🔥 | Latest

scenes: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Bruce Lee Was My Friend, and Tarantino's Movie Disrespects Him 8:08 AM PDT 8/16/2019 by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Alamy Stock Photo Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bruce Lee during the filming of 1978's 'Game of Death.' solacekames: 8:08 AM PDT 8/16/2019 by Kareem Abdul-JabbarThe NBA great and Hollywood Reporter columnist, a friend of the late martial arts star, believes the filmmaker was sloppy, somewhat racist and shirked his responsibility to basic truth in ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.’Remember that time Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. kidney-punched a waiter for serving soggy croutons in his tomato soup? How about the time the Dalai Lama got wasted and spray-painted “Karma Is a Beach” on the Tibetan ambassador’s limo? Probably not, since they never happened. But they could happen if a filmmaker decides to write those scenes into his or her movie. And, even though we know the movie is fiction, those scenes will live on in our shared cultural conscience as impressions of those real people, thereby corrupting our memory of them built on their real-life actions.That’s why filmmakers have a responsibility when playing with people’s perceptions of admired historic people to maintain a basic truth about the content of their character. Quentin Tarantino’s portrayal of Bruce Lee in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood does not live up to this standard. Of course, Tarantino has the artistic right to portray Bruce any way he wants. But to do so in such a sloppy and somewhat racist way is a failure both as an artist and as a human being.This controversy has left me torn. Tarantino is one of my favorite filmmakers because he is so bold, uncompromising and unpredictable. There’s a giddy energy in his movies of someone who loves movies and wants you to love them, too. I attend each Tarantino film as if it were an event, knowing that his distillation of the ’60s and ’70s action movies will be much more entertaining than a simple homage. That’s what makes the Bruce Lee scenes so disappointing, not so much on a factual basis, but as a lapse of cultural awareness.Bruce Lee was my friend and teacher. That doesn’t give him a free pass for how he’s portrayed in movies. But it does give me some insight into the man. I first met Bruce when I was a student at UCLA looking to continue my martial arts studies, which I started in New York City. We quickly developed a friendship as well as a student-teacher relationship. He taught me the discipline and spirituality of martial arts, which was greatly responsible for me being able to play competitively in the NBA for 20 years with very few injuries.During our years of friendship, he spoke passionately about how frustrated he was with the stereotypical representation of Asians in film and TV. The only roles were for inscrutable villains or bowing servants. In Have Gun - Will Travel, Paladin’s faithful Chinese servant goes by the insulting name of “Hey Boy” (Kam Tong). He was replaced in season four by a female character referred to as “Hey Girl” (Lisa Lu). Asian men were portrayed as sexless accessories to a scene, while the women were subservient. This was how African-American men and women were generally portrayed until the advent of Sidney Poitier and blaxploitation films. Bruce was dedicated to changing the dismissive image of Asians through his acting, writing and promotion of Jeet Kune Do, his interpretation of martial arts.That’s why it disturbs me that Tarantino chose to portray Bruce in such a one-dimensional way. The John Wayne machismo attitude of Cliff (Brad Pitt), an aging stuntman who defeats the arrogant, uppity Chinese guy harks back to the very stereotypes Bruce was trying to dismantle. Of course the blond, white beefcake American can beat your fancy Asian chopsocky dude because that foreign crap doesn’t fly here.I might even go along with the skewered version of Bruce if that wasn’t the only significant scene with him, if we’d also seen a glimpse of his other traits, of his struggle to be taken seriously in Hollywood. Alas, he was just another Hey Boy prop to the scene. The scene is complicated by being presented as a flashback, but in a way that could suggest the stuntman’s memory is cartoonishly biased in his favor. Equally disturbing is the unresolved shadow that Cliff may have killed his wife with a spear gun because she nagged him. Classic Cliff. Is Cliff more heroic because he also doesn’t put up with outspoken women?I was in public with Bruce several times when some random jerk would loudly challenge Bruce to a fight. He always politely declined and moved on. First rule of Bruce’s fight club was don’t fight — unless there is no other option. He felt no need to prove himself. He knew who he was and that the real fight wasn’t on the mat, it was on the screen in creating opportunities for Asians to be seen as more than grinning stereotypes. Unfortunately, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood prefers the good old ways.
scenes: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Bruce
 Lee Was My Friend, and
 Tarantino's Movie Disrespects
 Him
 8:08 AM PDT 8/16/2019 by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
 Alamy Stock Photo
 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bruce Lee during the filming of 1978's 'Game of Death.'
solacekames:

8:08 AM PDT 8/16/2019 by Kareem Abdul-JabbarThe NBA great and Hollywood Reporter columnist, a friend of the late martial arts star, believes the filmmaker was sloppy, somewhat racist and shirked his responsibility to basic truth in ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.’Remember that time Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. kidney-punched a waiter for serving soggy croutons in his tomato soup? How about the time the Dalai Lama got wasted and spray-painted “Karma Is a Beach” on the Tibetan ambassador’s limo? Probably not, since they never happened. But they could happen if a filmmaker decides to write those scenes into his or her movie. And, even though we know the movie is fiction, those scenes will live on in our shared cultural conscience as impressions of those real people, thereby corrupting our memory of them built on their real-life actions.That’s why filmmakers have a responsibility when playing with people’s perceptions of admired historic people to maintain a basic truth about the content of their character. Quentin Tarantino’s portrayal of Bruce Lee in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood does not live up to this standard. Of course, Tarantino has the artistic right to portray Bruce any way he wants. But to do so in such a sloppy and somewhat racist way is a failure both as an artist and as a human being.This controversy has left me torn. Tarantino is one of my favorite filmmakers because he is so bold, uncompromising and unpredictable. There’s a giddy energy in his movies of someone who loves movies and wants you to love them, too. I attend each Tarantino film as if it were an event, knowing that his distillation of the ’60s and ’70s action movies will be much more entertaining than a simple homage. That’s what makes the Bruce Lee scenes so disappointing, not so much on a factual basis, but as a lapse of cultural awareness.Bruce Lee was my friend and teacher. That doesn’t give him a free pass for how he’s portrayed in movies. But it does give me some insight into the man. I first met Bruce when I was a student at UCLA looking to continue my martial arts studies, which I started in New York City. We quickly developed a friendship as well as a student-teacher relationship. He taught me the discipline and spirituality of martial arts, which was greatly responsible for me being able to play competitively in the NBA for 20 years with very few injuries.During our years of friendship, he spoke passionately about how frustrated he was with the stereotypical representation of Asians in film and TV. The only roles were for inscrutable villains or bowing servants. In Have Gun - Will Travel, Paladin’s faithful Chinese servant goes by the insulting name of “Hey Boy” (Kam Tong). He was replaced in season four by a female character referred to as “Hey Girl” (Lisa Lu). Asian men were portrayed as sexless accessories to a scene, while the women were subservient. This was how African-American men and women were generally portrayed until the advent of Sidney Poitier and blaxploitation films. Bruce was dedicated to changing the dismissive image of Asians through his acting, writing and promotion of Jeet Kune Do, his interpretation of martial arts.That’s why it disturbs me that Tarantino chose to portray Bruce in such a one-dimensional way. The John Wayne machismo attitude of Cliff (Brad Pitt), an aging stuntman who defeats the arrogant, uppity Chinese guy harks back to the very stereotypes Bruce was trying to dismantle. Of course the blond, white beefcake American can beat your fancy Asian chopsocky dude because that foreign crap doesn’t fly here.I might even go along with the skewered version of Bruce if that wasn’t the only significant scene with him, if we’d also seen a glimpse of his other traits, of his struggle to be taken seriously in Hollywood. Alas, he was just another Hey Boy prop to the scene. The scene is complicated by being presented as a flashback, but in a way that could suggest the stuntman’s memory is cartoonishly biased in his favor. Equally disturbing is the unresolved shadow that Cliff may have killed his wife with a spear gun because she nagged him. Classic Cliff. Is Cliff more heroic because he also doesn’t put up with outspoken women?I was in public with Bruce several times when some random jerk would loudly challenge Bruce to a fight. He always politely declined and moved on. First rule of Bruce’s fight club was don’t fight — unless there is no other option. He felt no need to prove himself. He knew who he was and that the real fight wasn’t on the mat, it was on the screen in creating opportunities for Asians to be seen as more than grinning stereotypes. Unfortunately, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood prefers the good old ways.

