A Writer's Inklings

I felt like Joss didn’t know what to do with Angel until Joss gave Angel his own show.

(Source: omgbuffy)

dance-at-bougival:

#ruined by kings and now ruiner of kings #honestly do you know how much potential this film would have had as a real examination of queenship/femininity in a patriarchal world? #the answer is a lot #it could have been utterly breathtaking and amazing and ridiculously on point #if they had used beauty as a repeated motif - because yes yes ravenna is right #because queens are figureheads who rarely get to rule; because women are judged on what they look like #and so in a world like that - to take power; to take true power #you have to use your weakness and fashion it into your strength #so yes yes beauty is power #cosmetics and physical appearance as an extension of the will #’as strong as an arm’ #and beauty is how ravenna conquers but faith is how snow conquers #it could have been amazing as an examination of the two different forms of queenship #ravenna who uses her very self as a weapon against the world and snow #who had been forged by the world and comes back in armour with no pretensions to feminine beauty or tradition #to take the throne #two methods of conquest and both succeed. and in time the throne will rest as heavily on snow as it did on ravenna #jesus christ you deserved a better script

Ravenna’s story in this movie was really compelling because of her desire for beauty as a means of power. Her story could easily be a discussion of why there’s a princess versus queen dichotomy in many princess-based movies.

Princesses are the young, beautiful protagonist while queens are the old, ugly, antagonist. Why? Young girls don’t strive to be queens the way they do princesses and I think it’s partially because of the construct of being a queen.

Queens are older women trying to gain agency in societies that tell them they are obsolete. Ravenna’s story had the potential to discuss how the quest for power is synonymous with that of beauty because  of how patriarchal societies teach us they’re and the same. 

I’m trying to pinpoint the exact reason it fell short of that, but I think it’s because the movie doesn’t treat her lines as being prominent. 

doctorwho:

vvargs:

My banana looks like Matt Smith

Bananas are good.

ohmygollygarsh:

strugglingtobeheard:

mamasam:

the-world-is-a-corner:

amazonpoodle:

theinfernalcakewalk:

combatbrodom:

sweaterkittensahoy:

The premise of the film project is simple: a woman is asked to read an excerpt from a personally elected body of literature. (x)

It’s called “Hysterical Literature,” and I have never seen a better example of questioning why it is that educated women (whether self or otherwise) always seem to be showcased as having no interest in sex. They all choose interesting books, and they all get off, and it’s fabulous.

It’s also brought forth a lot of comments (on youtube and otherwise) and WHY WOULD SOMEONE DO THIS. IT’S SO DIRTY, and I feel that’s part of the point: Why is this considered so scandalous? It’s just sex. In fact, we don’t even SEE the sex, so the only thing that could be making people uncomfortable while watching it seems to be watching a woman enjoying getting sexual pleasure.

And maybe some of those people just aren’t into voyeurism  and that’s cool. But I’m betting a lot of them just don’t like to consider that maybe they think women having sexual pleasure is weird and that they think that you can’t have sexual pleasure as a woman and also have other facets and appreciation for “finer things.”

What I’m saying is, this whole series gives me a lot of thoughts.

Always reblog because Hysterical Literature is the sexiest thing I’ve seen in a long while. 

Pretty sure I’ll wanna watch this later soooo

I think some reasons for why the people who probably do watch porn are made so uncomfortable by Hysterical Literature are a little more involved, since there’s definitely a decent market for porn in which women masturbate solo. It’s not JUST that each woman is experiencing sexual pleasure, it’s the combination of a bunch of aspects that are specific to this series:

• each woman is without a partner, so she’s not servicing anyone;
• she’s without a partner, so her attention is focused inward — this is completely about her enjoyment only;
• she’s without a partner, but she does have a vibrator and her own body, so she isn’t dependent on any other human for her orgasm;
• she’s reading a selection of her own aloud with some serious dedication, demonstrating that there are things she finds just as interesting as sex;
• we don’t get any of the visuals or the melodrama or the POV that are usually considered to be the point of porn, so we can’t be titillated by her body (or her partner’s body/actions, or her reactions to her partner’s body/actions) — we don’t get to see what’s causing her pleasure, we only see how it makes her feel.

