Photo
rookiemag:

Why Can’t I Be You: Alison Bechdel

The cartoonist of Dykes to Watch Out For, Fun Home, and Are You My Mother? tells us how she got started. Interview by Brodie. Collage by Ruby A.

rookiemag:

Why Can’t I Be You: Alison Bechdel

The cartoonist of Dykes to Watch Out ForFun Home, and Are You My Mother? tells us how she got started. Interview by Brodie. Collage by Ruby A.

(via fishingboatproceeds)

Text

Red Flags for Female Characters

freedoms-progress:

1. If something would be boring and/or undramatic for a male character, it would probably be boring and/or undramatic for a female character. If you’re writing a female character (particularly in a major role), I’d recommend thinking about whether you’d want to read about a male character in that situation or with that trait. If not, then you’re probably boring your readers.

2. The character is useless. Have you made a main character more or less helpless for most of the story? Does she watch as the story happens around her? Does she get repeatedly saved by other characters when the going gets rough? Please think back to #1. You’d probably be bored reading about a more or less helpless guy, right? Your readers will be just as bored by a helpless female.

3. The character’s only defining trait is being hyper-smart or (more rarely) a total ditz. That’s fine for one character among several, but if she’s your only significant female character, it’ll raise questions about your ability to handle female characters at a more relatable level of intelligence. If you’re having trouble with more relatable female characters, I’d recommend checking out some Meg Cabot books, Mean Girls and/or Pride and Prejudice.

3.1. The character is totally pure. A character that always does the right thing and has no motivations besides being friendly/agreeable/nice is probably pretty boring. 100% pure characters strain the suspension of disbelief, are less relatable and usually less dramatic. For whatever reason, these types of boring characters are almost always women.

4. Your readers will probably be able to tell if you have not read many female main characters written by female authors. If you don’t have the firsthand experience of actually being a female, being well-read is probably the closest you’ll get to seeing the subtle distinctions between most women and most men in terms of perspective, dialogue and actions. Conversely, when I’m reading manuscripts, the easiest way for me to pick out male characters written by female authors is when 1) the character is hyper-introspective and collected (even in a crisis) and the author doesn’t realize that’s unusual, and/or 2) a male character notices far too many irrelevant details, such as eye color and hair color, and the author inadvertently makes it sound like the character’s ogling someone or writing a fashion review.

5. The character is a love interest that doesn’t have a role outside of romance. She’ll probably be a more interesting love interest if she has something else going on. For example, Lois Lane is (occasionally) a competent reporter whose investigations sometimes tie into Superman’s work. Pepper Potts figured out who kidnapped Tony Stark by breaking into Stane’s office. Ramona Flowers from Scott Pilgrim had a penchant for awesomeness and a mallet. Also, she was a ninja courier for Amazon.

5.1. The character is defined by her physical attractiveness and/or sex appeal. If you consider physical attractiveness one of the three most interesting things about a major character, I would recommend rethinking the character’s development because most likely the character is a love interest that is interesting only to the author. (Think back to #1–you wouldn’t want to read about a guy whose main trait was his handsomeness, would you?) Also, please bear in mind that most of the professionals evaluating your submission will probably be ladies, so you won’t even have the titillation angle working in your favor.

6. The character has no substantial goals besides going along with other characters and/or getting in bed with somebody. If you’re going to bother writing in a character, I’d recommend giving him/her some sort of independent effect on the plot. If not, why bother having the character? Fortunately, you don’t need to give a character much space to give her/him a role to play. For example, Neville Longbottom had around a page of dialogue (~350 words) in the first Harry Potter book and he still managed to raise the stakes for the protagonists by growing a spine at absolutely the worst moment. (Dumbledore’s recognition of his badassery was probably the highlight of the first book for me).

7. The character is mute. In general, I think the mindset behind this decision is “I’m having a lot of trouble writing dialogue for females, so I’ll just make her mute.” In this case, muting a major female character will only draw attention to how bad you think your female dialogue is. I’d strongly recommend practicing your female dialogue instead–the practice will help, and at least you’ll get out of instant-rejection territory.

(Source: superheronation.com, via fixyourwritinghabits)

Link

bourbakiaxiom:

"We must not forget that most violence against women is perpetrated not by a stranger, but by men they know", writes Tom Meagher, husband of the murdered Jill Meagher.