solacekames: 8:08 AM PDT 8/16/2019 by Kareem Abdul-JabbarThe NBA great and Hollywood Reporter columnist, a friend of the late martial ar...

scenes: Only start creating a lore after you already finished half of the series and keep adding stuff a decade after finishing it Steal 90% of your deep lore from real life history and other authors to fill out your world map Create an entire universe with a bloody, theological history with hundreds of characters and dozens of devastating wars, then write a childrens book in it aethelflaedladyofmercia: Ok like I think people are forgetting something very important about JKR.Namely, she did not make up this stuff after the fact. Back in the day, JKR was extremely open about the fact that there was tons of lore behind the scenes she could not address in the books. She couldn’t address it, btw, because it was a known fact in the publishing industry that young adult novels had to top out at like 250, maybe 300 pages because kids didn’t have the attention span for anything longer. And early HP was middle grade, which is the next age category down. She was only able to start addressing deeper lore halfway through the series because that’s how long it took to convince her publishers it wouldn’t scare readers away.(I distinctly remember another, long-established children’s fantasy author dedicating a book to JKR because the success of HP was the reason said author was able to negotiate an extra 100 pages into that novel.)In the mean time, she was in a ton of interviews. She was absolutely the most open author about her worldbuilding. If a fan asked her a question and the answer wasn’t a spoiler, she answered it every time. JKR was famous for this. She was worshipped for it practically. I remember on the early internet boards, when one fan had the chance to meet her in a Q&A we would all pile together and come up with as many questions as possible. Ask what year Beauxbatons was founded. Ask who the ghost of Hufflepuff is. Ask McGonagall’s age. Ask Lily’s maiden name. Were all the Marauders in Gryffindor? Which of Gilderoy Lockheart’s stories were stolen and which were flat out made up?We collected these interviews, we held them as canon, we altered our fanfic to accommodate what she revealed. And then, all of a sudden, that wasn’t what the fans wanted any more. When she finished HP, she said she was done, that she’d move on to other projects. No one wanted any of her non-HP stuff. No one cared. So she came back to build the Fantastic Beasts verse, with exactly the same policy about answering fans that we had welcomed back in the early 2000s.So, like, you don’t have to enjoy what she’s doing. The fan community has changed, and that’s fine. But JKR contributed a lot to the children’s fantasy genre and to the way fandom operated, and we should at least acknowledge that.
scenes: Only start creating a lore after
 you already finished half of the
 series and keep adding stuff a
 decade after finishing it
 Steal 90% of your deep lore from
 real life history and other authors
 to fill out your world map
 Create an entire universe with a
 bloody, theological history with
 hundreds of characters and dozens
 of devastating wars, then write a
 childrens book in it
aethelflaedladyofmercia:

Ok like I think people are forgetting something very important about JKR.Namely, she did not make up this stuff after the fact. Back in the day, JKR was extremely open about the fact that there was tons of lore behind the scenes she could not address in the books. She couldn’t address it, btw, because it was a known fact in the publishing industry that young adult novels had to top out at like 250, maybe 300 pages because kids didn’t have the attention span for anything longer. And early HP was middle grade, which is the next age category down. She was only able to start addressing deeper lore halfway through the series because that’s how long it took to convince her publishers it wouldn’t scare readers away.(I distinctly remember another, long-established children’s fantasy author dedicating a book to JKR because the success of HP was the reason said author was able to negotiate an extra 100 pages into that novel.)In the mean time, she was in a ton of interviews. She was absolutely the most open author about her worldbuilding. If a fan asked her a question and the answer wasn’t a spoiler, she answered it every time. JKR was famous for this. She was worshipped for it practically. I remember on the early internet boards, when one fan had the chance to meet her in a Q&A we would all pile together and come up with as many questions as possible. Ask what year Beauxbatons was founded. Ask who the ghost of Hufflepuff is. Ask McGonagall’s age. Ask Lily’s maiden name. Were all the Marauders in Gryffindor? Which of Gilderoy Lockheart’s stories were stolen and which were flat out made up?We collected these interviews, we held them as canon, we altered our fanfic to accommodate what she revealed. And then, all of a sudden, that wasn’t what the fans wanted any more. When she finished HP, she said she was done, that she’d move on to other projects. No one wanted any of her non-HP stuff. No one cared. So she came back to build the Fantastic Beasts verse, with exactly the same policy about answering fans that we had welcomed back in the early 2000s.So, like, you don’t have to enjoy what she’s doing. The fan community has changed, and that’s fine. But JKR contributed a lot to the children’s fantasy genre and to the way fandom operated, and we should at least acknowledge that.

aethelflaedladyofmercia: Ok like I think people are forgetting something very important about JKR.Namely, she did not make up this stuff...

scenes: idiotboisinlove: another vfx practice with the lovely good omens deleted scenes!! ❤️ thank you again to @doctortennants for the source material [x] and to our starring role [squeak]🐀 Bonus: 
scenes: idiotboisinlove:

another vfx practice with the lovely good omens deleted scenes!! ❤️ thank you again to @doctortennants for the source material [x] and to our starring role [squeak]🐀
Bonus: 

idiotboisinlove: another vfx practice with the lovely good omens deleted scenes!! ❤️ thank you again to @doctortennants for the source m...

