🔥 | Latest

Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.  It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.  I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.  Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.  What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:  Also:  He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works Lol body painting literally Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way

what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: aunti...

Bad, Children, and Facebook: did you know? did-you-kno.tumblr.com Michael the gorilla was taught sign language by Koko, the first signing gorilla. He began signing "Squash meat gorilla. Mouth tooth Cry sharp-noise loud. Bad think-trouble look- face. Cut/neck lip (girl) hole." Researchers believed this was a description of the poaching death of his mother. did-you-kno.tumblr.com didyouknowblog.com Cohen Gi n facebook.com/didyouknowblog death-limes: venipede: osteophagy: endcetaceanexploitation: Washoe was a chimp who was taught sign language. One of Washoe’s caretakers was pregnant and missed work for many weeks after she miscarried. Roger Fouts recounts the following situation: “People who should be there for her and aren’t are often given the cold shoulder—her way of informing them that she’s miffed at them. Washoe greeted Kat [the caretaker] in just this way when she finally returned to work with the chimps. Kat made her apologies to Washoe, then decided to tell her the truth, signing “MY BABY DIED.” Washoe stared at her, then looked down. She finally peered into Kat’s eyes again and carefully signed “CRY”, touching her cheek and drawing her finger down the path a tear would make on a human (Chimpanzees don’t shed tears). Kat later remarked that one sign told her more about Washoe and her mental capabilities than all her longer, grammatically perfect sentences.“ [23] Washoe herself lost two children; one baby died shortly after birth of a heart defect, the other baby, Sequoyah, died of a staph infection at two months of age. more about Washoe: after the death of her children, researchers were determined to have Washoe raise a baby and brought in a ten month chimpanzee named Loulis. one of the caretakers went to Washoe’s enclosure and signed “i have a baby for you.” Washoe became incredibly excited, yelling and swaying from side to side, signing “baby” over and over again. then she signed “my baby.” the caretaker came back with Loulis, and Washoe’s excitement disappeared entirely. she refused to pick Loulis up, instead signing “baby” apathetically; it was clear that the baby she thought she was getting was going to be Sequoyah. eventually Washoe did approach Loulis, and by the next day the two had bonded and from then on she was utterly devoted to him. *information shamelessly paraphrased from When Elephants Weep by Jeffrey Masson. Even more interestingly, after Washoe and Loulis bonded, she started teaching him American Sign Language the same way that human parents teach their children language. It only took Loulis eight days to learn his first sign from Washoe, and aside from the seven that his human handlers learned around him, he learned to speak in ASL just as fluently as Washoe and was able to communicate with humans in the same way she could. now if y'all don’t think this is the tightest shit you can get outta my face
Bad, Children, and Facebook: did you know?
 did-you-kno.tumblr.com
 Michael the gorilla was taught sign language
 by Koko, the first signing gorilla. He began
 signing "Squash meat gorilla. Mouth tooth
 Cry sharp-noise loud. Bad think-trouble look-
 face. Cut/neck lip (girl) hole." Researchers
 believed this was a description of the
 poaching death of his mother.
 did-you-kno.tumblr.com
 didyouknowblog.com
 Cohen Gi n facebook.com/didyouknowblog
death-limes:

venipede:

osteophagy:

endcetaceanexploitation:

Washoe was a chimp who was taught sign language.
One of Washoe’s caretakers was pregnant and missed work for many weeks after she miscarried. Roger Fouts recounts the following situation:
“People who should be there for her and aren’t are often given the cold shoulder—her way of informing them that she’s miffed at them. Washoe greeted Kat [the caretaker] in just this way when she finally returned to work with the chimps. Kat made her apologies to Washoe, then decided to tell her the truth, signing “MY BABY DIED.” Washoe stared at her, then looked down. She finally peered into Kat’s eyes again and carefully signed “CRY”, touching her cheek and drawing her finger down the path a tear would make on a human (Chimpanzees don’t shed tears). Kat later remarked that one sign told her more about Washoe and her mental capabilities than all her longer, grammatically perfect sentences.“ [23]
Washoe herself lost two children; one baby died shortly after birth of a heart defect, the other baby, Sequoyah, died of a staph infection at two months of age.

more about Washoe:
after the death of her children, researchers were determined to have Washoe raise a baby and brought in a ten month chimpanzee named Loulis. one of the caretakers went to Washoe’s enclosure and signed “i have a baby for you.” Washoe became incredibly excited, yelling and swaying from side to side, signing “baby” over and over again. then she signed “my baby.”
the caretaker came back with Loulis, and Washoe’s excitement disappeared entirely. she refused to pick Loulis up, instead signing “baby” apathetically; it was clear that the baby she thought she was getting was going to be Sequoyah. eventually Washoe did approach Loulis, and by the next day the two had bonded and from then on she was utterly devoted to him.
*information shamelessly paraphrased from When Elephants Weep by Jeffrey Masson.

Even more interestingly, after Washoe and Loulis bonded, she started teaching him American Sign Language the same way that human parents teach their children language. It only took Loulis eight days to learn his first sign from Washoe, and aside from the seven that his human handlers learned around him, he learned to speak in ASL just as fluently as Washoe and was able to communicate with humans in the same way she could.

now if y'all don’t think this is the tightest shit you can get outta my face

death-limes: venipede: osteophagy: endcetaceanexploitation: Washoe was a chimp who was taught sign language. One of Washoe’s caretakers ...

Shower, Curtains, and Husband: My husband and I discovered you can get photo shower curtains
Shower, Curtains, and Husband: My husband and I discovered you can get photo shower curtains

My husband and I discovered you can get photo shower curtains

Shower, Curtains, and Husband: My husband and I discovered you can get photo shower curtains
Shower, Curtains, and Husband: My husband and I discovered you can get photo shower curtains

My husband and I discovered you can get photo shower curtains