"The monster myth allows us to see public infractions on women’s sovereignty as minor, because the man committing the infraction is not a monster…."

Text

isitbatman:

I hate seeing shit about fathers having a big ol’ grand warning to boys who want to date their daughter (even if they mention mothers too) because it’s so patriarchal and ‘women are owned by a dominant power’-y 

and if you doubt that just think about how you probably haven’t heard one about dating sons 

(via fandoms-feminism)

Photo
therainbowgorilla:

political-dissonance:

therainbowgorilla:

apersnicketylemon:

political-dissonance:

I thought I’d post this so I could get a few dozen pro-choicers to try and convince me that they only use it because it’s “scientifically accurate”. Have at it, we know the real truth!

fe·tus 
Noun
An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.
Synonyms
foetus - embryo - germ
—-
ba·by  NounA very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.AdjectiveComparatively small or immature of its kind: “a baby grand piano”.VerbTreat (someone) as a baby; pamper or be overprotective toward: “her aunt babied her”.Synonymsnoun.      infant - babe - child - kidadjective.      infantile - babyish - infant - children’sverb.      coddle - pamper
Now, even if you want to call a fetus (Which is the actual word for that stage of development, other stages include zygote, blastocyst and embryo) a person no person has ever had the right to use another persons body for any reason -including the preservation of their life- without that persons consent.
If you want to say abortion should be illegal then you are granting a group the right to use someones body without consent. That grants a fetus more rights than any born person. Please explain how that sounds like equality and not the oppression of every single person with a uterus.

Denying abortions also would make pregnant people have less right to their bodies than friken corpses.

Thank you for that well thought out and reasoned response. Corpses are what you have after you’ve aborted a human baby

Fetus. We just went the fuck over this. Fetus. That is the exact term for this stage of development. If we can call a fetus a baby, then I can call a two year old child an adult. But you don’t call a child the same thing as an adult, because they are two different terms for two different stages of development. It is completely incorrect to assert that a fetus is a baby. Calling a fetus a baby is solely emotional manipulation. The fucking word is fetus.
Nonetheless, my point was that corpses have bodily autonomy whereas you’re trying to take bodily autonomy from sentient, alive, born people. 
Now, if someone does not consent to being an organ donor while they are alive, do you think we should be allowed to take their organs when they die anyway? Guess what, that’s not how it works. When someone does not consent to being an organ donor while they are alive, then even when they die, their right to bodily autonomy remains. 
Even corpses are given the right to bodily autonomy.
By banning abortions, we would be stripping pregnant people of their right to bodily autonomy, something even corpses have.
You are literally trying to give pregnant people less rights to their body than corpses. 
Now, let’s talk about the “right to life” you probably think the fetus has. Even if we did give that right to fetuses, their right to life would not supersede anyone’s rights to their own body. If you were dying right next to me, and you could only live if I gave you one of my kidneys, guess what- If I didn’t want to give you my kidney, I wouldn’t fucking have to. You know why? Because your “right to life” still cannot infringe on my right to bodily autonomy. If the “right to life” superseded anyone’s right to bodily autonomy, then frequent organ donations and blood donations would be compulsory. But the “right to life” of people who need organ donations and blood donations cannot infringe on anyone’s right to bodily autonomy.
Likewise, even if we granted the fetus personhood, whatever “right to life” the fetus had could not infringe on my right to bodily autonomy. If the fetus is inside of me, using my body against my will, then it’s “right to life” is infringing upon my right to bodily autonomy. If I don’t have to give up a kidney even if you would die without it, then I do not have to give up my whole body to a fetus even if it would die without it. 

therainbowgorilla:

political-dissonance:

therainbowgorilla:

apersnicketylemon:

political-dissonance:

I thought I’d post this so I could get a few dozen pro-choicers to try and convince me that they only use it because it’s “scientifically accurate”. Have at it, we know the real truth!

fe·tus 

Noun

An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

Synonyms

foetus - embryo - germ

—-

ba·by 
Noun
A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.
Adjective
Comparatively small or immature of its kind: “a baby grand piano”.
Verb
Treat (someone) as a baby; pamper or be overprotective toward: “her aunt babied her”.
Synonyms
noun.      infant - babe - child - kid
adjective.      infantile - babyish - infant - children’s
verb.     

coddle - pamper

Now, even if you want to call a fetus (Which is the actual word for that stage of development, other stages include zygote, blastocyst and embryo) a person no person has ever had the right to use another persons body for any reason -including the preservation of their life- without that persons consent.