scenes: writing-prompt-s A dating service where matching is based people's search history exists. You're a serial killer. You go on a date with a writer. endreams-s Serial Killer: metaphorically, if you were to kill someone, how would you do it? Writer: Air shot between the toes, it'll look like a heart attack. Serial Killer who is obviously in love already: *sucks in a breath* ok fangoddess817 Writer: how long would it take to die if you were to potentially stab someone in the guts Serial killer: anywhere from 2 to 30 minutes Writer, already bringing a ring out: *shaking* thanks December C) Baby infinityonthot A++ addition tetsuskitten Writer: *shows the serial killer the murder scene they're writing* babe, i'm not sure if this would actually work? Serial killer: *kisses writer on the forehead and leaves, comes back later, a suspicious scent of blood coming off them* it works baby, you're doing great tigerliliesandcherryblossoms I LOVE THIS vmohlere Oh no, murder comedy is my jam laziestofthedreamers I love this, I love all of this, but quick question, does the author know? Like are they aware that their significant other is a serial killer or do they just think that they have a morbid sense of humor? It'd be even funnier if the author had no fucking clue, like how Aurthur Conan Doyle was apparently stupidly gullible, and on top of it they're a horror or crime novelist. Like the serial killer works at a butcher shop or something so it's completely normal for them to come home smelling like blood, no murders going on here, no sirey. Just my darling coming back home from a long day at work. Now fast forward a bit and the author has managed to get their first book published, with loving support from the serial killer who helped them fine tune all the murder scenes, and it's a big hit. Enough so that detective with the local police department has noticed some disturbing similarities to several active cases, including details that were never released to the press. Obviously he brings this up to his superior and convinces him that there's something to the theory, but it's all circumstantial right now. He stakes out the author's home and is super convinced that the author is the murderer, but they don't seem to do anything??? Like they literally are at the house all day, that's it. Most they do is leave for groceries. So you get this dynamic of the serial killer mining the author for creative murder schemes, the author being lovingly encouraged by the serial killer, and finally the detective who is just so sure that the author is the killer and that if he sticks it out long enough he'll FINALLY have proof. annieutimagines Plot twist, The serial killer and detective use to go out so it gets sub what personal. "You need to stop seeing them. I think they are a serial killer." Serial killer breaths in. "Look-" I love this so much
scenes: writing-prompt-s
 A dating service where matching is based
 people's search history exists. You're a serial killer.
 You go on a date with a writer.
 endreams-s
 Serial Killer: metaphorically, if you were to kill
 someone, how would you do it?
 Writer: Air shot between the toes, it'll look like a
 heart attack.
 Serial Killer who is obviously in love already: *sucks
 in a breath* ok
 fangoddess817
 Writer: how long would it take to die if you were to
 potentially stab someone in the guts
 Serial killer: anywhere from 2 to 30 minutes
 Writer, already bringing a ring out: *shaking* thanks
 December C) Baby
 infinityonthot
 A++ addition
 tetsuskitten
 Writer: *shows the serial killer the murder scene
 they're writing* babe, i'm not sure if this would
 actually work?
 Serial killer: *kisses writer on the forehead and
 leaves, comes back later, a suspicious scent of blood
 coming off them* it works baby, you're doing great
 tigerliliesandcherryblossoms
 I LOVE THIS
 vmohlere
 Oh no, murder comedy is my jam
 laziestofthedreamers
 I love this, I love all of this, but quick question, does
 the author know? Like are they aware that their
 significant other is a serial killer or do they just think
 that they have a morbid sense of humor? It'd be
 even funnier if the author had no fucking clue, like
 how Aurthur Conan Doyle was apparently stupidly
 gullible, and on top of it they're a horror or crime
 novelist. Like the serial killer works at a butcher shop
 or something so it's completely normal for them to
 come home smelling like blood, no murders going on
 here, no sirey. Just my darling coming back home
 from a long day at work.
 Now fast forward a bit and the author has managed
 to get their first book published, with loving support
 from the serial killer who helped them fine tune all
 the murder scenes, and it's a big hit. Enough so that
 detective with the local police department has
 noticed some disturbing similarities to several active
 cases, including details that were never released to
 the press. Obviously he brings this up to his superior
 and convinces him that there's something to the
 theory, but it's all circumstantial right now. He stakes
 out the author's home and is super convinced that
 the author is the murderer, but they don't seem to do
 anything??? Like they literally are at the house all
 day, that's it. Most they do is leave for groceries.
 So you get this dynamic of the serial killer mining the
 author for creative murder schemes, the author
 being lovingly encouraged by the serial killer, and
 finally the detective who is just so sure that the
 author is the killer and that if he sticks it out long
 enough he'll FINALLY have proof.
 annieutimagines
 Plot twist, The serial killer and detective use to go
 out so it gets sub what personal.
 "You need to stop seeing them. I think they are a
 serial killer."
 Serial killer breaths in. "Look-"
I love this so much

I love this so much

scenes: animetitle:these three scenes in Airplane! come one right after another and together they form the most lethal sequence in cinema history
scenes: animetitle:these three scenes in Airplane! come one right after another and together they form the most lethal sequence in cinema history

animetitle:these three scenes in Airplane! come one right after another and together they form the most lethal sequence in cinema history

scenes: 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
scenes: 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: au...

scenes: ruinedchildhood: Carrie Fisher in Star Wars: The Last Jedi Behind The Scenes
scenes: ruinedchildhood:

Carrie Fisher in Star Wars: The Last Jedi Behind The Scenes

ruinedchildhood: Carrie Fisher in Star Wars: The Last Jedi Behind The Scenes