“I guess your grades are more important to you than your morals are,” my English teacher spits out, lecturing our class about cheating that’s been going on in the school.
My classmates and I exchange glances. Well, yeah, we all seem to be thinking together. Isn’t that what they’ve been showing us since middle school?
and our mental and physical health.
I want to write a quick note to everyone, because this is something I didn’t know, and I really, really wish I had.
A dear friend gave me a lovely bouquet for Mother’s Day. Included among the flowers were a couple of stargazer lilies. You all know what lilies look like, they’re…
whoooa! Magical photoshop shit! Thanks dude, this is such a useful tool!
MAGICAL PHOTOSHOP FILTER THAT MAKES PERSPECTIVE GRIDS FOR YOU
Okay, maybe people know about this for awhile already, but I just discovered it last night when I was copy pasting something and instead of pressing Ctrl+V, I hit Ctrl+Alt+V.
Best things tend to happen by accident.
(Except maybe pregnancies, but even that’s arguable)
this is something I needed for a long time now.
THIS IS GONNA MAKE MY WHOLE LIFE INFINITELY EASIER
HELL TO THE YES
Well, here we are again. GQ has once again skyrocketed to the top of my “Sexism Shit List,” this time with the spread titled, “Alison Brie and Gillian Jacobs Did This Lesbian Scene for Us.”
Why you gotta be like this, GQ? You’re a men’s lifestyle and fashion magazine! I don’t get it. Because frankly, yet again, this photo is offensive. And not everyone understands why.
It’s not Alison Brie or Gillian Jacobs. It’s not, “It’s such a shame to see young actresses whoring themselves out for publicity these days.” That’s rude, and slut-shaming, and it frustrates me to see people understand that this spread is not right but are left of center on why. This is not Alison Brie’s or Gillian Jacobs’ issue. This is a societal issue. This is a gender issue. This is a sexuality issue. This is a race issue.
The problem with this takes us right back to the male gaze. Let me ask you: how many men do you see in this photo? Zero, right? Wrong. The answer is one. There is one man in the photo and he is the one who is looking at it. Thanks, GQ, for reminding us that the male gaze is alive and well!
There should be no man in this photo. But this photo was designed by men, shot by a man, and published for men. The women in this photo are not subjects; they are objects. They are fetishized and presented simply as a girl-on-girl scenario.
Which leads me to another complaint: the title clearly says that this is “going lesbian.” Um, GQ, this is not “going lesbian.” This is going “girl-on-girl for the sake of a dude,” which, frankly, is only ever designed by dudes. “For us!” It’s right there in the title! This is for dudes! But girls don’t “go lesbian” for dudes. Girls “go lesbian” for, well, women, and marginalizing the validity of that by turning it into a sexualized and objectified peep show is just disrespectful.
Gentlemen of the world: we ladies are not here for you. This may be tough to hear, but we are not here to be objects to your subject, or accessories in your fantasies about lesbians or dominatrices or schoolgirls. It would be helpful if the media would take note of this and stop perpetuating the male gaze in its creative endeavors.
Because, again, everything is a choice. This photoshoot was a choice, and those choices reflect the fact that the objectification of women is still defended as a “style” in creative media. Sexism is not a style. Sexism is ingrained into almost every societal construct and its pursuits - the media especially - and it needs to be removed.
And of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the fact that there are three female cast members on Community: Gillian Jacobs, Alison Brie, and Yvette Nicole Brown. So what, did Yvette Nicole Brown’s invitation to this photoshoot just get lost in the mail, or do I really have to wonder about this nasty little suggestion that America is unable to find anything other than white and/or thin sexy?
The worst thing in all of this is the idea that it somehow relates back to comedy. If Yvette Nicole Brown were included, would this photoshoot therefore become more ironically comedic, as though she couldn’t possibly be sexualized in a non-funny way? With Alison Brie and Gillian Jacobs, it’s clear that “sexiness” is trumping “funniness,” but if you include their size-larger-than-4, African-American castmate, does that therefore change the tone of the shoot? Oh, the fact that these questions are both disgusting and yet valid is not okay. This is just further indication that the media’s perception of beauty and the female form is screwed up beyond the telling of it - and it’s because the standard being set ties inextricably back to the male’s perspective: the male gaze.
It’s unfortunate. I wish GQ wouldn’t publish photos like this, and I wish there weren’t an audience for them, because clearly, they wouldn’t be published if they weren’t popular. At some point, the misrepresentations of gender, race, and sexuality have to be righted, and GQ - and the media in general - has enough power to start those changes. It’s all in the power of choice. But right now, they’re making the wrong choices.
So people apparently really love font recs? Who knew! Here’s a whole bunch of fonts that are a cut above your usual Arial Black and Tahoma. Have fun!
