind that I see OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER in media. Matilda gets out and livess happily ever after because of it.

We need a million more movies like this to counter the metric shit ton of movies that directly counter this message.

leupagus:

destronomics:

firelordazula:

greenscrewdriver:

urlgrayhot:

strbrryseason:

01. because women can’t like action or science fiction
without there being any ~female~ things tied into it.

I hate the reboot. I do. I love it for some reasons but I hate it. Arg I really can’t. 

OUCH WOW WHAT FUCKING YEAR DO YOU THINK THIS IS LINDELOF

I FUCKING TRUSTED YOU MAN

~LOL HOW DO WE WOMEN? MAYBE WE SHOULD BABBY. YES BABBY GOOD IDEA, BRING WOMEN. ALL WOMEN BABBY. WOMEN DoN’T STORY OR CHARACTERS THAT IS FOR MANS. YES GOOD JOb WELL DONE MANS.

AND THIS WAS FIVE MINUTES INTO THE FIRST MEETING?

GENE AND MAJEL OUGHT TO COME THE FUCK BACK AND SLAP YOU ALL

….lmao is this a real thing

i really don’t understand where this myth that women don’t enjoy star trek came from? like, what sort of cave of delusion do you live in

who do you think dressed up for cons and published zines and drew fanart and wrote all the fanfiction and coined the term slash back when star trek was not a franchise but a little-watched sixties TV series that was cancelled after three seasons

we helped keep this thing going and we’ve been here all along, you’re just not looking

It’s been ages now, but I was an intern at a magazine when Star Trek (2009) was doing its press tour. I transcribed a similar quote from Lindelof, and in the process lost it very, very quietly in my cube. Then made my way to the reporter’s office, closed the door, and lost it loudly. 

I mean, ffs. Who does he think SAVED THE SHOW? Who crafted one of the first successful letter writing campaigned? Who organized one of the first, legitimately successful TV Show-Specific cons? People who had a lot of time on their hands (in part by many of them being stay-at-home moms), and a lot of energy, and a lot of enthusiasm? Women.

Star Trek simply wouldn’t exist, much less exist as a property highly dependent on the enthusiasm of a small number of fans with highly soluble wallets — hell, modern fandom as we know it wouldn’t exist (we pre-date Star Wars after all) if it wasn’t for the geek culture women pioneered and crafted.

And him being so blind? And so dismissive at, well, frankly, the people that make his entire career, much less this specific job, possible? Man, I’m angry all over again.

Damon Lindelof is literally the biggest back of dicks around. Not only for this, but he’s a Roman Polanski apologist as well. Just a horrible, horrible travesty of a human being.

seeimsmiling360:

Fave quote: “You can tell how smart somebody is by what they laugh at.” ~ Tina Fey

thewhitemankilledthetruth:

pinkoscum:

thewhitemankilledthetruth:

cosmicyoruba:

lickystickypickywe:

oberlinsic:

Did you know…?

Before the 17th century, western women gave birth squatting, sitting, or standing up. This changed when King Louis XIV of France decreed that his wives and mistresses would give birth lying down so he could witness the birth of his children. Although this position often makes birth more difficult and painful, it soon became the norm. Before long, the number of obstetric instruments multiplied to address the added difficulty, and the view of birth as an emergency that required medical attention spread quickly. 

White men can’t judge.

^^^

do modern doctors not know this? why not just fucking do something about it?

of course modern doctors know this; that’s not the problem

the problem is that anything other than “the usual” involves specialists/time/money/all sorts of bullshit

I guess, although it seems like it’d be pretty easy to say “hey, just squat here and the baby will just slide on out”