catsfurever:

jk rowling should regret making a gay character who is not shown or seen being gay at all in the series

(via fairyfightingtype)

hulkdontcare:

If it were up to me, Emma would wear cigarette pants and a tuxedo jacket and a real actual corset (to keep that overtly sexy element without needing a weird lace-up belly shirt).

hulkdontcare:

If it were up to me, Emma would wear cigarette pants and a tuxedo jacket and a real actual corset (to keep that overtly sexy element without needing a weird lace-up belly shirt).

(via latkje)

jesic:

a comprehensive guide on how to tell if your post needs a spoiler tag:

  • did it come out today
  • tag that shit, you lazy fuck

(via jesic-deactivated20120519)

95 notes

im really really sick of the way mixed people are treated in media

anklewings:

especially when we get grouped with white people and are either

a. told that we dont count because were not full POC

b. told that we dont count because were not full white

c. completely white-washed anyways

d. ignored all together

its so fucking insulting

All. Of. This.

12 notes

All of these folks got reboots before Wonder Woman ever had a single film.

unicornicopia:

palaceoffunk

  • 1966 - Batman
  • 1989 - Batman (Reboot)
  • 1992 - Batman Returns
  • 1995 - Batman Forever
  • 1997 - Batman & Robin
  • 2005 - Batman Begins (Reboot)
  • 2008 - The Dark Knight
  • 2012 - The Dark Knight Rises

  • 1951 - Superman and the Mole Men
  • 1978 - Superman (Reboot)
  • 1980 - Superman II
  • 1983 - Superman III
  • 1987 - Superman IV
  • 2006 - Superman Returns
  • 2012 - The Man of Steel (Reboot)

  • 2002 - Spider-Man
  • 2004 - Spider-Man 2
  • 2007 - Spider-Man 3
  • 2012 - The Amazing Spider-Man (Reboot)

  • 2003 - Hulk
  • 2008 - The Incredible Hulk (Reboot)

  • 2011 - Green Lantern

(Okay, Hal Jordan didn’t get a reboot…but he’s not even a part of the DC Trinity and even he got a movie before Wonder Woman. And so did Jonah Hex. And The Spirit. And The Green Hornet. The list goes on.)

And Wonder Woman, who is easily the most recognizable female superhero out there…still has no live action movies. And just one animated movie.

No, I will never stop complaining about this. I love most superhero movies and will eagerly see them (Hulk and Hal Jordan notwithstanding), but I really don’t think we have some sort of shortage of cisgender straight white male action guys to look up to as heroes. There is like this frantic need to put out more and more superhero films each year or reboot the ones they’ve already done, like Hollywood is afraid they’ve run out of ideas to cover.

And yet, there’s this big one right here that no one is willing to touch. And Wonder Woman is big. She’s well-known. More people have probably heard of Wonder Woman than they have of Jonah Hex, but guess which movie got made? More people have probably heard of Wonder Woman than Green Arrow, but I could bet you a Green Arrow live action movie would get made before hers (which I would watch, but that’s not the point). Hollywood won’t take a chance on a big-name, unexplored female superhero, but they will take a chance on lesser-known male superheroes and make and remake Spider-Man and Batman a million times over.

Ugh.  And there is supposedly another BatReboot in the works post TDKR.  And there are the Punisher films (the second of which only made $8 million domestically.) And we’re on our third Hulk.  And Superman IV and Spider-man 3 were terrible.  And don’t give me that crap about lady comic movies bombing, Jonah Hex (which stared a big name actor in a male role) is the biggest comic box office bomb, making back only 21% of it’s budget.  

The Wonder Woman problem is obviously a DC problem, but, for me, the lack of non-white, non-dude heroes in Hollywood is  one of the most disheartening trends in film rn.

(Source: palaceofposey, via unicornicopia-deactivated201210)

batarangs:

princessannathepea | seppin:

it’s not that harry potter are necessarily bad books

they’re a lot better than many out there and if we’re going to do the twilight/hp thing i’d of course pick hermione, ginny and luna as role models for my daughter than bella swan because stephanie meyer seems to actively hate women whereas rowling seems to just not care/is unaware of how little attention she pays (internalized sexism? maybe, or maybe just poor writing)

