Slytherin Assassin Paragade House Stark Fire Nation Fringe Division Whovian

catherinedeneuev:

This is such an important yet underrated scene.

(Source: meryylstreep, via dragoncharming)

apriki:

The core cast of Teen Wolf characters (Scott, Stiles, Isaac, Chris, Allison, Kira, Lydia, Derek, Jackson, Erica, Boyd, Cora) including villains (Gerard, Kate, Kali, Matt, Deucalion, Ethan, Aiden, Jennifer, Nogitsune, Peter, Victoria) are

  • 58.3% men
  • 41.6% women
Of these, 10 have left the show permanently. Minus the two who are still alive in universe (Jackson and Cora), this leaves 8 major character deaths. Of these 8, 6 deaths were women. That’s 75%.
When you take the pool of antagonists, there are
  • 36% women
  • 64% men
5 of the six antagonist deaths were women. That’s 83%. Every single female antagonist has died while only one major male antagonist has died. Peter Hale died and was RESURRECTED, but every female villain has died and stayed dead.
How many minor character deaths or mentioned deaths have been women? Laura Hale, Talia Hale, Stiles’ mother, Heather, Malia Tate’s mother and sister. This show has a serious problem with fridging women in a cast that is already male dominated and it needs to be addressed.

(via jacnaylor)

When you are hurting, there will always be people who find a way to make it about themselves. If you break your wrist, they’ll complain about a sprained ankle. If you are sad, they’re sadder. If you’re asking for help, they’ll demand more attention.

Here is a fact: I was in a hospital and sobbing into my palms when a woman approached me and asked why I was making so much noise and I managed to stutter that my best friend shot himself in the head and now he was 100% certified dead and she made this little grunt and had the nerve to tell me, “Well now you made me sad.”

When you get angry, there are going to be people who ask you to shut up and sit down, and they’re not going to do it nicely. Theirs are the faces that turn bright red before you have a chance to finish your sentence. They won’t ask you to explain yourself. They’ll be mad that you’re mad and that will be their whole reason alone.

Here is a fact: I was in an alleyway a few weeks ago, stroking my friend’s back as she vomited fourteen tequila shots. “I hate men,” she wheezed as her sides heaved, “I hate all of them.”

I braided her hair so it wouldn’t get caught in the mess. I didn’t correct her and reply that she does in fact love her father and her little brother too, that there are strangers she has yet to meet that will be better for her than any of her shitty ex-boyfriends, that half of our group of friends identifies as male - I could hear each of her bruises in those words and I didn’t ask her to soften the blow when she was trying to buff them out of her skin. She doesn’t hate all men. She never did.

She had the misfortune to be overheard by a drunk guy in an ill-fitting suit, a boy trying to look like a man and leering down my dress as he stormed towards us. “Fuck you, lady,” he said, “Fuck you. Not all men are evil, you know.”

“Thanks,” I told him dryly, pulling on her hand, trying to get her inside again, “See you.”

He followed us. Wouldn’t stop shouting. How dare she get mad. How dare she was hurting. “It’s hard for me too!” he yowled after us. “With fuckers like you, how’s a guy supposed to live?”

Here’s a fact: my father is Cuban and my genes repeat his. Once one of my teachers looked at my heritage and said, “Your skin doesn’t look dirty enough to be a Mexican.”

When my cheeks grew pink and my tongue dried up, someone else in the classroom stood up. “You can’t say that,” he said, “That’s fucking racist. We could report you for that.”

Our teacher turned vicious. “You wanna fail this class? Go ahead. Report me. I was joking. It’s my word against yours. I hate kids like you. You think you’ve got all the power - you don’t. I do.”

Later that kid and I became close friends and we skipped class to do anything else and the two of us were lying on our backs staring up at the sky and as we talked about that moment, he sighed, “I hate white people.” His girlfriend is white and so is his mom. I reached out until my fingers were resting in the warmth of his palm.

He spoke up each time our teacher said something shitty. He failed the class. I stayed silent. I got the A but I wish that I didn’t.

Here is a fact: I think gender is a social construct and people that want to tell others what defines it just haven’t done their homework. I personally happen to have the luck of the draw and am the same gender as my sex, which basically just means society leaves me alone about this one particular thing.

Until I met Alex, who said he hated cis people. My throat closed up. I’m not good at confrontation. I avoided him because I didn’t want to bother him.