The whole production is actually super-dismissive of mainstream (straight) porn and its primary audience (dudes), in that it’s not particularly staged for the viewer’s pleasure (there’s no pretense that there isn’t a viewer — it’s just not about them) unless the viewer happens to be a person who gets off on the idea of women having some fantastic selfish orgasms, even when the viewer is in no way invited to imagine themselves participating. :D

FANTASTIC.

I love this simply because I sorta just love seeing people feeling this good. Specially the fourth one, I just stare at her beaming and thinking “hey, it looks like this is awesome, so happy for you!”

I’ve only seen a bit of these videos (the fourth gif is Stoya, a porn star, who reads the most beautiful excerpt about love) but I’ll add that what I also think makes critics so uncomfortable with this project is that for the first minute or so you are just listening to the woman read while showing no arousal. It is forcing the viewer into a (slight but still) personal connection before any sex comes into play. You are hearing a woman speak the words she wants and you the viewer are not receiving any reward for this, even if you do enjoy voyeurism. 

I really love this idea of empowerment. The idea that, “I am going to say something, and I am going to feel something, and you might enjoy both—but I am doing this for myself and my own enjoyment.”

I’ve only watched the black woman’s video where she reads from Toni Morrison and it was awesome. I love this too cause as a “smart woman” I am constantly desexualized by my peers. Yay

I showed this to my ex and he got annoyed with me, like “Why do I wanna see this, this isn’t arousing to me.” THAT’S THE POINT. IT’S NOT ABOUT OR FOR YOU, DUDE. It’s about women and their own pleasure. For me, something of this nature is so realistic. I am not the biggest fan of porn but I think masturbation is wonderful. I like to multitask, doubling up on pleasure, by watching a non-porn movie or surfing the net (sometimes on Tumblr SCANDALOUS) whilst doing so. I like these videos a lot.

(Source: feyminism)

I attempted to incorporate a ribbon into a twisty bun. Not bad considering I couldn’t see the back of my head during the process.

fandomsandfeminism:

I like this “you can’t criticize Harem anime for being sexist! It’s sexist on PURPOSE. I mean, showing women as sex objects: That’s the whole point! So you can’t get mad at it for being sexist.” argument

Like, oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize I could only criticize things that are accidentally sexist. Deliberate sexism is, apparently, fine. 

Another trend I’ve been noticing is the idea that objectification and sexiness become one and the same. You can have characters who are sexy without being objectified (I’m not an anime fan so I can’t give topical examples) so it’s weird that the people who keep standing up for anime depict Harem as the only way you can have sexy characters.

There are not sexist ways to depict a character as sexy. A woman can be hot and still have her own agency and choice. (A female character doesn’t HAVE to be attractive, either)

Like, the objectification on purpose doesn’t make sense. The fact it’s deliberate makes it a bit worse because they’re admitting to it and not fixing it.

For months, every morning when my daughter was in preschool, I watched her construct an elaborate castle out of blocks, colorful plastic discs, bits of rope, ribbons and feathers, only to have the same little boy gleefully destroy it within seconds of its completion.

No matter how many times he did it, his parents never swooped in BEFORE the morning’s live 3-D reenactment of “Invasion of AstroMonster.” This is what they’d say repeatedly:

“You know! Boys will be boys!” 

“He’s just going through a phase!”

“He’s such a boy! He LOVES destroying things!”

“Oh my god! Girls and boys are SO different!”

“He. Just. Can’t. Help himself!”

I tried to teach my daughter how to stop this from happening. She asked him politely not to do it. We talked about some things she might do. She moved where she built. She stood in his way. She built a stronger foundation to the castle, so that, if he did get to it, she wouldn’t have to rebuild the whole thing. In the meantime, I imagine his parents thinking, “What red-blooded boy wouldn’t knock it down?”

She built a beautiful, glittery castle in a public space.

It was so tempting.

He just couldn’t control himself and, being a boy, had violent inclinations.

She had to keep her building safe.

Her consent didn’t matter. Besides, it’s not like she made a big fuss when he knocked it down. It wasn’t a “legitimate” knocking over if she didn’t throw a tantrum.

His desire — for power, destruction, control, whatever- - was understandable.

