Dude.
heather. eightysomething. intp/j. tv, film and book enthusiast. dilettante. photoshop dabbler. unrepentant reblogger. short attention span.

2012 films | 2012 tv seasons | tags
ladies of tv | eleven caps | blueboxcaps

(c)theme - not for sharing

(11) Next >
 LOST NERDLING(S)
1 June 2012 @ 1:04pm | 6,705 notes
via charethcutestory (originally chirart)
#isms #quote #q

From birth we’re taught that we’re owed a beautiful girl. We all think of ourselves as the hero of our own story, and we all (whether we admit it or not) think we’re heroes for just getting through our day.

So it’s very frustrating, and I mean frustrating to the point of violence, when we don’t get what we’re owed. A contract has been broken. These women, by exercising their own choices, are denying it to us. It’s why every Nice Guy is shocked to find that buying gifts for a girl and doing her favors won’t win him sex. It’s why we go to “slut” and “whore” as our default insults — we’re not mad that women enjoy sex. We’re mad that women are distributing to other people the sex that they owed us.

Yes, the women in these stories are being portrayed as wonderful and beautiful and perfect. But remember, there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them.

Source:cracked.com

David Wong, 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women (via chirart)

That last line is right on the money.

(via thingsthatscareme)

‘Chloe liked Olivia,’ I read. And then it struck me how immense a change was there. Chloe liked Olivia perhaps for the first time in literature…All these relationships between women, I thought, rapidly recalling the splendid gallery of fictitious women, are too simple. So much has been left out, unattempted. And I tried to remember any case in the course of my reading where two women are represented as friends…They are confidantes, of course, in Racine and the Greek tragedies. They are now and then mothers and daughters. But almost without exception they are shown in their relation to men.
Source:gerutha
Virginia Woolf,  “A Room of One’s Own” (via gerutha)

This practice of whitewashing in Hollywood has been going on for a long time. The problem is that there’s this attitude that white is the normal and everything else is not. And so there’s this kind of idea that a lot of times roles that originally come from sources — like comic books or novels and things like that — are ethnic roles, are often given to white actors when it’s converted into a film.

“…I think this upsets a lot of ethnic people — ethnic actors — because this was, this is something that is perpetuated by Hollywood and this idea that white is the norm and if you want to identify with the hero — identify with the person on the screen — he or she has to be white. America’s not the same as it was 50 years ago and I think those things should change now.

“…I think it’s just a mindset that exists from a long time ago, you know that like I said white is the sort of norm. If we want to project ourselves onto the screen in the form of a hero or heroine, that person has to be white. And that’s been sold to us for decades.”

Source:racebending.com
Aasif Mandvi was on CNN today discussing the practice of whitewashing! (via cijithegeek)
8 May 2012 @ 9:08am | 4,073 notes
via rufustfirefly (originally lynnelemon)
#matthew perry #quote #isms #q
‎This year we saw many hilarious performances by women, and many idiotic articles from men about how women suddenly became funny. Yes, imagine how great ‘The Mary Tyler Moore Show’ would have been had Mary, Betty White, Cloris Leachman, and Valerie Harper actually been funny. If only Lucille Ball, Carol Burnett, Gilda Radner, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus had been able to get a laugh. I guess what I’m saying is, this isn’t the year that women finally became funny. This is the year that men finally pulled their heads out of their asses.
Source:lynnelemon
Matthew Perry, presenting at the 2012 Comedy Awards  (via rufustfirefly)
3 May 2012 @ 8:09pm | 3,941 notes
via oldcharethcutestory (originally newwavefeminism)
#isms
When I want to know what misogyny is, I don’t ask a man. When I want to know what racism is, I don’t ask a white person. When I want to know what homophobia is, I don’t ask a heterosexual. When I want to know what transphobia is, I don’t ask a cisgender person. When I want to know what ableism is, I don’t ask an able-bodied person. The contours and definitions of oppression are best articulated by the oppressed.
Source:newwavefeminism
Son of Baldwin
1 May 2012 @ 10:35pm | 16,667 notes
via faramirs (originally sparkamovement)
#isms

What men mean when they talk about their “crazy” ex-girlfriend is often that she was someone who cried a lot, or texted too often, or had an eating disorder, or wanted too much/too little sex, or generally felt anything beyond the realm of emotionally undemanding agreement. That does not make these women crazy. That makes those women human beings, who have flaws, and emotional weak spots. However, deciding that any behavior that he does not like must be insane– well, that does make a man a jerk.

