Photo 20 Apr 50,177 notes rootehful:

itstimeforfeminism:

calendar—girl:

girlsgetbusyzine:

writeswrongs:

cumaeansibyl:

coffeeandconlangs:

Unnecessary “fillers” in our speech. I’d rather have “like” than up-talking, though (if we had to choose one, that is). Ewwww, up-talking. Then again, a combination of the two would render me homicidal maniac.


Like, did you ever notice? That, like, the speech patterns people, like, think are stupid?  Are, like, commonly associated with, like, women?
And, like, there’s this thing? Where, like, women aren’t supposed to be, like, assertive? So they, like, qualify their speech? Because, like, we’re not supposed to, like, stand by our opinions?

1) humiliate women so they don’t feel qualified to speak authoritatively about anything
2) humiliate women for speaking in such a way that reflects how you treat her
3) laugh, you are superior because you don’t use words like “like.”  It isn’t as if being a huge stupid asshole has ever made you worse than a woman who speaks with verbal tics.  

The nail. It is hit on the head.


Pick only the female ad to share on social media. Go wild about demeaning women or something. Totally ignore the male version.

Good job.

rootehful:

itstimeforfeminism:

calendar—girl:

girlsgetbusyzine:

writeswrongs:

cumaeansibyl:

coffeeandconlangs:

Unnecessary “fillers” in our speech. I’d rather have “like” than up-talking, though (if we had to choose one, that is). Ewwww, up-talking. Then again, a combination of the two would render me homicidal maniac.

Like, did you ever notice? That, like, the speech patterns people, like, think are stupid?  Are, like, commonly associated with, like, women?

And, like, there’s this thing? Where, like, women aren’t supposed to be, like, assertive? So they, like, qualify their speech? Because, like, we’re not supposed to, like, stand by our opinions?

1) humiliate women so they don’t feel qualified to speak authoritatively about anything

2) humiliate women for speaking in such a way that reflects how you treat her

3) laugh, you are superior because you don’t use words like “like.”  It isn’t as if being a huge stupid asshole has ever made you worse than a woman who speaks with verbal tics.  

The nail. It is hit on the head.

Pick only the female ad to share on social media. Go wild about demeaning women or something. Totally ignore the male version.

image

Good job.

Video 20 Apr 228,256 notes

brispyedges:

evererika:

deepinmyb0nes:

iamprogress:

"I think every woman at one point or another in their life has been called a bitch. For a long time I had a real problem with that word, I didn’t like it and I thought it was derogatory. But I’ve gotten to a place now where I’ve made a lot of peace with it. It’s been so overused and made to seem so derogatory towards woman that I’ve adapted it into an empowering feeling for myself. If I’m a bitch then I’m a bitch, if that’s what an assertive woman is to you. So I’ve sort of adapted it as a badge of honor."

TTTHHHIIISSSSS

A+

Yeah because words like Arrogant, Douchebag, mother-fucker, and Dick aren’t ever attached to men in power.

Donald Trump is well known to beloved for his take-charge personality, and there’s no way there were hundreds of people who worked with Steve Jobs and considered him a huge cunt .

Yep, its all roses all the time over here in dicksville

The people pushing this line assume that men are never criticised for being assertive or forceful or selfish or cold, which is wrong. Beyond this double standard, my main worry is that they’re creating a world where women are never criticised for these things, in a bid to make them equal to where they assume men are. 

Feminists can be as aggressive as they like, and if you call them out on it a great many can now diagnose you as a misogynist. “You just hate powerful women”, they can shout. By embracing words like “bitch”, which is a negative word and should remain so because it picks out negative character traits, you’re effectively allowing women to escape any criticism of their arrogance or ruthlessness. 

They’re wrong about the bitch/boss double standard, but it’s the reclaiming “bitch” as a badge of honour that really troubles me. It’s like a group of people embracing the name “asshole”, proudly acting like assholes and ignoring all criticism as mere prejudice; would you like to interact with this group? For most people, “bitch” does not just mean “assertive” or “in control of herself”, and you should not smugly identify with it.