One day I was going on a walk and I found him behind our school, bleeding out of the side of his mouth. The only thing I really know is how to patch people up. He winced when the antibacterial cream went across his new wounds. “I hate cis people,” he said weakly.

I looked at him and pushed his hair back from his head. “I understand why you do.”

Here is a fact: anger is a secondary emotion. Anger is how people stop themselves from hurting. Anger is how people stop themselves by empathizing.

It is easy for the drunken man to be mad at my friend. If he says “Hey, fuck you, lady,” he doesn’t have to worry about what’s so wrong about men.

It’s easy for my teacher to fail the kids who speak up. If we’re just smart-ass students, it’s not his fault we fuck up.

It’s easy for me to hate Alex for labeling me as dangerous when I’ve never hurt someone a day in my life. But I’m safe in my skin and his life is at risk just by going to the bathroom. I understand why he says things like that. I finally do.

There’s a difference between the spread of hatred and the frustration of people who are hurting. The thing is, when you are broken, there will always be someone who says “I’m worse, stop talking.” There will always be people who are mad you’re trying to steal the attention. There will always be people who get mad at the same time as you do - they hate being challenged. It changes the rules.

I say I hate all Mondays but my sister was born on one and she’s the greatest joy I have ever known. I say I hate brown but it’s really just the word and how it turns your mouth down - the colour is my hair and my eyes and my favorite sweater. I say I hate pineapple but I still try it again every Easter, just to see if it stings less this year. It’s okay to be sad when you hear someone generalize a group you’re in. But instead of assuming they’re evil and filled with hatred, maybe ask them why they think that way - who knows, you might just end up with a new and kind friend.

By telling the oppressed that their anger is unjustified, you allow the oppression to continue. I know it’s hard to stay calm. I know it’s scary. But you’re coming from the safe place and they aren’t. Just please … Try to be more understanding. /// r.i.d (via inkskinned)

(via theanunu)

genoshaisforlovers:

I’m just sayin’

(via gnomingabout)

For his role (in Dallas Buyers Club) he lost 45 pounds. Or what actresses call ‘being in a movie.’

TINA FEY, on Matthew McConaughey, at the Golden Globes (via inothernews)

(via ahundredyears)

arashikami:

thevalkyriedirective:

image

'I thought it was freaking awesome. People really need to learn to relax a little.'

'I forgot about the scene until now. I think Alice Eve Aka “Kirk’s baby moma” is Hot. I like seeing her that way , I am a healthy straight male.'

'A gorgeous, gorgeous actress in her underwear – I like how we’re all so repressed that we can’t even comprehend such a thing! If Alice Eve didn’t want to shoot that scene, she wouldn’t have. I’ll bet she did, because she is hotter than that volcano at the beginning…'

'That's because the old Star Trek was still stuck in conservative times. The gratuitous nudity here just makes it better.'

'It must be really hard for you to find any joy in the world when you live your life over-analyzing everything, trying to find how it's slighting you.'

'Indeed. How is it “misogynistic” to show a sexy woman on screen? The director thinks she looks good in underwear… therefore he hates women?'

'You girls can go ahead and run with this. Have fun.

I agree, #10. This is a non-issue. So sick and tired of reading about ‘diversity.’ Yawn.’

In case you hadn’t guessed already, these are a random selection of the comments written in reply to a few of the articles reviewing Into Darkness and/or talking about what I’ve dubbed the ‘Carol Marcus Underwear Incident’.

I doubt any of you are shocked or surprised.

How can we be? This sort of BS is spouted by men (and occasionally, some women) across the internet. No one who’s been online for any substantial amount of time would be surprised at these comments, or the underlying sexism of the people commenting.

For those that have been living under a rock, or perhaps hibernating in the tunnels of Janus IV, the Incident in question is beautifully summed up by this article -

I’ll set the scene. Kirk accompanies Carol Marcus to a shuttlecraft to discuss sending her to a nearby planetoid to try and diffuse some of these mysterious photon torpedoes aboard the Enterprise. She’s the logical choice since, as we learned in her introductory scene, she holds an advanced degree with a specialty in weaponry. Great, nothing out of the ordinary here, I’ll just go ahead and OH! You’re in your underwear! That’s just great.