it’s just that they’re by no means perfect

she has a decent premise but there was so much more she could have done

  • what about ron’s strategizing
  • what about dean thomas
  • what about the fact that harry grew up in a cupboard because uh she never really deals with it and i find it hard to believe that the abuse he suffered affects a person so little
  • what about hermione’s EVERYTHING we know her parents are dentists and uh…. that’s it basically
  • what about ginny who fought a goddamn war during camping: the novel
  • in fact
  • camping: the novel: WHY
  • saying post-book dumbledore was gay doesn’t mean shit because it’s what in the books that matters, not your interviews
  • give me more background on every character in the book, lady
  • ugh
  • ugh
  • i want to rewrite the books with some hardcore editing because they could be really great despite the brave white male/smart female/everyman male friend main character main cast
  • NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM
  • mrs. weasley
  • i always thought hermione was black. js. basically TELL US THINGS ABOUT HERMIONE. anything. anything
  • malfoys. regulus and sirius and andromeda and bella and narcissa. MITFORDS. 
  • redemptive arc for draco?? she basically set it up/set up internality for him in book six, possibly more than we ever got for, say, hermione or ginny, and then dropped the plotline.
  • NEVILLE
  • sirius and harry’s relationship - please show don’t tell
  • the marauders were teenage assholes. please do something with this. possibly tie it into draco’s redemptive arc and compare/contrast with james and snape.
  • ron weasley
  • do something with him
  • he is one of your main characters
  • also hermione
  • she is the main girl
  • also ginny and neville. GINNY. AND. NEVILLE.

Aaaaall of this! Also why would you set up a Slytherin redemption arc (not just Snape and Draco but ALL OF THEM) with that talk of house unity and then never use it.

Also it would’ve been nice to have some actual queer characters besides extra-textual Dumbledore because as it is, even if Dumbledore had been made explicitly queer in the books we’d have had one queer character who had a tragic lonely life because of his teen romance with Magic Hitler. So, uh. Yeah.

Actually while we’re on the subject what’s with everybody meeting their True Love in their teens or immediately after? The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Remus and Tonks and that sure ended well.

(via wundy-deactivated20120102-deact)

289 notes

I stayed up all night and thus feel okay talking about this.

owlpellets:

poblet:

fussyfangs:

I feel Hetalia upsetting and offensive on a very visceral level.

Do you know what WW2 represents, for Europe as a whole? Not just the Rromani and the Jewish communities, but for all of us, from the Atlantic ocean ‘til the Ural mountains and beyond, ‘til the other end of Russia?

It represents a hole ripped in the continent. A. Great. Big. Fucking. Hole. 

Do you know what the Soviet Union represents, for the former Union itself? An iron grip, half a century of being colonised, half a century of attempted genocide, half a century of Great Russia cannibalising itself while breaking the necks of anyone else it could reach. 

Hetalia is just not funny or cute to me. It’s a kick in the teeth. It’s saying, these things that loomed so large over you and your life, these things that shaped your life and the place you consider home, they don’t matter. They’re quaint funny historical things, for us to laugh at.

And fuck that shit.

=/ THIS. Not to mention the apparent requirements to GET an anthropomorphized nation-person character in the first place - speaking of the Romani people and Jews, they totes don’t count as nations! Well, they don’t have a homeland, so why should they, right? (OK, Israel exists now, but did not in WWII and not all Jews consider it a “homeland”) But like, WHY don’t they have a homeland? Because they were straight up not allowed to settle anywhere, ever??? Um.

And then even LESS justifiably; the NATIVE AMERICANS. Wow, they actually DID have a homeland! Like, logically there should be a LOT of native nations with personified representations! But they are just fucking COMPLETELY ABSENT and it makes me SO ANGRY

I swear, Hetalia’s portrayal of England dropping off Cute Lil Blond Blue-Eyed America off in a SCARY BIG NEW EMPTY WORLD ALL BY HIMSELF BAW HE IS SO LONELY~ ;_; makes me want to chew off my own arm and then violently vomit it up at someone or SOMETHING?

Hi I hate Hetalia can you tell

fucking hetalia

(via tigerfeel)

iamingrid:

[Content warning for talk of hemophobia]

I know I saw a post about this at some point before, but, once again: could there please be content warnings for posts with pictures of blood? Even in a medical context, microscopic pictures etc. Hemophobia isn’t uncommon, and like all phobias can trigger very intense, painful reactions. I’m still having trouble swallowing after seeing a picture more than forty minutes ago.

If blood was to be included among the things to routinely warn for, that would be wonderful, I think.