If you want to say abortion should be illegal then you are granting a group the right to use someones body without consent. That grants a fetus more rights than any born person. Please explain how that sounds like equality and not the oppression of every single person with a uterus.

Denying abortions also would make pregnant people have less right to their bodies than friken corpses.

Thank you for that well thought out and reasoned response. Corpses are what you have after you’ve aborted a human baby

Fetus. We just went the fuck over this. Fetus. That is the exact term for this stage of development. If we can call a fetus baby, then I can call a two year old child an adult. But you don’t call a child the same thing as an adult, because they are two different terms for two different stages of development. It is completely incorrect to assert that a fetus is a baby. Calling a fetus a baby is solely emotional manipulation. The fucking word is fetus.

Nonetheless, my point was that corpses have bodily autonomy whereas you’re trying to take bodily autonomy from sentient, alive, born people. 

Now, if someone does not consent to being an organ donor while they are alive, do you think we should be allowed to take their organs when they die anyway? Guess what, that’s not how it works. When someone does not consent to being an organ donor while they are alive, then even when they die, their right to bodily autonomy remains. 

Even corpses are given the right to bodily autonomy.

By banning abortions, we would be stripping pregnant people of their right to bodily autonomy, something even corpses have.

You are literally trying to give pregnant people less rights to their body than corpses. 

Now, let’s talk about the “right to life” you probably think the fetus has. Even if we did give that right to fetuses, their right to life would not supersede anyone’s rights to their own body. If you were dying right next to me, and you could only live if I gave you one of my kidneys, guess what- If I didn’t want to give you my kidney, I wouldn’t fucking have to. You know why? Because your “right to life” still cannot infringe on my right to bodily autonomy. If the “right to life” superseded anyone’s right to bodily autonomy, then frequent organ donations and blood donations would be compulsory. But the “right to life” of people who need organ donations and blood donations cannot infringe on anyone’s right to bodily autonomy.

Likewise, even if we granted the fetus personhood, whatever “right to life” the fetus had could not infringe on my right to bodily autonomy. If the fetus is inside of me, using my body against my will, then it’s “right to life” is infringing upon my right to bodily autonomy. If I don’t have to give up a kidney even if you would die without it, then I do not have to give up my whole body to a fetus even if it would die without it. 

(via quixoticcosmos)

Photoset
Photoset

(Source: pattinsonly, via marinashutup)

Photoset

Sansa Stark meme || (3/9) Quotes
↳ “What do you pray for, Sansa?”  I pray for Robb’s victory and Joffrey’s death… and for home. For Winterfell.

(via marinashutup)

Photo
moonglitch:

X
Photoset

Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse | Singin’ in the Rain, 1952

(Source: normajeanebaker, via peanutsthewidowsnape)

Link

pinklikeme:

clementive:

Ok. I’m tired of the typical vampire, werewolf and fairy.I’m also tired of the occidental-centrism in mythology. Hence, this list.

I tried to included as many cultural variants as I could find and think of. (Unfortunately, I was restricted by language. Some…

Text

poopbitches asked: I read this great Harry Potter theory about getting sorted into houses. The people in Gryffindor all chose to be in that house. Harry did not want to be in Slytherin. Ron wanted to be in Gryfifindor like this family. Hermione wanted to be more than just book smart. Each of them expressed a preference for Gryffindor on the Hogwarts express. Neville wanted to be greater than everyone's expectations! So if you want to be a Gryffindor, you can, because you have to be brave to choose your fate. <3

thesylverlining:

OH I REALLY LIKE THAT ;A;

Photoset

odins-one-eyed-fuck:

in-love-with-my-bed:

capsicleandmetalman:

finnyisintheimpala:

cocoparadis:

circusbones:

gregore:

The Avengers give Peter Parker a ‘hair cut’.

“HOW.”

my little american

THOR OMG

This isn’t science 

thank.

There isnt a single part of this that isnt gold

(via peanutsthewidowsnape)

Photoset
Photoset