But, let’s back up a second. Why exactly is she in her underwear? She tells Kirk to turn around, doesn’t mention why (were we expecting her to require a change of wardrobe?) and then acts coy when Kirk sneaks a peak at her half-dressed body. The scene was flat out gratuitous. It had no point. There was no reason for her to change clothes. There was no reason for her to change in front of Kirk. There was no reason for her to change in a shuttlecraft with the back door hanging wide open. The writers threw the scene in for pure, testosterone-driven shock value. (Side note: lucky she was wearing her brand new Victoria Secret push-up bra. I’m sure that’s real comfortable under her uniform, especially in a combat situation)

image

In case that rock was particularly large, when called out on how gratuitous the entire scene was, these were some of the responses that JJ and his team gave -

"She’s changing and the idea was- the intent was, it’s Kirk, who was always a womanizing character. So the idea was, have a beat like that amidst all this action and adventure. He looks and then looks away. I don’t think I quite edited the scene in the right way. To me, it was a sort of balance, there is a scene earlier where he is not dressed either. It was a sort of a trade off. Some people did feel like it was, you know, exploiting her and while she is lovely, I can also see their point of view.”

- JJ Abrams (on Conan, May 2013)

"Why is Alice Eve in her underwear, gratuitously and unnecessarily, without any real effort made as to why in God’s name she would undress in that circumstance? Well there’s a very good answer for that. But I’m not telling you what it is. Because… uh… MYSTERY?

[…] As for the [Cumberbatch’s] shirtless scene… we scripted it, but I don’t think it ever got shot. You know why? Because getting actors to take their clothes off is DEMEANING AND HORRIBLE AND…

Oh.
Right.
Sorry.”

- Damon Lindelof (Email to Josh Harowitz, May 2013)

"I copped to the fact that we should have done a better job of not being gratuitous in our representation of a barely clothed actress"

"We also had Kirk shirtless in underpants in both movies. Do not want to make light of something that some construe as mysogenistic "

"What I’m saying is I hear you, I take responsibility and will be more mindful in the future"

"Also, I need to learn how to spell ‘misogynistic’ "

- Damon Lindelof (a series of tweets from his twitter) [OP: I’m curious, how does one represent a barely clothed actress in a way that isn’t gratuitous?]

"Last time, Zoe needed to wear underwear, and this time it was Alice Eve’s turn. You know, it’s a rather large male fanbase, and JJ wanted to appeal to that."

- Michael Kaplan (costume designer, The Guardian, May 2013)

(These quotes were all taken from this fantastic collection assembled by finnemores).

How lucky are we? Getting such understanding and supportive apologies from everyone involved. Oh wait, what’s that? They don’t seem at all apologetic, supportive or understanding? Huh, you’re right.

In fact, to me, it seems that -

  • They don’t understand either the fandom (and the fact that there are women in it) or the source material.
  • They aren’t even slightly supportive. Really, they seem condescending more than anything.
  • They’re pretending that this outrage over such blatant misogyny is a surprise to them - which means they either knew it would happen and didn’t care, or are completely ignorant.
  • And worst of all, they think that these feeble ‘apologies’ excuse them from the fact that this scene was in the movie at all.

What makes this entire Incident even more outrageous and frustrating is that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It wasn’t just Carol in her underwear, the only other female characters in the reboot movies - Uhura and Gaila, were both in their underwear in the last movie!

image

And, expanding even further out, when you add these movies to the greater tapestry of Star Trek, you’ll note the this is just the latest drop in a trend that is moving steadily downwards for women’s representation - and presentation - in our beloved science-fiction franchise.

As Jadzia Dax remarked, in the scene that inspired this weekly segment, in the Original Series women wore less. Space bikinis, often little more than scraps of fabric that looked like they were held on with magic space glue, were par for the course

Even once our female characters were given duty uniforms that kept them covered as much as the men, there was often at least one character put in a catsuit to show off her figure - as I talked about inno less thanthreearticles in the past.

Enterprise went to new lows when it put its main characters - men and women both - in their underwear for numerous scenes, because, uh, mystery?

And now these reboot movies have finally done away with the idea of having well-written, complex female characters who are at least equal to the men in their importance to the crew (and the plot) if not in the wardrobe department. Because, after all, the fanbase is largely male, so why on Earth would they want to see female characters who were more than eye candy?

I think if I roll my eyes any harder they’re going to pop out of their sockets.

Of course (some) men don’t see anything wrong with this. Since the advent of the film industry they’ve had scantily clad women served to them on silver platters. Its as if film makers have to fill some sort of boob quota in every movie they make. Like ‘don’t worry lads, we’ll make sure you see some titties along with your spaceships and explosions’.