Fight for equality, and ensure people criticise male egoism as much as female, but don’t suddenly start treating it like it’s a good thing. 

(Source: therealxtina)

Quote 20 Apr 51,174 notes
Animating female characters are extremely difficult. They have to go through a range of emotions, and having a film with two female characters and building distinguishing aspects was hard.
— 

Michael Lee on animating Frozen

So that’s their (blatantly misogynistic) excuse for scrapping all but two of the female characters; that they’re too hard to animate? Those emotional female characters, they’re all the same, right? Here’s a hint: their “femaleness” isn’t what’s making them indistinguishable.

image

(via moopflop)

Frozen keeps getting better and better.

(via pinstripehourglass)

You morons do realize that less than ten years ago, it was considered next to IMPOSSIBLE to animate HAIR with CGI? I mean, ANY type of hair. When Pixar was making the Incredibles, they were so worried they wouldn’t be able to properly animate Violet, and went on and on about how her hair was so ridiculously hard to animate. VIOLET’S HAIR.

They had to develop and create entirely new programs to animate Rapunzel. Those programs are brand new, literally less than 4-5 years old. It takes TIME to develop new animation techniques, especially in a field of animation that is so new.

And you wonder why the protagonists of Frozen look so similar to Rapunzel. It’s because Rapunzel is their baseline. She’s their first big CGI female character (the only other CGI films Disney had done before Tangled were Treasure Planet, a animation-CGI hybrid, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt). She’s their first major CGI project with the technology they used in Tangled and Frozen. It takes Pixar literally YEARS to create each new project that they do. And you’ll notice, that the only Pixar character to have significant amounts of hair since Violet was Merida, and they had to develop like three COMPLETELY NEW programs to animate her hair.

Basically, this stuff takes time and money to develop, and stylistically, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that Anna looks similar to Rapunzel, given that Disney often uses the same default facial structure from decade to decade (Wendy and Alice, Aurora and Anita, Ariel and Belle, etc) while their new animation style is in development.

I swear, it’s like you people have no clue how animation actually works, or how freaking ridiculously hard it actually is. Show some respect, please.

(via fantastic-nonsense)

I’m going to reblog myself to add some context.

This is the article that the quote is from. The quote is unattributed.

Also included in this same article are these gems:

"Depending on the shot, it can take up to 4,000 computers and 30 hours just to complete one frame."

"Just in effects alone, it took over 50 people to make the the scene of Elsa building her ice palace during her musical number. According to the directors, it took “forever” to render."

"One of the challenges of Frozen was that the TD department had to populate the entire kingdom with people. In this case, the department ended up building 312 character rigs, 245 cloth rigs, and 63 hair rigs. It’s more rigs the department has build than any of the other Disney films.

  • To put that into perspective Anna’s character had 420,000 strands of hair; that’s 4.2 times more than a human.
  • Just in case you care keeping count, in Tangled, Rapunzel had 27,000 strands of hair.”

(remember how I said earlier that the animators talked loads about animating Rapunzel’s hair, body, and face, and how they basically created the programs they animated Tangled with from scratch? Yeah….)

"To cope with Anna and Elsa’s challenging Scandinavian hair braid style, the TD department built a new software called Tonic, which harks back to the hold barbershop days. Tonic used hair volumes and clumps, which would help build the strands and translate it into the vision. How the hair fell into place or if the character “had a bad hair day” helped the animators get an idea of how hair would work."

The TD Department approached the cloths from a real world perspective. Using a pattern based approach. The team built new software called Flourish to capture the sheer, stretch, and gravity  in a more convincing way so they can best represent silks, wools, and other clothing based materials. For example, by adding motions to a horses’ stirrups or tassels, they can dictate its behavior or the way it moves.

"The effects team were even conscious of how the wind would flow through hair and cloth. A variety of controlled simulations were done with the strength and length of the wind varying."