(Source: borta, via badparsiqueer-deactivated201110)

To the anon that asked “What do you think olo

hopesichord:

I’m making this rebloggable because I am starting to gather that too many folks on tumblr thinks the US should intervene in Libya, and I want to be very clear about how bad an idea that would be.  Now, I understand that there’s a pretty broad perception of the US as international watchdog, and this is the sort of thing you’d expect after being the only real hegemonic power for the last twenty years.  We are used to seeing international interventions — this has been basic US policy for the last 110 years or so.  This has very rarely gone well.  In fact, I feel comfortable saying that the only times it has gone well that I can think of are the First Gulf War, NATO’s Bosnian intervention, and NATO’s Kosovo intervention (the last two obviously being rather related events).  I want to draw a distinction between those interventions, which basically fell under the purview of the Genocide Convention and things like what’s going on in Libya, which is a revolution.

As such, not only is US intervention not legally compelling, it is also not morally viable.  Bad things happen when the US intervenes in revolutions or political upheavals.  I will point you to the history of the US in Latin America and Iran (‘53) for examples on such things.  Not only is a US intervention in Libya illegal, it is also an incredibly provocative move that is likely to spark broader and international conflict in a region that the US is already heavily involved in.  Furthermore, it makes a revolution that is about the Iranian people about US hegemony in the Middle East, something we already have quite a lot of, and which is often rather tenuous.  When the US gets involved in revolutions (overtly), whether it be here or in Egypt or any future developments in Iran, it allows dictators (e.g., Qaddafi) to point to that US intervention as foreign forces trying to meddle in the internal politics of the state.  This devalues the revolution.  Period.

Now, there is obviously a humanitarian crisis going on in Libya right now.  That is incredibly obvious.  The UN is meeting about the issue, and if the UN feels that international military action is necessary, then it will happen through that channel and that channel only, and I can only hope that the US isn’t at the helm of it because it will inevitably make things go very, very poorly for everyone.  That is a legal avenue, that is an international avenue, that will not necessarily devalue or delegitimatizes this revolution.  But I find the argument (which I saw on tumblr yesterday in my brief moments on the internet) that the US should head up some sort of intervention in Libya both politically nonviable and incredibly dangerous, but flat out ignorant of political realities both in the United States and in Libya.  And in the world, really.  The United States should not intervene in revolutions unless there is international agreement to do so.  Any unilateral action will be seen as unnecessary foreign intervention in a country that has its own history with imperialism that it needs not relive. 

The Obama administration has, from my understanding, been getting quite a bit of flack about not being more active about this revolution (and all the others), and honestly I do not think they could do anything better than just sit tight until they’re called upon.  As far as I know, the people of Libya have not called for US intervention.  If they have, I retract this post.  If they haven’t, we shouldn’t be there.  If they call for it, then maybe we should.  I still don’t think it’s a good idea (or a viable one; everyone remembers Somalia), but at least then it won’t be seen as an occupation (let us recall that the US has a rather bad reputation in the Middle East right now?) nor will it be seen as the US appropriating a revolution for its own aims.  At this point, the international community should act as an international community.  The US doesn’t have the resources, will power, or political capacity of doing this unilaterally, and any verbal push for action will be either seen or swung as foreign actors interfering in the internal affairs of the state, which, again, devalues and delegitimatizes the revolutions.  I don’t really understand why anyone would expect US intervention, and I certainly don’t understand why anyone would want it.  This has never gone well.  I’ve been rather proud of the Obama administration for keeping relatively quiet on it.  Everyone knows their position, but they’re not making broad and visceral proclamations on the subject, which is good.  Because, once again, that will be spun in all the wrong ways. 

I understand that it’s frustrating, waiting and waiting, but this is political history and it’s the best move to make for everyone involved.  And if the UN chooses to have some sort of intervention, then it will be done through legal avenues as an international effort.  If the MSNBC report about the military defecting is true, then this revolution is probably going to be over very soon, and then a process of democratization can begin.  That’s how this should go.  This is how revolutions should go.  Citizens fighting for their freedom as they wish to do.

(ETA: there are a number of international organizations involved in this, lists are going around tumblr, and those are the places you can donate to or volunteer with, and that is how you can be active in this if you hate sitting on your heels and waiting, which I totally understand.  But a US government effort would be bad news bears.  Go give some and tell your friends and make some phone calls.  You can do that.  You should.  But don’t expect US military intervention.  Don’t wish for US military intervention.  Won’t go well.  Oh hi we just got free liberating Iraq let us come in and save you too!

Won’t go well.)

(Source: demarches, via wundy-deactivated20120102-deact)

586 notes