So many men (but not all of them of course) are so genuinely baffled by our objections. ‘But Kirk appears without his shirt’! They’ll say, if they even bother to defend their attitude at all (which most of them don’t).

Do you ever think they’ll grasp the idea that the two things are entirely different? That Carol (and Uhura) having an entire thirty seconds of unobstructed screentime in their undies for no reason other than so men can see them is not the same thing - even slightly - to showing Captain Kirk in bed with yet more alien women.

image

They’re entirely different situations, because ultimately - and this is the thing these men don’t seem to be able to get their heads around - showing women randomly in their underwear is taking away from both their character and their power. When a man sees a woman on a screen half-naked (or in a catsuit for that matter), he seems to lose all respect for her.

On the other hand, showing Kirk - or other men - half-naked isreinforcing their power.

If you’ll forgive the digression - It’s the same as male and female superheroes.

Yes the men are often shown with costumes that mould to every muscle, but this is meant to make them look powerful - the people reading them (who are of course, assumed to be men) are meant to want to be them. They respect these heroes, because their costumes - and importantly, the way they are drawn - emphasise how powerful and strong and heroic they are.

Even if the women are shown with rippling muscles and abs of steel beating up enemies, their costumes are inevitably more revealing and their boobs are often unrealistically proportioned - and that’s not even getting into the poses they’re contorted into so that the viewer can appreciate both their tits and their asses. Despite being superheroes, the ultimate purpose of these characters is to serve as eye candy for the male readers (who, like in science-fiction, are assumed the be the only gender of the audience).

Captain Kirk is who men want to be - he gets all the girls, while looking dashing and handsome and all that. Carol Marcus, Uhura, and Gaila are who the men (remember, they are the target audience) want to have sex with.

That is why we’re upset.

Not because ‘oh no, women are in their undies!’. As I explained in one of my first posts in this segment, I’m bisexual, so I have no problem with admiring attractive women! But unlike some of the men in the audience, I’d rather not be taken out of the story by a random, gratuitous, unnecessary scene just to see Alive Eve in her skivvies.

I don’t need to have half-naked women handed to me (visually) on a silver platter, there are plenty of photoshoots I can ogle for that and y’know, porn, that thing that was invented for people to get off to.

I have no objection at all to men, and women, and all androgynous beings, admiring half or entirely naked people, but why exactly does that have to cross over into Star Trek? What does it add to the story or the movie?

Sometimes I wonder if I’m missing some fundamental aspect of this, whether I am just being a prude or repressed like those commenters seem to think, but if that was the case then why are the literally dozens of articles calling them out over this scene?

I can’t be the only one who feels this way, or I wouldn’t have found these gems amidst the comments on those articles -

Well, Damon Lindelof has admitted the mysogeny of the scene. No doubt about it, it is sexist.

Not to mention that the writers have misunderstood Kirk. During TOS, Kirk would respect a woman’s right to privacy and not merely turn around, but leave the shuttle. Kirk in TOS had flings with a bunch of women, but he was always respectful towards them, and there was always an element of romance in there.

Alice Eve is a beautiful creature and if you can’t bypass the cultural construct that constitutes sexism to appreciate her body, each she obviously works her to maintain, then you would reevaluate yourself a little.

The body she unhealthily worked to maintain, you mean? Because here is a link to an article where she admitted prior to filming STID, she went on a diet of eating nothing but spinach for two months. Which any nutritionist would tell you? Not healthy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2319856/Star-Trek-actress-Alice-Eve-admits-eating-SPINACH-weeks.html

…which pretty much sums up the problem with objectifying women in media. It’s damaging, psychologically, and in this case, physically to women. But of course some of you don’t care about how objectification effects we women, of course not, why think of anything that doesn’t effect you directly yet gets in the way of your ogling?

In the context *of the film* it’s out of place, has no sexual chemistry whatsoever, is utterly irrelevant to the plot and adds nothing of value to their ‘relationship’. Does Kirk react to her? Yep. Does he react to anything with a pulse? Ohhhh yes. And therein lies the problem, this particular Kirk is currently an adolescent frat boy looking to score at every opportunity. Hell we even get a scene in the first half of the movie at his apartment when he’s sharing his bed with two women. Carol Marcus is nothing special in the context of this film whatsoever. There’s certainly no need to establish a sexual component between the two as this Kirk doesn’t seem to be choosy.

Now if that scene had continued, or for that matter if she’d stripped down and Kirk *hadn’t* looked (and in so doing acted differently that he does normally) it might have had some meaning. Maybe there’s a big deleted scene after that which would add something to it, who knows.