- didot, bodoni, silkroad, tetra, wildride, bebas, bellerose,
- dalle, futura, garamond, headline, folks, haymaker,
- lavanderia, mensch, ostrich sans, roadway,
- single sleeve, sophie, tall dark and handsome
- justus, edo, ranger, sabrina AT, snickles, touching letters
- sahara, infinity, japan, levibrush, geosans light, gantz font
- doris day, crackin, channel, clemente, alien league, budmo, dubiel
- batman beat the hell out of me, catshop, corabel, frail
And some classics:
Here’s something I drew up real quick to explain something I’ve been seeing an awful lot of lately; I shall dispense my advice point by point
1. this is a circle (rather, a sphere), the vertical line is the important part of this one. it represents a vertical line drawn through the center of the sphere, it’s axis if you will.
2. just a drawing showing how in a front view, the axis of the sphere lines up with the center line of the face
3. Here is a chibi representation of the problem I’ve been seeing. people understand that in a 3/4 view, the facial features are offset towards whichever side the head is facing. However the problem arises at the neck, which is still lined up on the sphere’s axis. this is a drawing where the neck is a post sticking out the center of the sphere.
4. Here’s a proper 3/4 view, with the center line of the face drawn on and the neck in a more appropriate place, explained in the next picture:
5. I’ve drawn a head from the side and put a rectangle around it. the blue vertical line is the center of the box, the red blob at the bottom is the center of the neck mass, and the red dotted line is a line drawn straight up from that blob. See how pretty much all of the neck mass is actually BEHIND the front half of the head.
6. in this picture I changed the meaning of the dotted red line (orz) It’s now the axis of the sphere again. This drawing looks ok at first glance right? but the neck is aligned on the axis of the sphere, just like in #3, so it is wrong.
7. Corrected version.
8. Here the red line changes back to marking the center of the neck mass. This point in the neck mass is where the head pivots from, NOT from the axis of the sphere. So when you imagine how a head turns, think of how a globe would spin if its axis were not in the center but somewhat off to the side.
And that gold line is the center line of the face again (notice how it does NOT touch the drawn edge of the nose, that is because the nose has width. but that’s a whole different conversation lol)
It’s a girl, a film being released this year, documents the practice of killing unwanted baby girls in South Asia. The trailer’s most chilling scene is one with an Indian woman who, unable to contain her laughter, confesses to having killed eight infant daughters.
The statistics are sickening. The UN reports approximately 200 million girls in the world today are ‘missing’. India and China are said to eliminate more female infants than the number of girls born in the US each year. Lianyungang in China has the worst infant gender ratio on record with 163 boys born for every 100 girls. Taiwan, South Korea and Pakistan are also countries in which unwanted female babies are aborted, killed or abandoned.
Hey. This is what I study. You guys should read this because shit’s important. There are more than a million “missing” women in South Asia.
I can’t speak for femicide in other countries but I think the article hit it on the nail wrt India. It’s not just an economic thing but a cultural thing that happens to have widespread and enduring economic implications. I was in India last year and I’d just go through my uncle’s copy of the Times of India every morning. The Classified section would always piss me off because it would have all these ads for educated, white collar jobs and yet most of them would ask for male applicants only. I kept trying to think of all the reasons a company would be against hiring a female programmer or engineer and I would just reach the point where I’m about to rip the paper into shreds. It’s like even if you are incredibly privileged and educated, you’re still screwed over by society at large because people think you can’t be a breadwinner.
Caitlin Moran, How to Be a Woman (via thalasso-philous)
do you ever just feel so awkward when you buy something and pay in cash and the cashier gives you the change back but you take a few seconds to put the money in your wallet and you can feel the world judging you from afar
HE MADE THE KEYBLADE
AS AN ACTUAL WEAPON
I hate metal work. Especially tig welding.
I am never doing it again. But I envy this man’s amazing skills at it.
Oh man, I feel like I should become a terrible person and start attacking people like in the last panel.
For me it’s the boobs and butt t-shirt that sells it.
Franck Bohbot - Theaters
Click each image for details.
Having problems finding a lipstick color for your cosplay? Look no further. I just found someone’s video tutorial on how to make lipsticks out of crayons. In the video she says that she found out that all of her favourite lipsticks had lead and that she found out that she could make lipstick out of lead free crayons. The entire time I was watching this video, I thought that it would work amazingly for someone looking for some cerulean blue lipstick for Vriska or Jade green lipstick for Kanaya or maybe some other cosplay character who has a weird lipstick color. In the video she also says that you could mix crayon colors to make weird colors.
I don’t even wear lipstick ever, but learning you can make it out of crayons now got me all excited to try it. o-o
I thought this was interesting for all you fangirls/cosplayers on a budget. Seems like a really cool idea.
Wow, this is crazy awesome, especially considering makeup brands that carry “weird” lipstick colours are usually the expensive artsy ones that charge like $17-$25 for a tube
Oh neat. I used to love wearing wacky colors, but they were so hard to find.
Allison, did you ever find the green you used to want? Now you can make it. c:
(Also can I just point out how sick it is that you can still buy lipstick containing lead at all?)
Neeeat. It’s too bad lipstick molds and cases are too expensive for regular peeps to get a hold of. I like the density/thickness of the pigment in this recipe a lot.