And when men do this on a regular basis, remember that, if you are a woman, you are not the exception. You are not so cool and fabulous and levelheaded that they will totally get where you are coming from when you show emotions other than “pleasant agreement.”

When men say “most women are crazy, but not you, you’re so cool” the subtext is not, “I love you, be the mother to my children.” The subtext is “do not step out of line, here.” If you get close enough to the men who say things like this, eventually, you will do something that they do not find pleasant. They will decide you are crazy, because this is something they have already decided about women in general.

Source:sparkamovement
Lady, You Really Aren’t “Crazy” (via sparkamovement)
1 May 2012 @ 6:34am | 452 notes
via pursuance (originally redefiningbodyimage)
#isms
No one should be punished for living in a body that fails to meet certain cultural standards, and no one should be rewarded for living in a body that does.
Source:redefiningbodyimage
- The Sum of Our Parts: Jen Davis’ lap band and my selfish entitled disappointment, by Lesley at xojane (via redefiningbodyimage)
29 April 2012 @ 9:56am | 14,869 notes
via falulatonks (originally erosum)
#melissa harris perry #isms

squintyoureyes:

megachiropteran:

cage-veil-cunt:

erosum:

Melissa Harris-Perry describes herself as “cis” (via “MSNBC Talks To And About Trans People For An Hour, Doesn’t F*ck It Up” on autostraddle)

I still can’t believe this was on MSNBC.

The entire interview can be seen here. They actually discuss the existence of non binary/genderqueer people & talk about the astounding homelessness rates of trans youth. It was actually the best thing I’ve seen about trans people on cable TV.. ever.

I wish there’d been at least one trans person of color on the panel but it was really wonderful to watch. MHP is the best thing to happen to cable news in a long time.

11 April 2012 @ 11:52am | 617 notes
via captainadama (originally sugarbooty)
#isms #q

Ashley Judd Slaps Media in the Face for Speculation Over Her ‘Puffy’ Appearance

sugarbooty:

Ashley Judd’s ‘puffy’ appearance sparked a viral media frenzy. But, the actress writes, the conversation is really a misogynistic assault on all women.

“The Conversation about women’s bodies exists largely outside of us, while it is also directed at (and marketed to) us, and used to define and control us. The Conversation about women happens everywhere, publicly and privately. We are described and detailed, our faces and bodies analyzed and picked apart, our worth ascertained and ascribed based on the reduction of personhood to simple physical objectification. Our voices, our personhood, our potential, and our accomplishments are regularly minimized and muted.

As an actor and woman who, at times, avails herself of the media, I am painfully aware of the conversation about women’s bodies, and it frequently migrates to my own body. I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the “good” pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations. I do not want to give my power, my self-esteem, or my autonomy, to any person, place, or thing outside myself. I thus abstain from all media about myself. The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator. Of course, it’s wonderful to be held in esteem and fond regard by family, friends, and community, but a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration. And casting one’s lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that.

However, the recent speculation and accusations in March feel different, and my colleagues and friends encouraged me to know what was being said. Consequently, I choose to address it because the conversation was pointedly nasty, gendered, and misogynistic and embodies what all girls and women in our culture, to a greater or lesser degree, endure every day, in ways both outrageous and subtle. The assault on our body image, the hypersexualization of girls and women and subsequent degradation of our sexuality as we walk through the decades, and the general incessant objectification is what this conversation allegedly about my face is really about.

A brief analysis demonstrates that the following “conclusions” were all made on the exact same day, March 20, about the exact same woman (me), looking the exact same way, based on the exact same television appearance. The following examples are real, and come from a variety of (so-called!) legitimate news outlets (such as HuffPo, MSNBC, etc.), tabloid press, and social media:

One: When I am sick for more than a month and on medication (multiple rounds of steroids), the accusation is that because my face looks puffy, I have “clearly had work done,” with otherwise credible reporters with great bravo “identifying” precisely the procedures I allegedly have had done.

Two: When my skin is nearly flawless, and at age 43, I do not yet have visible wrinkles that can be seen on television, I have had “work done,” with media outlets bolstered by consulting with plastic surgeons I have never met who “conclude” what procedures I have “clearly” had. (Notice that this is a “back-handed compliment,” too—I look so good! It simply cannot possibly be real!) 