And, even more delightful, articles like this one calling out JJ and co’s attempts to ‘apologise’ for the scene -

On Tuesday, I noted that one of Star Trek’s writers, Damon Lindelof, defended the gratuitous and consent-hostile scene of Dr. Carol Marcus (played by Alice Eve) in her underwear by drawing an equivalence between female and male nudity and giving pathetic lipservice to critics in an attempt to diffuse the criticism while clearly standing behind the scene.

Last night, director J.J. Abrams was a guest on Conan O’Brien’s show, and doubled down on the same strategy in an awkwardly staged segment designed to feign concern about the criticism while implying in every conceivable way that critics are oversensitive hysterics. The scene is pitched at O’Brien’s show site with: “To answer charges of sexism in ‘Star Trek,’ J.J. shows a cut scene of Benedict Cumberbatch showering.” Which pretty much sums it right the fuck up.

Yeah, I also love how Abrams suggests it might have been an editing problem. Sure. If by that you mean: “It should never have been edited into the movie, in any form, at all.”

Or this one -

The fact that the display of female skin presented in terms of “turns,” especially when there is no equivalent for the male actors is horrifying. (No, we’re not being hyperbolic. It’s actually scary.) The resulting pleasure of a “large male fanbase” is absolutely no justification for exploitation – in fact it is simply an excuse for the blatant sexualisaiton and objectification of women. Given Kaplan’s propensity toward the miniskirt (super practical on a spaceship with cold plastic seats and miles of reflective flooring), we are not especially surprised.

Marcus spent the majority of the film as a damsel in distress, a chip on a board who can only shriek prettily and wait to be rescued after her one failed moment of glory in standing up to her father. Marcus is present to provide motivation; she has little of her own. Her intelligence, while admirable, is an inorganic plot device – an attempt to imbue value in a character which the film has no intention of treating as valuable.

Telling us that she possessed advanced knowledge that the other characters don’t have is irrelevant if they don’t actually demonstrate this. Or was the scene where she desperately ripped all of the wiring out of the torpedo a mysterious and precise technique that she had learned during her studies?

That said, Lindelof is only halfway there, as the apology itself shows that he may still have missed the point. Aside from using the buzzword “gratuitous,” by comparing Eve’s naked scene to Pine’s, he is essentially saying “don’t blame me, there were naked men as well.” Alas, this is not actually an argument in defense of objectifying women.

Even the deleted scene released earlier featuring a nude Benedict Cumberbatch is no argument – it was cut out because it was deemed irrelevant. Why wasn’t Alice Eve’s scene deemed the same?

I think it’s safe for me to say that this scene was (excuse my language) a phenomenal fuck up on every level. Because this sort of thing doesn’t just happen by ‘accident’. A film, especially one on this scale, is an enormous endeavour, made by the collective effort of hundreds of people.

To have this scene air in the final movie meant that not only was the scene written in the first place, but that it survived multiple re-writes and the scrutiny of the entire production crew. It then had to be shot, which means that people spent time building the set, lighting it, rehearsing lines, choosing camera angles, and then actually filming it. And after all of that, it had to survive the editing process.

That doesn’t just ‘accidentally’ happen. Nothing in the movie happened accidentally! For JJ and his team to act like ‘whoops, how did that get in there?’ is frankly insulting. The scene is in the movie because they wanted it to be there.

They had ample opportunity in the years it took them to make the movie, to realise that the scene added nothing and would most likely piss a lot of people off, and they decided to include it anyway.

Sorry JJ, but I don’t accept your apology. Try harder next time, or get the hell out of our franchise. And take your sexist colleagues with you.  

image

It’s a little presumptious, perhaps, for me to even try and add anything meaningful, but I’d just like to say that these guys have NO CLUE about who the Star Trek fanbase is. NO CLUE.

It is AT LEAST 50% women, if not more, which they might even have realised, had they, for instance, looked at photos of audience members at convention panels dedicated to Trek.

Besides which, it’s insultingly heteronormative to think all the guys in the fanbase are sexually interested in women.

