Really? Men want to make all these weak ass “women should be in the kitchen jokes” and then they want to pull shit like this
Fuck u top chef Canada and ur sexist bullshit
A woman’s place is in the kitchen, unless we suddenly want to act like being in the kitchen is respectable difficult work. Then women need to get the fuck out, right?
There’s absolutely no way you can excuse this ad as not sexist.
Avenger Black Widow is one of the best bets, as a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent who has already proven herself on-screen, and with a spy skill set that can break superhero cinema out of the usual origin-story rut…But instead of being seen as powerful and dynamic characters who could lead their own films, a double standard is applied to superheroines. The men lead, and the women support, no matter how powerful their characters are. Marvel head Kevin Feige has actually repeatedly expressed happiness at how his company has handled female superheroes. He is perfectly happy to have the female characters support the men, rather than feel pressure over the company’s very recognizable exclusion of female stars: “I’m very proud of the way the Marvel movies handle the female characters […] as opposed to feeling the pressure of ‘When are you doing a female movie?’”
Intentional or not, Feige’s words express a palpable disinterest in the female superheroes audiences clearly want to see. In the same interview, he blows off the idea of a Black Widow solo movie with that same old standby: “If we had a great idea, we’d do it.”
The fact is that if Feige desired it, it would happen — and the Marvel head has a history of making his desires a reality. “It became a secret dream” of his “to have a second bite at the apple” when Hulk crashed and burned in 2003. In five short years, Bruce Banner was back for The Incredible Hulk — another film that missed the mark, before the character finally hit, four years later, when Mark Ruffalo took over in The Avengers. That time, Feige made it happen, and poor returns on Marvel’s investments didn’t stop him.
You know something I found interesting?
Is how when people meet dogs, they’ll say something like
“He’s so cute!”
And the owner will shyly respond with “she’s a girl, actually”
And the person will apologize and IMMEDIATELY start using the right pronouns.
So my question is,
If its so easy to do with DOGS why is it so fucking difficult to do with trans people?
If you’re a woman and you don’t wear enough make-up, there’s about an 85% chance that the first person you see when you leave the house will ask if you’re tired or sick…
Conversely, if some dude’s inbuilt conceal-o-meter scans your eyeliner as a millimetre thicker than the Department of Warpaint’s cat eye regulations, you’re likely to be charged with five counts of Offences Against Natural Beauty…
Part of this phenomenon is that a lot of people, and almost all men, don’t understand how make-up works. Make-up was, and still is to a large extent, one of those private self-maintenance tasks ladies perform out of male view, because putting it on openly fucks with the illusion it’s supposed to create. Traditional make-up - and especially ‘no make-up make-up’ - is supposed to make your face look ‘naturally beautiful’…
Sponging on the foundation where dudes can see messes with men’s suspension of disbelief and can even cause anger, confusion or disgust. You tricked me!, he thinks. I thought you were a natural beauty! Now I see [it was] an illusion… “If I know she wears make-up,” muses the dude, “maybe she burps and farts as well. That’s not hot at all, and women are supposed to be hot…”
Wearing ‘too much’ make-up also renders the make-up itself visible, rather than contributing to the impression of a woman’s inbuilt, effortless fuckability. It’s often connected to unbecoming displays of overt sexuality: … ‘that heavy eye shadow makes you look like a whore’…
This does open up the enticing possibility of using make-up in rebellious ways, though - playing with colour and glitter or doing a hot pink lip can make you look fantastic and repel men who expect more subtlety in make-up practice. Or you could take a more direct approach, like writing IT’S NOT FOR YOU across your cheek in green shimmer eyeliner. You go girl.
Men want us to kiss them with beards, suck their dicks and kiss their balls with pubes, hug them with hairy arm pits, intwine our legs with hairy thighs, but if women have one hair on our body that isn’t on our head it’s disgusting
Just last week, a 7th grader with a curvy build came home upset about this. She had worn an outfit with a skirt and leggings, and in the morning, a teacher had said to her, “Cute outfit.” But then her homeroom teacher pulled her aside at the end of the day and said, “You know, another girl could get away with that outfit, but you should not be wearing that. I’m going to dress code you.” Juliet Bond and the child’s mom were discussing the incident, not certain if the message to the child was ‘you’re too sexy’ or ‘you’re too fat.’
The kids also report that the teachers have been discussing ‘appropriate body types for leggings and yoga pants and inappropriate body types for yoga pants and leggings.’
Bond says, “This is concerning because it is both slut shaming and fat shaming. If a girl is heavy or developed, the message is that she cannot wear certain clothes.” Neither is acceptable. We should not be sexualizing kids, nor should we be making them feel that they can wear leggings as long as they remain stick thin. Bond asks, “Why are the girls being pulled out of class to have assemblies on whether they are wearing the right clothes, while the boys remain in class, learning and studying?”