"Acting coaches were brought in to help animators create major and subtle character movements. So when you see Anna bite her lip, or Elsa’s diaphragm move, this is something both Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel, respectively, do in real life. Basically if it made it more believable, the animators put that in.”

…have fun guys.

(via fantastic-nonsense)

Lets also not forget that there’s a long-standing rumor that the stories of Tangled and Frozen take place in the same universe and—more critically—the female protagonists are linked by blood.

I reblogged it a while back, but someone actually sat down and figured it out, and the evidence was fairly convincing that the King of Arendelle and the Queen of Corona are brother and sister, which would make Anna, Elsa and Rapunzel first cousins—thus explaining the facial similarities.

While this isn’t confirmed, Pixar is notorious for linking their stories together, so it wouldn’t be surprising.

(via appropriately-inappropriate)

Video 14 Apr 113,214 notes

the-srinimatographer:

uncle-anwar:

thesherlockednerdfighter:

What the actual fuck

????????????

What the everloving fuck is this bullshit

(Source: lnthefade)

Video 13 Apr 1,538 notes

bastardlybrendan:

sjhetalia:

ifailateverythingonearth:

Citation needed, correlation does not imply causation

Citation needed, correlation does not imply causation, ironic that a “leader” crumbles under pressure when being called bossy

Citation definitely needed

It’s almost as if this campaign pulled these “facts” out of its own asscrack and has no intent to prove its own point. 

Adding some sources to prove those images wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VVKyesBzDAs

Meanwhile, on the Girl Scouts own website on Education:

  • Female kindergarteners (83%) are somewhat more likely than their male counterparts (79%) to exhibit the following positive social behaviors: ease in joining others in play; ability to make and keep friends; and positively interacting with peers. (ChildTrends.org, Child and Youth Indicators Databank: Kindergartners’ Social Interaction Skills, 2006)

  • In 2005, female fourth- and eighth-graders both scored higher on average in reading than their male counterparts. (National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2005)
  • A slightly higher percentage of females than males completed high school in 2005 (87% compared with 85%, respectively). In 2005, females were also more likely than males to have completed some college (62% compared with 52%, respectively) and to have received at least a bachelor’s degree (32% compared with 26%, respectively). (ChildTrends.org, Child and Youth Indicators Databank: Educational Attainment, 2006)
  • In 2004, 9% of females ages 16 to 24 were high school dropouts, compared with 12% of males. Females comprise one-half of the population and make up 43% of the dropouts in this age group. (ChildTrends.org,Child and Youth Indicators Databank: High School Dropout Rates, 2006)
  • In 2000, sex differences occurred in science course taking but not in mathematics. More females than males completed courses in advanced biology, Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) biology, and chemistry. Males completed physics and AP/IB physics courses at higher rates than females. (National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006)

  • In 2000, women earned more than half of the degrees awarded in psychology (78%), biological/agricultural sciences (59%), and social sciences (55%), and almost half (47%) in mathematics. However, women received 21% of bachelors degrees awarded in engineering, 27% in computer sciences, and 43% in physical sciences. (National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006)

  • For girls ages 8-12, aspirations after high school are largely educational and professional: 93% for college education; 76% for a career; 67% for marriage; and, 63% for children. (The Girl Scout Research Institute,Teens Before Their Time (2000))

On Civic Engagement and Volunteering:

  • For girls ages 11-12, 73% reported improving the world around them as their favorite activity (i.e., activities related to the environment or helping others). (The Girl Scout Research Institute, The Ten Emerging Truths: New Directions for Girls 11-17 (2002))

  • Girls ages 11-17 participate in student government at markedly increasing levels: 5% of girls ages 11-13; 12% of girls ages 13-15; and 20% of girls ages 16-17. (The Girl Scout Research Institute, The Ten Emerging Truths: New Directions for Girls 11-17 (2002))

