Spears
Spears

Spears

Tce
Tce

Tce

Lets Talk About
Lets Talk About

Lets Talk About

Lets Talk
Lets Talk

Lets Talk

His
His

His

Edited
Edited

Edited

Looks
Looks

Looks

The
The

The

Looks Like
Looks Like

Looks Like

Lacrosse
Lacrosse

Lacrosse

🔥 | Latest

Apparently, Chris Evans, and Fuck You: Jennifer Medina @jenniferjmedina Yup, looks about what was expected. Steven Pruitt has made nearly 3 million edits on Wikipedia and writtern 35,000 original articles all for free. CBSNEWS.COM Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia George @geochirper this tweet is fucking horrible this man is literally providing the world with free knowledge and you think criticising his appearance is funny? Fuck you lesbiansandpuns: naamahdarling: infowarts: infowarts: wormbabie: concretecatholic: celticpyro: positive-memes: People should thank this man Sorry Jennifer not everybody can look like Chris Evans while doing a huge service to the general public. Anyway this guy is amazing. Did you see the video? He has such a glowing personality and his eagerness to share knowledge is infectious. some people will take any chance they can to dehumanize fat people theres also been a motion to write more articles about women because the gap in articles about men vs articles about women is astronomically huge, and he’s written hundreds or thousands of them and is a huge proponent of this. he’s done a lot of great work and he spends countless hours a day researching things so that we have access to that knowledge. he’s a hero. he doesnt do it for money either, tho apparently his regular job also involves research. but he does this purely because he believes in how important it is for information to be free. he’s done 600 articles on women as a part of this push for more He looks like a nice guy and I know people like to sneer at it but Wikipedia is a good, ACCESSIBLE starting point for learning about things, so like, haters can fuck all the way off. “How much money do you make from this?”“None.” “So why do you do it?” “The idea of it, making it all free, fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union. So I’m very conscious of what it can mean to make knowledge free. To make information free.”  how can you hear that and think anything other than that this is a brilliant, kind, generous man
Apparently, Chris Evans, and Fuck You: Jennifer Medina
 @jenniferjmedina
 Yup, looks about what was expected.
 Steven Pruitt has made nearly 3 million edits on Wikipedia and writtern
 35,000 original articles all for free.
 CBSNEWS.COM
 Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia
 George
 @geochirper
 this tweet is fucking horrible this man is
 literally providing the world with free
 knowledge and you think criticising his
 appearance is funny? Fuck you
lesbiansandpuns:

naamahdarling:

infowarts:

infowarts:

wormbabie:

concretecatholic:

celticpyro:


positive-memes:
People should thank this man
Sorry Jennifer not everybody can look like Chris Evans while doing a huge service to the general public. 
Anyway this guy is amazing.


Did you see the video? He has such a glowing personality and his eagerness to share knowledge is infectious. 


some people will take any chance they can to dehumanize fat people  

theres also been a motion to write more articles about women because the gap in articles about men vs articles about women is astronomically huge, and he’s written hundreds or thousands of them and is a huge proponent of this. he’s done a lot of great work and he spends countless hours a day researching things so that we have access to that knowledge. he’s a hero. he doesnt do it for money either, tho apparently his regular job also involves research. but he does this purely because he believes in how important it is for information to be free. 

he’s done 600 articles on women as a part of this push for more

He looks like a nice guy and I know people like to sneer at it but Wikipedia is a good, ACCESSIBLE starting point for learning about things, so like, haters can fuck all the way off.

“How much money do you make from this?”“None.”
“So why do you do it?”
“The idea of it, making it all free, fascinates me. My mother grew up in the Soviet Union. So I’m very conscious of what it can mean to make knowledge free. To make information free.” 
how can you hear that and think anything other than that this is a brilliant, kind, generous man

lesbiansandpuns: naamahdarling: infowarts: infowarts: wormbabie: concretecatholic: celticpyro: positive-memes: People should thank t...

Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.  It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.  I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.  Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.  What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:  Also:  He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works Lol body painting literally Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way

what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: aunti...