Maybe she “shouldn’t have gone to preschool” at all. OR, better if she just kept her building activities to home.

I know it’s a lurid metaphor, but I taught my daughter the preschool block precursor of don’t “get raped” and this child, Boy #1, did not learn the preschool equivalent of “don’t rape.”

Not once did his parents talk to him about invading another person’s space and claiming for his own purposes something that was not his to claim. Respect for her and her work and words was not something he was learning.  How much of the boy’s behavior in coming years would be excused in these ways, be calibrated to meet these expectations and enforce the “rules” his parents kept repeating?

There was another boy who, similarly, decided to knock down her castle one day. When he did it his mother took him in hand, explained to him that it was not his to destroy, asked him how he thought my daughter felt after working so hard on her building and walked over with him so he could apologize. That probably wasn’t much fun for him, but he did not do it again.

There was a third child. He was really smart. He asked if he could knock her building down. She, beneficent ruler of all pre-circle-time castle construction, said yes… but only after she was done building it and said it was OK. They worked out a plan together and eventually he started building things with her and they would both knock the thing down with unadulterated joy. You can’t make this stuff up.

Take each of these three boys and consider what he might do when he’s older, say, at college, drunk at a party, mad at an ex-girlfriend who rebuffs him and uses words that she expects will be meaningful and respecte, “No, I don’t want to. Stop. Leave.”

The “overarching attitudinal characteristic” of abusive men is entitlement.

(Source: lastlifeinuniverse)

thebaconsandwichofregret:

zombienomph:

thebaconsandwichofregret:

toughtink:

nokki1:

caseyvastardis:

sountitleditstitled:

welcome-to-hiddlestonia:

thatdisnerd:

Alice is 4’6?!? I knew she was tiny, but whoa! As a short person myself I feel proud.

alice was only 7 years old

this is cool for at least 7 different reasons

the only one i’m the same height as is aurora.

Wow, I’m the same height as a lot of characters! Sweet!

too bad these aren’t the park heights. i’d be the same size as so many princesses!

ETA: omg shaun and i have the same height difference as rapunzel and flynn according to this X)

So Esmerelda is the only female over 5’7” in the animated world?  Why are all of these women so fucking short?

ALL OF THESE WOMEN ARE TALLER THAN ME.
Everyone on this list who has hit puberty is taller than me. 5’7 is pretty tall, I think.

Sorry, I get mild rage over the fact that 5’7” seems to be part of female perfection when I’m 6ft in bare feet.

You know there’s something in Hollywood called The Munchkin List which is the term for actresses 5’7” and under, these are the women who play love interests the most because a lot of major stars are under 6ft so they need shorter actresses to make them look “manly”.

tl;dr: You aren’t short, I just think this unspoken agreement on 5’7” is strange.

(Source: grodansnagel)

arletterocks:

Isn’t it humbling to write hundreds and hundreds of words about sexism and gender and entitlement and then remember that “Flight of the Conchords” nailed the whole displacement-of-responsibility and nice-guy rage things in, like, four sentences?

"We’ve begun to raise daughters more like sons… but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters."

Gloria Steinem (via there-was-a-girl)

• Black: I would date you.
• Green: I think you’re cute.
• Blue: You are my tumblr crush.
• Grey: I wish you would notice me.
• Purple: I don’t talk to you but I really love your blog.
• Teal: We have a lot in common.
• Yellow: FUCK ME, LET'S FUCK.
• Orange: I don’t like your blog.
• Brown: I don’t like you.
• Pink: I think you are unattractive.
• Red: I hate you with a burning passion.
• White: Marry me.

(Source: callingmoon)

Naps are tricky because you either wake up refreshed and relaxed or you have a headache, dry throat, and are unaware of what year you’re in.

(Source: hipsterinatardis)

youngerthanthemountains:

artclubqueen:

potterybarncowboy:

Urban Outfitters window display in Evanston, IL. 

How about you don’t use representations of my body type as part of your aesthetic until you start stocking clothes that fit my body.

preach

^ that

lamamama:

I mean singling out Daisy as The Worst Character in Gatsby is kinda weird when her husband is a white supremacist who beats his mistress.