Three: When my 2012 face looks different than it did when I filmed Double Jeopardyin 1998, I am accused of having “messed up” my face (polite language here, the F word is being used more often), with a passionate lament that “Ashley has lost her familiar beauty audiences loved her for.”

Four: When I have gained weight, going from my usual size two/four to a six/eight after a lazy six months of not exercising, and that weight gain shows in my face and arms, I am a “cow” and a “pig” and I “better watch out” because my husband “is looking for his second wife.” (Did you catch how this one engenders competition and fear between women? How it also suggests that my husband values me based only on my physical appearance? Classic sexism. We won’t even address how extraordinary it is that a size eight would be heckled as “fat.”)

That the conversation about my face was initially promulgated largely by women is a sad and disturbing fact.

Five: In perhaps the coup de grace, when I am acting in a dramatic scene inMissing—the plot stating I am emotionally distressed and have been awake and on the run for days—viewers remarks ranged from “What the f—k did she do to her face?” to cautionary gloating, “Ladies, look at the work!” Footage from “Missing” obviously dates prior to March, and the remarks about how I look while playing a character powerfully illustrate the contagious and vicious nature of the conversation. The accusations and lies, introduced to the public, now apply to me as a woman across space and time; to me as any woman and to me as every woman.

That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.

A case in point is that this conversation was initially promulgated largely by women; a sad and disturbing fact. (That they are professional friends of mine, and know my character and values, is an additional betrayal.)

News outlets with whom I do serious work, such as publishing op-eds about preventing HIV, empowering poor youth worldwide, and conflict mineral mining in Democratic Republic of Congo, all ran this “story” without checking with my office first for verification, or offering me the dignity of the opportunity to comment. It’s an indictment of them that they would even consider the content printable, and that they, too, without using time-honored journalistic standards, would perpetuate with un-edifying delight such blatantly gendered, ageist, and mean-spirited content.

I hope the sharing of my thoughts can generate a new conversation: Why was a puffy face cause for such a conversation in the first place? How, and why, did people participate? If not in the conversation about me, in parallel ones about women in your sphere? What is the gloating about? What is the condemnation about? What is the self-righteous alleged “all knowing” stance of the media about? How does this symbolize constraints on girls and women, and encroach on our right to be simply as we are, at any given moment? How can we as individuals in our private lives make adjustments that support us in shedding unconscious actions, internalized beliefs, and fears about our worthiness, that perpetuate such meanness? What can we do as families, as groups of friends? Is what girls and women can do different from what boys and men can do? What does this have to do with how women are treated in the workplace?

I ask especially how we can leverage strong female-to-female alliances to confront and change that there is no winning here as women. It doesn’t actually matter if we are aging naturally, or resorting to surgical assistance. We experience brutal criticism. The dialogue is constructed so that our bodies are a source of speculation, ridicule, and invalidation, as if they belong to others—and in my case, to the actual public. (I am also aware that inevitably some will comment that because I am a creative person, I have abdicated my right to a distinction between my public and private selves, an additional, albeit related, track of highly distorted thinking that will have to be addressed at another time).

If this conversation about me is going to be had, I will do my part to insist that it is a feminist one, because it has been misogynistic from the start. Who makes the fantastic leap from being sick, or gaining some weight over the winter, to a conclusion of plastic surgery? Our culture, that’s who. The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings. Join in—and help change—the Conversation.”

-Ashley Judd

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/09/ashley-judd-slaps-media-in-the-face-for-speculation-over-her-puffy-appearance.html

BECAUSE ATTACK THE BLOCK IS TECHNICALLY A FILM ABOUT “BIG GORRILA-WOLF-MOTHERFUCKERS” ATTACKING AND AND SAYS MORE COMPLEX THINGS ABOUT SOCIETY’S RACIAL ISSUES THAN THE HELP.
Film Crit Hulk on “WHY YOU LOVE MOVIES” (via strangeapparition)
4 April 2012 @ 10:20pm | 21,916 notes
via leslieknope (originally ajacquelineofalltrades)
#isms

jacquelineofalltrades:

How do I possibly like this more, it seems impossible.

jacquelineofalltrades:

How do I possibly like this more, it seems impossible.