{via macpye}

(via nudityandnerdery)

Emma Thompson about acting | BAFTA Life in Pictures (Nov. 24, 2013) (x)

(Source: damethompson, via typeytypeytypey)

dingdongno:

and it’s amazing

image

but wait there’s moreimage

omg and then image

from (x)

(via paelmoon)

lesbiangoggles:

shykomaeda:

myflameofhope:

shykomaeda:

how long must we wait for a lesbian disney princess

or what about a prince who throughout the entire movie you think he’s going to be the love interest but in the end it turns out he’s gay

or how about a lesbian princess

Everytime someone asks for lesbian representation someone will try to turn it to something else, a gay guy or a girl with no love interests etc. Every fucking time. As soon as you say “lesbian” someone is already gearing up to derail the conversation and change the focus to something else. Why is this considered so much to ask, why every other person has something else to propose as an alternative?  

As for the people who say how about both a gay prince and a lesbian princess at the same time and other people think they’re together but they’re not and we find that at the end. How about no?

How about not making a story about a lesbian princess revolve around whether a guy wants her or not and whether others think they should be together? How about not revealing the lesbian princess’s sexuality at the end as a surprise? How about making the story about the lesbian character and what she wants and what she’s after and maybe the love interest she’s trying to win over and not take attention from her to give it to a male character and his perspective. Male characters have a bad habit of taking over female characters’ story arcs. It’s like writers can’t help themselves. How about a storyline for a lesbian character that doesn’t involve romantically a male character at all, not even as a beard or to show that she’s really a lesbian? Can’t we really imagine a story for a lesbian character that doesn’t include a guy in a protagonistic role challenging or reinforcing her sexuality and taking over her screen time? Does a lesbian character need a male character to prove her sexuality by not being attracted to him? How about a lesbian princess saying she looks for the girl of her dreams and we just believe her and the story is about her and her adventures?

How about a lesbian princess?

(Source: shy731remade, via dailydirtythoughts)

I am tired, not of arguing in favour of equality, diversity and tolerance, but of having to explain, over and over and over again, why such arguments are still necessary, only to have my evidence casually dismissed by someone too oblivious to realise that their dismissal of the problem is itself a textbook example of the fucking problem. I am tired of being mocked by hypocrites who think that a single lazy counterexample is sufficient to debunk the fifteen detailed examples they demanded I produce before they’d even accept my point as a hypothetical, let alone valid, argument. I am tired of assholes who think that playing Devil’s Advocate about an issue alien to their experience but of deep personal significance to their interlocutor makes them both intellectually superior and more rationally objective on the specious basis that being dispassionate is the same as being right (because if they can stay calm while savagely kicking your open wound, then clearly, you have no excuse for screaming).

Foz Meadows from I Am So Very Tired in shattersnipe: malcontent & rainbows October 4, 2013 (via nonmono-perspective)

(Source: morecoffee, via nudityandnerdery)

thetrekkiehasthephonebox:

slipstreamborne:

Quick!  Which of these men does Lt. Nyota Uhura surpass or equal in rank?

Reading through some Star Trek cosplay blogs and a poster pointed out something (in an off-hand, costuming detail sort of way) that brought me up short because fucking shit, why didn’t I notice that before?

In the reboot films, the short-sleeve dress variant of the uniform worn exclusively by characters the film identifies or codes as women (there are variants with long sleeves and even a full tunic-and-pants combo apparently available as options, but they get minimal screen-time and are mostly in the background or very quick cut-away shots), by the nature of their being short-sleeved, don’t have any place for the wearer to display rank.  The long-sleeved versions of the uniform, the kind worn by all of the men in the film, foreground and back, display rank at the cuffs, as was the case with TOS.

So basically, by removing the sleeves of the short dress uniform variant of the standard duty uniform, not introducing any variations on how rank can be displayed, and showing/marketing the few prominent women in the cast almost exclusively in that version of the uniform (with the exception of a few scenes where everyone is in long-sleeved formal uniforms that show ranks in a variety of ways or wearing other issued clothing with no designated ranks for anyone), the Star Trek reboot series ensures that there is no way for the women in its cast to visibly outrank any of the men

The same holds true for the overwhelming majority of the women in the background.  Searching around for pictures for this post, I saw exactly one screencap of a woman wearing long sleeves who wasn’t an ensign (a science-division Orion lieutenant).  Regardless of their true rank, by not being able to display their rank women wearing the short-sleeve, short-skirt dress uniform in the new Star Trek movies (whose costumes are the ultimate choice of the filmmakers) will always be read as civilians or ensigns, the most junior of the enlisted members of Starfleet.

Granted the meaning of the braids as they relate to rank aren’t something many in the general public would notice and weren’t highlighted in the way the rank designations were in the various tv series, but dude, JJ.

That’s still fucked up as all hell. 

