You're so much braver than I give you credit for
thankyoulordforhenrycavill:

love-and-radiation:

J. Bone redesigns Superman so that he can best use his solar-based powers.


hmm, there’s an idea. somebody send this to zack snyder.

thankyoulordforhenrycavill:

love-and-radiation:

J. Bone redesigns Superman so that he can best use his solar-based powers.

hmm, there’s an idea. somebody send this to zack snyder.

familydrivenbyfate:

DEADPOOL MOVIE IS OFFICIAL!

I REPEAT

DEADPOOL MOVIE IS OFFICIAL!

image

image

terminal-bisexuality:

When gay people are assumed to be straight it’s heteronormativity.
When bisexuals are assumed to be straight it’s “Straight passing privilege”

arte-mysia:

daughterofargus:

turnedtostardust:

fegeleh:

thegeekyblonde:

livianalemay:

waltdisneyconfessions:

"Mother Gothel’s design makes me uncomfortable. Her dark, thick, curly hair, her sharp nose, and the way her features are generally perceived as more "ethnic" in comparison to all the other human characters in Tangled—it all reminds me of an archetype for Jewish women"

Interesting fact: The stereotypical witch found in fairy tales was usually portrayed as the stereotypical Jew in order to spread anti Semitic propaganda.
This is also where we get the “greedy Jew” stereotype, as goblins, hobgoblins, gnomes and dwarves were also portrayed as the harmful Jewish archetype.
In the middle ages, it was a sin for a Christian to hoard or handle large amounts of money, which left the profitable banking industry open to Jews. It’s ridiculous that Christians created the stereotype to avoid a sin, and this stereotype is still portrayed and spread today

I’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS especially since if mother gothel looks like a nazi propaganda-esque jewish woman, and she steals the most aryan-looking baby in the kingdom to use its essence in a ceremony…
like does that smell like blood libel or am i paranoid

RELEVANT

glegrumbles, is this pretty much the summary of whatever sources you were going to pull out on the matter of stereotypical witch appearances being derived from anti-Semitic stereotypes?

… yet another reason I conflated Mother Gothel with my own mother
#antisemitism #anti-Semitism #blood libel

I knew a woman who did her thesis on the subject of how Medieval scholars turned other people into monsters.  It is not surprising that Swift made the Yahoos out to be very like the Celts, and as mentioned here, the way in which Jews were turned into goblins.  Ogres are another case of turning a group of people into monsters.  Ogre comes from the same root as Hungar…as in Hungary.  Ogres were intended to be a representation of Hungarians.


Mother Gothel has always made me uncomfortable. The genesis of her story reeks of a narrative that has been twisted by the victors. This flower belongs to no one, and this woman has used it for centuries as her secret to immortality.  Her choice to not share the magic is framed as “hoarding,” but turns out to be the exact right instinct because as soon as other people get their hands on it they take this renewable magical resource and destroy it, in the name of a rich white lady. Gothel isn’t even there to kidnap Rapunzel that night, she’s just trying to get a piece of that magic back.  It’s only when it turns out that doesn’t work that she takes the baby.

arte-mysia:

daughterofargus:

turnedtostardust:

fegeleh:

thegeekyblonde:

livianalemay:

waltdisneyconfessions:

"Mother Gothel’s design makes me uncomfortable. Her dark, thick, curly hair, her sharp nose, and the way her features are generally perceived as more "ethnic" in comparison to all the other human characters in Tangled—it all reminds me of an archetype for Jewish women"

Interesting fact: The stereotypical witch found in fairy tales was usually portrayed as the stereotypical Jew in order to spread anti Semitic propaganda.

This is also where we get the “greedy Jew” stereotype, as goblins, hobgoblins, gnomes and dwarves were also portrayed as the harmful Jewish archetype.

In the middle ages, it was a sin for a Christian to hoard or handle large amounts of money, which left the profitable banking industry open to Jews. It’s ridiculous that Christians created the stereotype to avoid a sin, and this stereotype is still portrayed and spread today

I’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR MONTHS especially since if mother gothel looks like a nazi propaganda-esque jewish woman, and she steals the most aryan-looking baby in the kingdom to use its essence in a ceremony…

like does that smell like blood libel or am i paranoid

RELEVANT

glegrumbles, is this pretty much the summary of whatever sources you were going to pull out on the matter of stereotypical witch appearances being derived from anti-Semitic stereotypes?

… yet another reason I conflated Mother Gothel with my own mother

#antisemitism #anti-Semitism #blood libel

I knew a woman who did her thesis on the subject of how Medieval scholars turned other people into monsters.  It is not surprising that Swift made the Yahoos out to be very like the Celts, and as mentioned here, the way in which Jews were turned into goblins.  Ogres are another case of turning a group of people into monsters.  Ogre comes from the same root as Hungar…as in Hungary.  Ogres were intended to be a representation of Hungarians.