2 April 2012 @ 9:43pm | 585 notes
via vaginawoolf (originally fictionalaros)
#isms #unicorns

And then there’s the representation of aromanticism in fiction. Oh, oh wait. No, there isn’t. There’s sexual aromanticism which is often misogynist (guy players are cool! girl players are hoors who need a man to settle her down!). Asexual aromanticism, however? That’s what you pull out when all your inhumanising methods have failed. The most normal thing in media is wanting a romantic relationship. If someone doesn’t want a romantic relationship (and if they’re not just waiting for the right man~~) they are probably going to commit genocide.

On the flip-side: romanticism is often used to humanise and/or reward a character. It’s lazy and it’s cheap, but it works. Robots want to be human? The thing they want the very most is a romantic relationship. Ex-villain is being rehabilitated and redeeming themself? They’re gonna start dating. Previously creepy/whacky side character starts being more important? Get them a significant other stat. Saved the world? Get a prospective girl/boyfriend. Realised they don’t need someone to be happy? Suddenly: someone to make them happy.

(This is why so many aces have a difficult adolescence. We know we’re different, but so often we don’t have the words for it, and no one understands when we try to explain. And then we finally recognise ourselves in a character on TV and… and they’re a serial killer or an alien, and a lot of people go “well no, they’re actually probably totes gay”. Media told me that — just because I didn’t feel like dating or having sex — I didn’t have the right to consider myself human. I am still — more than ten years on — dealing with the venomous headspace that created.)

Source:fictionalaros

Awesome stuff by pippin.. It’s titled asexuality in fiction, but there is a really cool section on aromantics too!

FONSFAQ post — asexuality in fiction

(via fictionalaros)

In fairness, I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion that I am, in fact, alien.

(via deastrumquodvicis)

And then we finally recognise ourselves in a character on TV and… and they’re a serial killer or an alien, and a lot of people go “well no, they’re actually probably totes gay”. Media told me that — just because I didn’t feel like dating or having sex — I didn’t have the right to consider myself human. I am still — more than ten years on — dealing with the venomous headspace that created.

This, this so many times over. I can’t remember who said it, but there’s that line about how if you want to deny someone’s humanity, you deny them a reflection, and growing up without one — almost more so than growing up without words to articulate your desires or your relationships — is a painful, poisonous, scarring thing to have to do.

(via savagedamsel)

ABC Family’s Huge actually had an asexual character. It was handled so well and I remember thinking it was awesome and also that I had never seen one on TV before, who explicitly said “I’m asexual” (that I remembered).

(via thatneedstogo)

29 March 2012 @ 10:35am | 1,349 notes
via agent355 (originally racebending)
#isms #q
I’m trying to figure out how insulated one has to be from the wider world to be shocked! shocked! that racism is pervasive in American culture, and among American teens. Those wide-eyed tweets about Rue’s death being less sad because she’s black clearly come straight from the brains of adolescents (nearly all of them white, presumably) who have bathed in subtly and overtly racist culture since birth, absorbed far too much of it, and not yet learned to second-guess or even censor themselves when they parrot its tenets. They’re surprising only if you haven’t noticed that when real people of color are killed, there’s always an immediate attempt to justify or downplay the deaths. Art imitates life; reactions to art likewise imitate life.
Source:blogs.publishersweekly.com
An article at Publisher’s Weekly on fans’ racist reactions to learning that Rue is black. The article also gives a shout-out to Racebending.com (via racebending)
28 March 2012 @ 10:35am | 2,591 notes
via squintyoureyes (originally azspot)
#isms
Let me get this straight. Millions of outraged Americans are just credulous amateurs fooled by a cynical left wing ploy to stir up racial division? A man murders a kid. The police botch the investigation. Race appears to play a crucial role in both outcomes. Then a bunch of people find out about it and are outraged. And we’re the ones stirring up racial discord? This is the absurdity that the modern ideology of colorblindness will bring you to. Colorblindness has nothing to do with eradicating racism. It is about denying its existence and power. And so when faced with actual racism in such stark form, the colorblindness zealots must cast blame on those drawing attention to the racism. There is a significant segment of white opinion that continues to find efforts to combat racism more objectionable than the racism itself.
Source:jessecurtis.blogspot.com
Jesse Curtis (via azspot)

I’m just gonna let that last line sink in: “There is a significant segment of white opinion that continues to find efforts to combat racism more objectionable than the racism itself.” (via ethiopienne)