This will eternally bother me.

(via silverturtle)

wafflesforstephanie:

tyleroakley:

keluargakilljoy:

Astronaut hunt turns into sexist nightmare for female finalist

A competition on Facebook by a male grooming brand to send a Malaysian to a space camp in Florida, USA to train to be an astronaut turned ugly when the only female finalist was “trolled”, drawing sexist comments from netizens.

Post-graduate student Roshini Muniam, who is one of the top five finalists of Axe deodorant’s Apollo Space Race competition, was discriminated against online due to her gender.

A comment posted by Syed Wazien on Roshini’s profile, featured in Axe’s Facebook page, expressed surprise over a woman’s desire to go to space.

“What – a woman?! No way, hose!!!” he said.

Geeky Fredward wrote that Roshini should not compete and must make way for her male counterparts to win the competition.

“Banyak lagi competition untuk female only kat luar tu lady.. (there are many other competitions for females out there, lady) don’t ruin what’s intended or most considered to be men only chance?”

Another commentator, Dimitriy Mirovsky, was more insulting, saying that women should be prohibited from the competition as they menstruate.

“pompuan REJEK…… lelaki sahaje….. kang tampon ang pecah kat langit tu abis rosak space craft tu….. kah kah kah……” (Women should be rejected… it is only for males… if your tampon burst while you are in space, the entire spacecraft will be spoilt… kah kah
kah…)

This is reminiscent of an incident in the Malaysian parliament in 2007 when controversial Barisan Nasional MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin, in a heated exchange in the Dewan Rakyat with opposition MPs over a leaky roof in Parliament House, said: “Mana ada bocor? Batu Gajah pun bocor tiap-tiap bulan juga. (Where is the leak? The Batu Gajah MP also leaks every month.)”.

Batu Gajah MP Fong Po Kuan and other women MPs were outraged by his comments and he was eventually forced to apologise.

Plucky Roshini, 27, has hit back at the trolls.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I am all out to win this competition because I want to inspire ordinary people to have extraordinary dreams & goals,” she posted on the page.

The contestants underwent a series of challenges which tested their mental strength and endurance. The pictures of the top five were posted online. Visitors to the page then could vote for their choice.

Some netizens have also come out in her defence, with Rajakumari Rajagopal pointing out that the competition was open to all Malaysians and that she qualified on merit.

“She was the only Malaysian woman who had made her way to the semi-finals and now to the finals. She needs your help and everyone’s help to make her dream come true. Why can’t she have a dream? Why can’t she be given an equal right to participate? Why can’t she be the final person to represent Malaysia. Malaysia Boleh! 1 Malaysia! Hidup Malaysia!”

Rafizal Rahman said Roshini should not be praised and not criticised, pointing out there was already a lot of female astronauts in the world.

The competition closes next Tuesday and the winner will be announced on September 24.

The winner will represent Malaysia in Florida and compete against other nations’ candidates for an opportunity to go to space.

Only 22 people will be selected for the Florida experience.

image

She’s losing by 20k votes. Let’s fix this.

I can’t find out how to vote!

(via batsonthebrain)

margotkim:

whovianfeminism:

grassangel:

Gender Disparity in American and British Television Writing Staffs (Or: Somebody, Please, Please, Take Away My Excel Access)

My quest to spite Steven Moffat may have gotten out of hand. (Quoth Community: “This is how supervillains are created.”)
If you’re breathing and use the internet, you’ve probably heard the screaming and debate over whether current Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat needs to hire more female writers. And by “more,” I mean “some”: In his three-year, 42-episode tenure, Moffat has not employed a single female writer.
Well, you know me. I love getting outraged at Steven Moffat. I want so badly to be able to say, “Fuck you, Steven Moffat. This is fucking ridiculous.” But, sadly, I can’t get outraged without data. Before I could swear delightedly at Moffat, I needed to know whether Moffat is really doing such a bad job, compared to everyone else. What if, as one of the above links suggests, gender inequality on writing staffs is a systemic problem in British sci-fi/fantasy? “Fuck you, British sci-fi/fantasy, this is fucking ridiculous,” is just way less fun to yell.
So I started researching the writing staffs of the big sci-fi/fantasy shows: Star Trek. Game of Thrones. Farscape. (It’s big to me, damn it!) And then I started researching the staffs of some other shows of interest: Mad Men. Community. The Walking Dead.
And then I thought, Holy fucking hell, selection bias, much?
There was only one solution: A comprehensive study of gender equality in British and American television writing.