Mother Gothel has always made me uncomfortable. The genesis of her story reeks of a narrative that has been twisted by the victors. This flower belongs to no one, and this woman has used it for centuries as her secret to immortality. Her choice to not share the magic is framed as “hoarding,” but turns out to be the exact right instinct because as soon as other people get their hands on it they take this renewable magical resource and destroy it, in the name of a rich white lady. Gothel isn’t even there to kidnap Rapunzel that night, she’s just trying to get a piece of that magic back. It’s only when it turns out that doesn’t work that she takes the baby.

Jesus f***ing Christ! People are really hellbent on sabotaging Agent Carter before it has even aired! Thank you for preachy that gospel. The standards women and female-led projects have to meet to be considered worthy of admiration and/or 'truly' feminist is absolutely insane. Meanwhile, someone like Chris Evans (whom I admittedly love) has made some pretty questionable statements about women but gets universally worshiped. Okay.

shardsofblu:

atwellling:

1. If you’re boycotting Agent Carter for whatever reasons, but are not willing to extend the same boycott to the rest of the Marvel Studios properties for the same reasons, I’m calling bullshit. Plain and simple.

2. And let’s not pretend like if a female-led project like Agent Carter actually fails, it would be analyzed and concluded by the mainstream as being a failure for any other reason than the very fact that it was female-led in the first place. Like, let’s imagine if Lucy has actually bombed at the box-office, would there really be a widespread discussion about how one of the reasons it may have failed is because of its disgusting racial politics, rather than simply because its star is a female superhero? 

3. And yes, many would go to great lengths to defend, tolerate and live with the flaws, imperfections or just plain shittiness in their white dude movies/tv shows and their actors, but are rarely willing to bear the same standard for people other than the aforementioned white dudes.

youve-doomed-us-all-jerk:

herochan:

Twentieth Century Fox and Marvel Comics are moving ahead with their long-gestating X-Men spinoff Deadpool.

On Thursday, the studio announced that the movie will hit theaters Feb. 12, 2016. Tim Miller is set to direct the film, with Ryan Reynolds long rumored to star, although no deal is set. 

Remember that “leaked footage” from the end of July? And this post which said; "The thing to remember is that “leaking” footage can be a marketing tactic to gauge response or build hype. Be it by a creator, studio or publisher. On a project that “seems to be in limbo” according to Ryan Reynolds in recent interviews, it isn’t absurd to think this could have been intentional." It seems pretty plausible now. Tell your date on Valentine’s Day 2016 that you knew what was up. Yeah, nobody saw a Valentine’s Day release date for a Deadpool movie coming. 

OH MY GOD.OH MY GOD.OH MY GOD.

Your tags about Sierra in Dollhouse give me life. That show could've been magic and instead I feel cheated. WHEDON.

actualmenacebuckybarnes:

somuchbraver:

actualmenacebuckybarnes:

FOREVER BITTER ABOUT SIERRA

Read More

I don’t get it. Like, I’m not a big Dollhouse fan, so I’m happy to admit it was riddled with problems, and I know Whedon needs to figure his shit out in terms of race, but I think Sierra’s story was really powerful and in some ways much more meaningful than Echo’s story. The corruption inside the Dollhouse was one of the more compelling parts of the series for me, and what happened with Sierra was a demonstration of the moral failings of not giving the dolls access to their own defenses. It doesn’t seem to me that any of the abuse she suffered was designed to drive her toward a “white guy” (I don’t know how he identifies, but he’s half-Albanian) and while having him rescue her from a position as a doll himself is pretty ridiculous and romantically contrived, I would hardly call it one of the cardinal sins of the series. I think the fact that she was kidnapped and brainwashed into the dollhouse for the really disgusting purposes of her rapist is totally repugnant and jarring and also pretty necessary or illustrating that the dollhouse isn’t morally ambiguous.