Fashion, Feminism, and Fucking: GOOD MORNING A WOMAN A CREWMAN duckbunny: quirkquartz: socialistexan: jazzchordravepiano: wetwareproblem: amayakumiko: thetrekkiehasthephonebox: spocks–cock: Christopher: A woman? Kirk: A crewman. OH LOOK AT THAT THE 1960S AND SHE’S IN COMMAND GOLD FUCKERS. She’s not in Medical blue, a caretaking, feminine role.   Those in Gold were either OFFICERS, NAVIGATORS, PILOTS, TACTICAL OFFICERS, or WEAPONS SPECIALISTS.   This is the Kirk everyone likes to forget. Y’all, if you care about feminism, then you ought to care about the history and context of the miniskirt. The 60s were an era of rebellion against the 50s, and the skirts were part of it. They were literally cutting edge fashion, and a statement that women made against the more housewifey style of skirt from the decade before. It was Grace Lee Whitney herself who suggested to Roddenberry that they wear them, and Nichelle Nichols has said she never had a problem with them. They are a product of their time yes, but the women chose to wear them because of the context of that time.  Also some men in Starfleet ware miniskirts and dresses: And some of the women wear pants: They’re given the power of choice, regardless of gender or sex. Shit ‘-’ None of this even clicked to me - Thats fucking glorious :D Picard in that dress is so good. Look at him! He looks formal and serious and dignified! He looks like he’s captain of his ship and he’s got some important business to do. And he’s in a dress and tights. And it’s not a joke. It’s not a joke about a man in a dress! It’s just, you know, a man who is wearing a dress, and that’s normal and appropriate. It’s part of the uniform. It fits him. It’s totally unremarkable and that is so rare and I’m so happy.
Fashion, Feminism, and Fucking: GOOD MORNING

 A WOMAN
 A CREWMAN
duckbunny:

quirkquartz:


socialistexan:

jazzchordravepiano:

wetwareproblem:

amayakumiko:

thetrekkiehasthephonebox:

spocks–cock:

Christopher: A woman? Kirk: A crewman.

OH LOOK AT THAT THE 1960S

AND SHE’S IN COMMAND GOLD FUCKERS.
She’s not in Medical blue, a caretaking, feminine role.  
Those in Gold were either OFFICERS, NAVIGATORS, PILOTS, TACTICAL OFFICERS, or WEAPONS SPECIALISTS.  

This is the Kirk everyone likes to forget.

Y’all, if you care about feminism, then you ought to care about the history and context of the miniskirt. The 60s were an era of rebellion against the 50s, and the skirts were part of it. They were literally cutting edge fashion, and a statement that women made against the more housewifey style of skirt from the decade before. It was Grace Lee Whitney herself who suggested to Roddenberry that they wear them, and Nichelle Nichols has said she never had a problem with them. They are a product of their time yes, but the women chose to wear them because of the context of that time. 

Also some men in Starfleet ware miniskirts and dresses:
And some of the women wear pants:
They’re given the power of choice, regardless of gender or sex. 

Shit ‘-’ None of this even clicked to me - Thats fucking glorious :D


Picard in that dress is so good. Look at him! He looks formal and serious and dignified! He looks like he’s captain of his ship and he’s got some important business to do. And he’s in a dress and tights. And it’s not a joke. It’s not a joke about a man in a dress! It’s just, you know, a man who is wearing a dress, and that’s normal and appropriate. It’s part of the uniform. It fits him. It’s totally unremarkable and that is so rare and I’m so happy.

duckbunny: quirkquartz: socialistexan: jazzchordravepiano: wetwareproblem: amayakumiko: thetrekkiehasthephonebox: spocks–cock: Chri...

Tumblr, Devil, and Blog: nursary: elevenacres: Harvey Ball- creator of The Smiley Face he looks like hes seen the devil with his own two eyes! good for him
Tumblr, Devil, and Blog: nursary:

elevenacres:

Harvey Ball- creator of The Smiley Face

he looks like hes seen the devil with his own two eyes! good for him

nursary: elevenacres: Harvey Ball- creator of The Smiley Face he looks like hes seen the devil with his own two eyes! good for him