  • More young women aged 15 to 25 participate in the following activities than young men: raising money for charity (27% for women vs. 22% for men); regular volunteering for non-political groups (21% vs. 16%); active group membership (22% vs. 18%); membership in political groups (17% vs. 15%); and, participating in a run/walk/ride for charity (20% vs. 15%). (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, The Civic and Political Health of a Nation, 2006)
  • In the 2004 election, 55% of females ages 18-24 reported registering to vote, compared with 48% of males the same age. Similarly, 45% of females reported actually voting, compared with 39% of males. (ChildTrends.org, Child and Youth Indicators Databank: Youth Voting, 2006)
  • From 1990 to 2000, consistent young volunteers were more likely to be female (14 percent) than male (11 percent). They were also more likely to be from higher SES households. (National Center for Education Statistics, Volunteer Service by Young People from High School through Early Adulthood, 2003)

  • From 1990 to 2000, females (50%) were more likely than males (38%) to volunteer in high school, but no differences were detected between the sexes two years out of high school (38% for males and 39% for females). Male volunteering declined further to 29% by the eighth year after scheduled high school graduation; no change was detected in female volunteering (37%). (National Center for Education Statistics, Volunteer Service by Young People from High School through Early Adulthood, 2003)

  • As of 2003, female college graduates were more likely than their male counterparts to have volunteered in the past year (50% vs. 43%). Among those who had volunteered, women were more likely than men to have served in educational or religious institutions, while men were more likely than women to have done other volunteer work with children or to have participated in poverty or neighborhood improvement projects. (National Center for Education Statistics, Where Are They Now? A Description of 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 10 Years Later, 2006)

  • College students follow the national trend in volunteering, with females (33%) volunteering at a higher rate than males (26.8%). Both male and female college students were more likely to volunteer for an educational or youth services organization than any other type of organization: 33.6% of male college students, and 30.2% of female college students volunteered at an educational or youth services organization. With a little over 22% of both male and female college students, religious organizations remained the second most popular place for volunteering among both genders. (Corporation for National and Community Service, College Students Helping America, 2006)

I left out few points on the education section simply because the only thing it showed is that girls and boys have different interests they excel at. A Norwegian documentary called The Gender Equality Paradox proves that this is not socially enforced but rather because the minds of boys and girls are different it is natural for girls and boys to have separate interests and abilities.

Female teachers have been shown to grade down boys, unless they act like the girls.

~Mod Prussia

image

Link 11 Apr 374 notes PoN takes on one of Debigotizer's "Very Bad Posts"»

permutationofninjas:

debigotizer:

Your Very Bad Post has been read and graded. You can find your grade here.

It’s unfortunate that Debigotizer chose to format her response the way she did; it made responding to it much more inconvenient than it should have been.  This is actually a big part of what took us so long to get back to it.  Other factors include her brushing off a previous critique of ours that did not require gratuitous amounts of copy-pasting, the fact that we don’t expect them to actually listen to any responses anyway, and the fact that her post was in the end irrelevant to ours.

If you’re not familiar, debigotizer is a blog run by a misandry-denying feminist who has taken it upon herself to “grade” every egalitarian blogger who acknowledges men’s issues to any degree. This grade is almost always an F, though debigotizer never offers any real criticisms beyond “this blog post isn’t formatted like an academic paper”, and has never produced any alternative explanations herself.

What follows is a long reply, but click through if you enjoy watching pretentious people get their comeuppance.

Text 11 Apr 240 notes

bluesigma:

real-justice-waluigi:

it’s still very strange to Waluigi that feminists are complaining about having to wear shirts in public and claiming oppression when there are women in other countries being denied an education based on their gender.

while i understand where you’re coming from and agree to an extent, you’re kinda coming off as saying ‘other people have it worse so you shouldn’t complain about [x]’

Waluigi should stop complaining about feminists choosing certain things to discuss when there are people all over the world actually murdering each other. You’re criticising the wrong group; get your priorities straight.