I mean, there are soooooooooo many ways the storyline was bullshit 

  1. In universe context I’ll give you that the first rape was valuable in pointing out abuses within the system and having the characters address that. Victor’s helplessness was also a nice touch. Fine. HOWEVER, the second rape was all for ~Sierra’s backstory~ and in the first episode this is introduced we actually … didn’t fucking get her backstory at all. Think about it. We learned that Victor was in the army, we learned that other girl was a mother who lost her child, WHAT THE FUCK DID WE LEARN ABOUT SIERRA? Nothing. All we know is that a white guy wanted her. That’s it. Apparently this was further explored in some other episode but tbh the damage had already been done. WHY in an episode about backstories did Sierra get a rapist and nothing else?
  2. Meta universe context Since the entire series was a ~metaphor~ for sexual exploitation and “consensual slavery”, what was the point of having the rape arc???? “Rape is bad” is the lesson we learn. Wow. So shocking. Rape has never been used as a plot device before. Astound. Also, the entire series was BUILT around the idea that the Dollhouse is morally ambiguous. It’s the source of tension between Echo and the Director. The Director is a complex character who actually thinks she’s protecting her dolls and that the Dollhouse is doing nothing wrong because all the Dolls consented. This tension added complexity and posed interesting moral questions at the beginning of the series. With Sierra’s lame as shit backstory, the Dollhouse became juuuuuuust another generic dystopian BIG BAD BUSINESS who apparently can just kidnap people off the street. There was NO reason why we needed Sierra’s backstory to see that the Dollhouse was a bad organization, because 1. kidnapping people off the street is NEVER mentioned again, apparently it happened to ONLY HER and 2. the Dollhouse is established as a corrupt organization IN OTHER WAYS. Sierra’s rape was treated so fucking cheaply. 
  3. Cultural context Um are you aware that Asian women are CONSTANTLY stereotyped as sex workers, submissive and in need of rescuing by a white man. Sierra DOESN’T EVEN PUNCH HER OWN RAPIST IN THE FIRST EP. Victor punches her rapist. And then they kiss. Reaaaaaaally. It’s reaaaaally hard to believe that Sierra’s rape wasn’t treated as a romantic subplot because clearly it’s NOT ABOUT HER. Also why was she the only one raped, and raped twice at that???? THE ONE WOC IS VICTIMIZED TWICE HMMMMMMMMMMMM

I actually feel like I know Sierra pre-dollhouse pretty well, she’s got a lot of admirable qualities and honestly I always felt she would have made a better main character than Echo ever did. Whedon’s got a tendency for Echo-like main characters and Eliza was instrumental in making the show happen though, so I wasn’t necessarily surprised. Each back-story led to the reason that the other characters sought out the dollhouse (or the dollhouse sought them) so I felt like for the time being the situation that led her to the dollhouse was pretty relevant. Would I have liked to see A LOT more Sierra before and after the dollhouse? Definitely. I think that’s an injustice, but I’m not particularly bothered by the episode, especially in context of how jarring and difficult many of the surrounding episodes were.

I don’t think the series is so straight-forward. I think if it suffered from any particular cardinal sin, it was that it was not unified in its metaphorical approach. Even the willing-slave metaphor falls apart because it’s clear that Whedon believes that the original personality bleeds through and the psychological damage that follows would definitely void the contract. I don’t think the dollhouse is so ambiguous as all that, I agree about the tension between Adele and Caroline, but I don’t think it’s shattered by our revelation that the dollhouse is terrible and corrupt, because it’s Adele’s revelation. I don’t think it’s a great leap to assume that because it happened to Sierra it could happen to anyone else.

I 100% completely agree with you about the racial context of Sierra’s character arch, and I appreciate you getting into the explicit ways in which it was problematic. I was also disappointed when I saw the episode with how the story ended up playing out. I agree it’s total bullshit that the single WOC on the show was targeted for that kind of abuse, though I don’t think any of the dolls really escaped victimization, it’s really suspect regarding Sierra in particular.

kateordie:

kateordie:

This comic is about how there are two sides to every story.

It astonishes me that this comic is still going around. I am still quite proud of the colours in it, though.

kateordie:

kateordie:

This comic is about how there are two sides to every story.

It astonishes me that this comic is still going around. I am still quite proud of the colours in it, though.

Your tags about Sierra in Dollhouse give me life. That show could've been magic and instead I feel cheated. WHEDON.

actualmenacebuckybarnes:

FOREVER BITTER ABOUT SIERRA

Read More

I don’t get it. Like, I’m not a big Dollhouse fan, so I’m happy to admit it was riddled with problems, and I know Whedon needs to figure his shit out in terms of race, but I think Sierra’s story was really powerful and in some ways much more meaningful than Echo’s story. The corruption inside the Dollhouse was one of the more compelling parts of the series for me, and what happened with Sierra was a demonstration of the moral failings of not giving the dolls access to their own defenses. It doesn’t seem to me that any of the abuse she suffered was designed to drive her toward a “white guy” (I don’t know how he identifies, but he’s half-Albanian) and while having him rescue her from a position as a doll himself is pretty ridiculous and romantically contrived, I would hardly call it one of the cardinal sins of the series. I think the fact that she was kidnapped and brainwashed into the dollhouse for the really disgusting purposes of her rapist is totally repugnant and jarring and also pretty necessary or illustrating that the dollhouse isn’t morally ambiguous.