In a conversation about my key chain, the cashier at the grocery store actually told me that girls don’t read comics. He was dead serious. 

I was like, “No, you’re wrong. I know so many women who read comics.” And he said (actual quote), “Just because you know a bunch of girls who read comics doesn’t man there are a lot of girls who read comics. “

He was still saying, “Well, I never meet any!” as I left the store.

In a conversation about my key chain, the cashier at the grocery store actually told me that girls don’t read comics. He was dead serious.

I was like, “No, you’re wrong. I know so many women who read comics.” And he said (actual quote), “Just because you know a bunch of girls who read comics doesn’t man there are a lot of girls who read comics. “

He was still saying, “Well, I never meet any!” as I left the store.

Tags: ugh

cannelledusoleil:

female-only:

plansfornigel:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Female figurine from the Hohle Fels cave near Stuttgart, about 35,000 years old. Interpreted as a pornographic pin-up.

“The Earliest Pornography” says Science Now, describing the 35,000 year old ivory figurine that’s been dug up in a cave near Stuttgart. The tiny statuette is of a female with exaggerated breasts and vulva. According to Paul Mellars, one of the archaeologist twits who commented on the find for Nature, this makes the figurine “pornographic.” Nature is even titling its article, “Prehistoric Pin Up.” It’s the Venus of Willendorf double standard all over again. Ancient figures of naked pregnant women are interpreted by smirking male archaeologists as pornography, while equally sexualized images of men are assumed to depict gods or shamans. Or even hunters or warriors. Funny, huh?

Consider: phallic images from the Paleolithic are at least 28,000 years old. Neolithic cultures all over the world seemed to have a thing for sculptures with enormous erect phalluses. Ancient civilizations were awash in images of male genitalia, from the Indian lingam to the Egyptian benben to the Greek herm. The Romans even painted phalluses on their doors and wore phallic charms around their necks.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicIthyphallic figure from Lascaux, about 17,000 years old. Interpreted as a shaman.

But nobody ever interprets this ancient phallic imagery as pornography. Instead, it’s understood to indicate reverence for male sexual potency. No one, for example, has ever suggested that the Lascaux cave dude was a pin-up; he’s assumed to be a shaman. The ithyphallic figurines from the Neolithic — and there are many — are interpreted as gods. And everyone knows that the phalluses of ancient India and Egypt and Greece and Rome represented awesome divine powers of fertility and protection. Yet an ancient figurine of a nude woman — a life-giving woman, with her vulva ready to bring forth a new human being, and her milk-filled breasts ready to nourish that being — is interpreted as pornography. Just something for a man to whack off to. It’s not as if there’s no other context in which to interpret the figure. After all, the European Paleolithic is chock full of pregnant-looking female statuettes that are quite similar to this one. By the time we get to the Neolithic, the naked pregnant female is enthroned with lions at her feet, and it’s clear that people are worshipping some kind of female god.

Yet in the Science Now article, the archaeologist who found the figurine is talking about pornographic pin-ups: “I showed it to a male colleague, and his response was, ‘Nothing’s changed in 40,000 years.’” That sentence needs to be bronzed and hung up on a plaque somewhere, because you couldn’t ask for a better demonstration of the classic fallacy of reading the present into the past. The archaeologist assumes the artist who created the figurine was male; why? He assumes the motive was lust; why? Because that’s all he knows. To his mind, the image of a naked woman with big breasts and exposed vulva can only mean one thing: porn! Porn made by men, for men! And so he assumes, without questioning his assumptions, that the image must have meant the same thing 35,000 years ago. No other mental categories for “naked woman” are available to him. His mind is a closed box. This has been the central flaw of anthropology for as long there’s been anthropology. And even before: the English invaders of North America thought the Iroquois chiefs had concubines who accompanied them everywhere, because they had no other mental categories to account for well-dressed, important-looking women sitting in a council house. It’s the same fallacy that bedevils archaeologists who dig up male skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that the society was male dominant (because powerful people wear jewelry!), and at another site dig up female skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that this society, too, was male dominant (because women have to dress up as sex objects and trophy wives!). Male dominance is all they can imagine. And so no matter what they dig up, they interpret it to fit their mental model. It’s the fallacy that also drives evolutionary psychology, the central premise of which is that human beings in the African Pleistocene had exactly the same values, beliefs, prejudices, power struggles, goals, and needs as the middle-class white professors and students in a graduate psychology lab in modern-day Santa Barbara, California. And that these same factors are universal and unchanged and true for all time.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicHohle Fels phallus, about 28,000 years old. Interpreted as a symbolic object and …flint knapper. Yes.