The appeal to worse problems is a really bad argument. People on all sides of this debate should know better than to use it.

Text 9 Apr 968 notes

social-darwin-awards:

bastardlybrendan:

social-darwin-awards:

bastardlybrendan:

madasmay:

"Men never had to fight for their right to vote!"

image

image

A more correct way to phrase it would be “Rich, white, straight, educated, land-owning men never had to fight for their right to vote.”

And even then that’s as long as they weren’t subject to anything like the Adventurers’ Act. 

what a disappointingly deceptive name

Let’s not forget that even most rich, straight, educated, land-owning men of the dominant ethnicity and nationality didn’t live in a democracy, and so they’re the ones who had to fight for the institution of voting in the first place.

Text 9 Apr 183 notes

"How dare Virgin objectify women, refusing to treat them as people and instead use their bodies to market a product."

"The objectification of men does not exist."

Video 8 Apr 1,291 notes

(Source: facebook.com)

via I See.
Text 6 Apr 41,715 notes

thebitterfrenchcanadian:

randomredux:

"Brozen," "Bronies," what it all means is "I am so insecure about what I like that I MUST rebrand it as masculine before associating with it."

I don’t get why we don’t commend people for pushing gender boundaries instead of humiliating them for taking baby steps

Text 6 Apr 2,002 notes The Latest Double-Standard

ladysomnambule:

politicallyimbalancedbullshit:

just-smith:

Female version of a product is created

Tumblr: This is disgusting, why do they think women aren’t good enough to use the standard product? Why must we always paint men as the norm and women as other, when we should be equal? Stop forcing us in this restrictive box of femininity, we can use the same product as everyone else. The brand should stop forcing this on women.

Reality: This is a marketing gimmick. Some people will be more likely to buy a special version targeted at them and so it helps expand the brand and boost sales. You don’t have to buy it if you don’t want to.

Male version of a product is created

Tumblr: This is hilarious, do men think they’re too good to use the standard product? How fragile is masculinity, if men demand special versions of everything just to preserve it, out of fear of being seen equal to women? Men need to stop hiding in their tiny box of masculinity; they can use the same product as everybody else. Men should stop forcing this on the brand.

Reality: This is a marketing gimmick. Some people will be more likely to buy a special version targeted at them and so it helps expand the brand and boost sales. You don’t have to buy it if you don’t want to.

THANK YOU. That fucking post got so many notes and it was just spreading this huge double standard bullshit, and it’s just like, the fuck? Are you honestly that much of an asshole that you’re going to turn this into some man-shaming post to fuel your feminist rants? 

THANK YOU! You explained this better than I would have.

I’m still seeing these posts on my dash, come on people.

via Ajapaa~!!.
Video 5 Apr 844 notes

demisnowflake:

Stop fukn accepting and signing up for reward cards from stores where you shop then.

Text 3 Apr 1 note

freebroccoli asked: If you have the time, I'd be really interested in what you think about GWW. If you like her great; if you don't, it would be nice to hear some criticism of her that comes from someone I can respect.

I don’t like or hate her, I’ve just never been that interested. I’m not a YouTuber at all, and tend to keep my gender discussions to Tumblr; if she reblogs me, I’ll take an interest. I’m sure she’s a perfectly decent person and debater, but I can’t go listening to everyone’s opinions so I tend to focus on the people I actually have to deal with. No criticism, I’ve just never seen a video of hers so I laugh at people who think she created this movement etcetera.

Text 2 Apr 5 notes

quartermaster-past asked: Thank you for putting words to the argument in my head over the friendzone nonsense. I've been talking about manipulative relationships from both genders and it never seems to get any positive feedback. the people arguing that people who think the friendzone exists are the douchebags just tend to stop talking, as if a valid point about emotional trauma doesn't exist EVER in those situations.

It’s a silly concept, but that doesn’t mean that valid feelings can’t be involved behind it and the people who use it are all rapists.


Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.