I don’t have a problem with a school having a dress code; in fact, I attended a school that didn’t allow jeans or shorts or shirts without collars, but I do have a problem when the dress code is discriminately based on gender and body type. There is a big difference between telling all students to dress respectfully and telling curvy girls to dress in a way that doesn’t distract boys.
I think Natalie Portman said something brilliant about modern-day female action heroes, about how even though they’re strong you need to also see the messiness of everyday life, that complexity. Even with Peggy Carter… Can we see her have a really shit day, put her pyjamas on and eat loads of ice cream and weep into chick flick? Can we have her be neurotic, hysterical, funny, depressed and all those things that we all relate to that aren’t regularly depicted because they’re not seen as sexy or comfortable for men to watch and masturbate over?
Hayley Atwell, on Why female action heroes are more than fodder for male fantasies. (via peggyleads)
We need our female heroes to be as real as possible so we know we can be heroic, too, each in our own way.
I am sick and tired of the way we critique misogyny in fandom.
Why is it always “shame fanwork creators (overwhelmingly young women and queer ppl) for not including enough female characters” and never “question the fact that we’ve created a media culture where canonical female characters are by and large so boring that no one wants to create fanworks based on them?” (Not to mention the fact that any person who dares to include an original female character in a fic will have the deadly accusation of “Mary Sue” leveled at them, even if they’ve written the most well-rounded character in the world)
Why do we talk about the danger of fetishization when straight women are writing about male/male pairings, and never think about the fact that slash is often being written by young women who have been socialized to be so ashamed of their sexuality that their own fantasies never include people of their own gender?
Why are we placing the burden for destroying problematic tropes about sexuality and romance exclusively on this tiny, relatively powerless subculture made up of relatively powerless people who are creating media exclusively for their own enjoyment, and not on the gigantic megacorporations that are profiting off the romanticization of abusive, unhealthy, destructive relationships, an attitude fans are only repeating?
Why do defenses of fic always turn to “it’s not all gay porn !!!1!!!!111” as an argument? What’s wrong with people creating erotica that they can enjoy, when almost no one is making mainstream porn for the audience that reads fic, when people can explore potentially problematic or even dangerous kinks/desires without actual performers having to participate in making video porn, when the “gay porn” side of fandom can lead to some of the most wonderfully freeing discussions about sexuality possible in our society?
Say I write a fanfiction. The only female character complies to the problematic sassy/helpful best friend trope, mostly because the story revolves around two main male characters (well-developed in canon, with lots of canon jokes about how much they love each other, and played by male actors I find extremely attractive) getting together and having a fair amount of extremely explicit sex. This fic is read by, oh, 200 people, all of whom are already familiar with the conventions of fandom. How does that compare to the literal millions of people who watched, for example, the first Hobbit movie, which contained (as I recall) no women or queer characters at all, and had an audience full of all kinds of people, likely including little girls who are looking up on screen and learning that their stories aren’t seen as worth telling?
I’m not saying fandom tropes aren’t harmful, I’m just saying we should look at the scope of the damage done by them as opposed to, oh, every other kind of media ever, and then think about why we’ve chosen to shit all over the not-for-profit hobbies of young women and queer people.
[I]magine what would happen if, instead of centering our beliefs about heterosexual sex around the idea that the man “penetrates” the woman, we were to say that the woman’s vagina “consumes” the man’s penis. This would create a very different set of connotations, as the woman would become the active initiator and the man would be the passive and receptive party. One can easily see how this could lead to men and masculinity being seen as dependent on, and existing for the benefit of, femaleness and femininity. Similarly, if we thought about the feminine traits of being verbally effusive and emotive not as signs of insecurity or dependence, but as bold acts of self-expression, then the masculine ideal of the “strong and silent” type might suddenly seem timid and insecure by comparison.
Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity (“Putting the Feminine Back into Feminism,” pg 329)
The news that Sofia Coppola will direct a live-action adaptation of The Little Mermaid probably, rightfully will be lauded as an encouraging development for women in Hollywood. There are a number of successful female directors in the film industry (although not nearly enough), but it’s still shockingly rare that one gets assigned such a high-profile studio project.
Yet the producers of the film deserve props not (only) for choosing a woman director, but for choosing the perfect director for the story they’re going to tell.
Coppola’s films are known for their aesthetic beauty and moody, dream-like atmosphere. But her works all share something else, too. She’s not a political filmmaker per se, but the world that she depicts is one in which women are oppressed—not necessarily by men, but by cultural myths. Whether portraying a strictly traditional monarchy (Marie Antoinette), a fame- and image-obsessed society (The Bling Ring), or the all-American horny teenager (The Virgin Suicides), Coppola’s films rebel against a world that dictates the rules for women and then punishes them for playing by them.
The Little Mermaid follows the exact same template, but takes the punishment even further.
Source: The Atlantic
Page 1 of 36