That’s not science; it’s circular, self-serving propaganda. This little figurine from Hohle Fels, for example, is going to be used as “proof” that pornography is ancient and natural. I guarantee it. Having been interpreted by pornsick male archaeologists as pornography because that’s all they know, the statuette will now be trotted out by every ev psycho and male supremacist on the planet as “proof” that pornography is eternal, that male dominance is how it’s supposed to be, and that feminists are crazy so shut the fuck up. Look for it in Steven Pinker’s next book. ***

P.S. My own completely speculative guess on the figurine is that it might be connected to childbirth rituals. Notice the engraved marks and slashes; that’s a motif that continues for thousands of years on these little female figurines. No one knows what they mean, but they meant something. They’re not just random cut marks. Someone put a great deal of work into this sculpture. Given that childbirth was incredibly risky for Paleolithic women, they must have prayed their hearts out for help and protection in that time. I can imagine an elder female shaman or artist carving this potent little figure, and propping it up somewhere as a focus for those prayers.

On the other hand, it is possible that it has nothing to do with childbearing or sexual behavior at all. The breasts and vulva may simply indicate who the figure is: the female god. Think of how Christ is always depicted with a beard, which is a male sexual characteristic, even though Christ isn’t about male sexuality. The beard is just a marker. Or, given the figurine’s exaggerated breasts, it may have something to do with sustenance: milk, food, nourishment.

The notion that some dude carved this thing to whack off to — when he was surrounded by women who probably weren’t wearing much in the way of clothes anyway — is laughable.

Good lord I am so glad I took ancient art from a female professor.

(via actualmenacebuckybarnes)

Bend It Like Beckham (2002)

(Source: scottdelgado, via heyyjudetheobscure)

luvallstuff:

The thing that’s so disgusting about the murders of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, Sean Bell etc (a very long list) is that it’s not like we’re trying to figure out who killed them. We know perfectly well. We’re just trying to figure out if that black kid deserved to die. They’re humanity is put on trial, like being a person wasn’t enough. Black people literally have to prove that we’re worthy of living.

(via tomboy20)

guyfieriandtotallynotricky:

the-fandoms-are-cool:

meandthedevilblues:

iraffiruse:

Frozach Submitted

Wtf did I just read

NO GINGERBREAD MAN I DEMAND A SEQUAL I MUST DISCOVER HOW HE WILL END THIS PLAGUE AND MYSTERY

I NEED A SEQUEL

(via nightshadeniki)

entrenous88:

quentincoldwater:

  • offers other person the second twix at a bus stop au
  • share an umbrella in a hail storm au
  • car broke down at same shitty restaurant in the middle of nowhere au
  • caR BROKE DOWN AND HOT LOCAL FIXES IT AU
  • 'why does my shitty neighbour keeps using my wifi' 'then you shouldntve made the password a dumb lord of the rings reference' au
  • lost cat au
  • tech support au
  • only ones at demonstration au

I read the last one as “only ones at defenestration au” and for some reason nodded sagely.