Since we got on the topic of female writers on Doctor Who tonight, I’d highly recommend that you read this article. They did SCIENCE.

Wow, no, this is the best. They have histograms, people, check this shit out. 

(via dragoncharming)

  • Batman film:

    I think some parts of the Batman mythos are a little too silly or outlandish to work on film, like the themed, superpowered villains, Robin, and the fact that he has a Bat-everything

  • Warner Bros:

    Okay, well, let's construct a more realistic, grounded world, limit ourselves to unpowered villains, have people who represent Robin's role in the story without actually wearing red and green tights, and get rid of the "bat" prefix on everything and just let the audience infer that his car is the batmobile and his cave is the batcave.

  • Superman film:

    A lot of people are put off by the fact that Superman is so powerful as to be undefeatable, and they think Kryptonite is a cheap shortcut to get around that. Also, it bothers people that the only things the films show him doing are flying and lifting stuff, and they have a hard time believing everyone just accepts that he's an alien without making a big deal out of it.

  • Warner Bros:

    Okay, we can work around that. Let's make Superman less omnipotent, match him against an equally powerful villain. Instead of making "he can't use his powers because of Kryptonite," we'll put him in a situation where even his superpowers can't solve everything, and maybe make an ending that's not so morally black-and-white, so you can't really call it a loss or a win, that way he's not undefeatable. Oh, and we'll make it a first contact story, and show the freakout that would happen if a superpowered alien really arrived on Earth!

  • Green Lantern film:

    Green Lantern doesn't really have a very big fanbase, and there's four different Green Lanterns. Everybody who loves Green Lantern has their favorite, and most of them don't really like the other three.

  • Warner Bros:

    Let's fast-track this thing, and pour lots of money into it. Maybe if the movie does well, we can make other movies that introduce the other Lanterns, and then it will have a huge fanbase!

  • Flash movie:

    There's been like a hundred different Flashes and they all have different origins and variations on their powers, and a lot of them have a different source for their powers. Also, the flash has very few popular villains.

  • Warner Bros:

    Can you have it ready by 2016?

  • Wonder Woman movie:

    Wonder Woman's pretty much always been Diana, an Amazon princess who left her ancient Greek-inspired, all-female homeland. She's a skilled warrior, brilliant in hand-to-hand combat, and is one of DC's most iconic and popular characters. She's got an invisible airplane, but a lot of people think that's silly, so a lot of interpretations show her as just able to fly, or turn it into a plane that can turn invisible, or an invisible projection like the ones made by Green Lantern's ring. Her rogues gallery is also largely mythological, which the popularity of Thor proves is popular with audiences. Because she's a superpowered woman who leaves an all-female utopia to enter our incredibly unequal patriarchal society, her triumph will be all the more satisfying because society doubted her because of her gender. Seeing as half our fans are women, but we always act like none of our fans are women, it would really get us a lot of money to show a movie where the message is that it's wrong to underestimate women, as well as launching a new franchise and building hype for a Justice League film. Plus, Wonder Woman is a fan favorite among both men and women, especially people who watched the "Justice League" cartoon. She's almost universally loved, and the Wonder Woman animated film was one of our best sellers, everybody loved it!

  • Warner Bros:

    Invisible Plane, you say? There's no way to make that work on screen, and people would be mad if we didn't have it. Besides, there isn't a huge market for a Wonder Woman movie! She doesn't have a clear origin story, not many people are familiar with her. Men won't buy tickets to a superhero movie with a female lead, and we just don't have that many fans who are women! Besides, she's too mythological, it would alienate people! Let's keep saying we're going to make a Wonder Woman movie, but then shelf the project before anyone can actually start to make it.

  • Fans:

    But we really all want a Wonder Woman movie! Please make one, I don't see why you can't have both a Superman/Batman movie and a Wonder Woman movie! We're begging you, you've just launched the second cinematic Superman franchise, and you're about to launch the third Batman cinematic franchise. Can we at least have the FIRST Wonder Woman franchise?

  • Warner Bros:

    Pshhh, a Wonder Woman movie is tricky! There's too much stuff we would have to work around, and besides, nobody wants to see one!

  • Fans:

    It would take no effort to work around those things, and we really want to--

  • Warner Bros:

    --NOBODY WANTS TO SEE ONE.

feferi:

Nicki is having none of your cisnormative bullshit. (x)

(Source: llllllooollllllll123, via lanaparrillasboobs)