At the very end, I read her an audience question that said something like, “How do you think your shows have changed the position of African-Americans on television?” After a little pause, she said one of the things she’d learned was that on shows with Only One (only one woman, only one black character, only one Asian person, only one gay character), that’s when the Only One is required to be about nothing except that characteristic. She said her hope was in part that just by having more than Only One on her shows, she gave those characters room to develop and to have other things about them be important. She hopes that — and here’s the rub — by consciously increasing diversity overall she makes the race of each character less limiting, less defining.

It’s very much the same issue we were dealing with in the interview in the first place, right? And in fact, the issue about writing about it? Shonda Rhimes, really, is the Only One. She’s certainly the Only One at that level. That’s why this keeps coming up for her. That’s why, with all her power and influence, this is the piece she got in the Times. It’s by having more women and more people of color running shows that you stop having to talk about it all the time, and nobody wants to talk about it all the time. But if you don’t talk about it, nothing changes, and that’s the trap. You discuss it and spend all your time on it and let it become the only thing about you and let other people set the agenda every time they characterize you: You lose. But you don’t respond, don’t say what you think, don’t share what you know, don’t fire back when you’re minimized or put down or mischaracterized: You lose.

(Source: into-the-weeds)

typhonatemybaby:

dudski:


Zayn Malik and 50 Cent backstage at iHeart Radio Festival [3000x2333 pixels HQ]

Look: If 50 Cent isn’t life coaching ALL of One DIrection now, then all my work has been for nothing and I quit. If Zayn’s backpack doesn’t contain a vision board that he brought to iHeart SPECIFICALLY to show 50, then why are we even here? What has all of human history been building to, if it’s not 50 Cent sitting One Direction down, having them all take out their individual vision boards, and explain to them that he’d like them to make a joint one? If One Direction, headed into the next era of their career, aren’t navigating this important time with the help of a joint vision board that serves not only as a monument to their love, but also as a way of reminding themselves that they are still individuals who must accept each other’s varying needs and wants and priorities and make compromises, then why did the universe even bring 50 Cent and One Direction into the same space like this in the first place?
If Zayn’s not going back to the group and explaining what 50 Cent wants them to work on, saying “50 Cent believes in us,” to which Louis “being that honest and open about what I want terrifies me” Tomlinson replies, “Well, he hasn’t seen our vision boards yet,” while Niall and Liam and Harry are excitedly gathering craft supplies and Google image searching a wide array of things they want to put on their boards, some of which would melt your heart and some of which would make you laugh until you fell over from it, THEN WHAT ARE ANY OF US EVEN DOING HERE?

hellotailor

typhonatemybaby:

dudski:

Zayn Malik and 50 Cent backstage at iHeart Radio Festival [3000x2333 pixels HQ]

Look: If 50 Cent isn’t life coaching ALL of One DIrection now, then all my work has been for nothing and I quit. If Zayn’s backpack doesn’t contain a vision board that he brought to iHeart SPECIFICALLY to show 50, then why are we even here? What has all of human history been building to, if it’s not 50 Cent sitting One Direction down, having them all take out their individual vision boards, and explain to them that he’d like them to make a joint one? If One Direction, headed into the next era of their career, aren’t navigating this important time with the help of a joint vision board that serves not only as a monument to their love, but also as a way of reminding themselves that they are still individuals who must accept each other’s varying needs and wants and priorities and make compromises, then why did the universe even bring 50 Cent and One Direction into the same space like this in the first place?

If Zayn’s not going back to the group and explaining what 50 Cent wants them to work on, saying “50 Cent believes in us,” to which Louis “being that honest and open about what I want terrifies me” Tomlinson replies, “Well, he hasn’t seen our vision boards yet,” while Niall and Liam and Harry are excitedly gathering craft supplies and Google image searching a wide array of things they want to put on their boards, some of which would melt your heart and some of which would make you laugh until you fell over from it, THEN WHAT ARE ANY OF US EVEN DOING HERE?

hellotailor

(Source: fuckyeahzourry, via hellotailor)