So today I reached a very huge and kind of unbelievable follower milestone and to celebrate that as well as the release of The Battle of the Five Armies I have decided that it is high time that I do a give away to show you guys how much I love and appreciate you all! I’ve been wanting to do this for the longest time and now I finally have enough money saved up to make this a gooden!
What You Get:
- Lord of the Rings Extended DVD’s
- Bag End Door Necklace
- Hobbit Mole Skin Diary
- Letter Opener of Your Choice
- Your Very Own One Ring
- The Map of Thorin Oakenshield
- Hobbit Plush of your Choice
- Copies of Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit Novels
- Collectors Edition The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition with Bilbo and Gollum Statue!
A few standard rules will apply of course just to keep this as fair as possible!
- Seeing as this is a follower giveaway, you must be following me :D
- Reblog as much as you want, just don’t spam your poor followers! ;D
- No giveaway blogs!
- You must be comfortable to give me your address, for obvious reasons.
- The winner will be picked completely at random and will have 24 hours to respond before I choose another via a random number generator.
This will stay open until December 1st 2014 and the winner will be contacted December 2nd. Good luck and have fun my pretties!
EDIT: I’m happy to ship anywhere in the world so no worries guys! Enjoy and happy entering! <3
There’s something about that idea of ownership over your body that I feel is quite resonant to women. It’s so interesting that it’s in the context of clones, but it’s all women dealing with this idea of, “Do I own my body? Is my body mine? Who am I if I don’t own my body? Who am I if somebody else has decided all this stuff?” - Tatiana Maslany (x)
a comic done by christianne benedict, posted on the womanthology art forum. brilliant!
YES. Jesus, thank you.
I cannot tell you how many times I have had to point out what the audience at conventions actually LOOKS like to people in the industry. They can do signings in a booth full of every kind of person all day long, every color, every size, every orientation and more, and STILL go online and talk about how only white straight males read comics.
IT IS PROFOUNDLY UNTRUE AND INSULTINGLY IGNORANT.
Quick assignment for the NY Times Letters to the Editor, out in today’s paper. The topic is about the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down abortion clinic buffer zones on the grounds of “free speech” (you can read the original article reporting the decision here, and the Letters section here). Previously, protesters had to stay 35ft away from the entrances to abortion clinics (a distance at which they were still able to exercise their ‘right’ to scream and harass) but now they will be allowed to do it directly in the faces of women seeking medical treatment.
Thanks to my AD Nathan Huang. This was an assignment I felt pretty strongly about. If the Letters section wasn’t neutral ground, you can bet I would have drawn the protestors differently in this piece.
Apparently anti-feminist women have now taken to promoting the meme that feminists “won’t take no for an answer” and “can’t accept that no means no.”
First of all, that is a disgustingly cheap rhetorical trick and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
But second, to actually address the argument:…
Playing cute with my new outfit! those are unicorns! <3Those shorts used to be pants that lost to the chubrub.
***please do not reblog in to porn/bbw blogs***
I really want to read a mainstream superhero comic in which the main character’s design is based on these photos. I’m not asking for a “oh, look, the superhero is fat, isn’t that wacky?” approach - just a good, fun, action-adventure comic where the main character looks like this. Could someone please get on that?
bhekugiepxcm said: WOMAN1: I just lost my baby after 10 weeks of pregnancy. I feel so sad. FEMINISTS: Aw, we feel so sorry for you. Your and your baby had a precious bond and I'm sure she's loving you from heaven. WOMAN2: I just had an abortion at 10 weeks. I'm not sorry. FEMINISTS: Good for you! That gob of goo is definitely not a baby and deserves no respect whatsoever.
People have emotional connections to things that are not actually sapient. If I had a fish and my fish died, then I would be really sad, even though fish are really dumb and it is probably not morally wrong to kill them. For that matter, my stuffed animal got torn apart once and I cried and people comforted me. Like… when people are sad, you comfort them, even if they are sad about the death of a thing that is Not People.
Also, the death of a wanted fetus isn’t just bad because of the fetus itself. It’s a loss of potential, of what could have been. There is a child she could potentially have had that she wouldn’t, and that makes people sad.
She just stared for the longest time.
OMG…I love this. This is important.
v important! representation matters more than words can express
but this picture about sums it up :)
I will actually tell you right now what is wrong with all of the X-men movies in the first trilogy
Robert Kelly hates mutants that’s why he’s pushing anti-mutant legislation
William Stryker hates mutants because his son is a mutant so he wants to kill at the mutants
straight people are so weird wtf like heres a drawing of two animals in love but one has eyelashes so you know these are Straight Animals
this might be the funniest thing i’ve ever read
that’s me i’m dorothy
Anonymous said: I think you're totally wrong about female privilege not existing and would love to debate with you on that ... or just hear out why you think 'benevolent sexism' is a thing or w/e. No pressure.
I think that benevolent sexism is a thing because it doesn’t actually help women. This article is a pretty good introduction to the research on benevolent sexism. Highlights:
- benevolent sexism is highly correlated with hostile sexism
- controlling for hostile sexism, a country’s level of benevolent sexism is highly correlated with nationwide gender inequality
- that is, in countries where people are more likely to endorse benevolent sexism, “men also lived longer, were more educated, had higher literacy rates, made significantly more money, and actively participated in the political and economic spheres more than their female counterparts.”
In addition, benevolent sexism is negative for women on the individual level. For instance, exposure to benevolent sexism tends to reduce women’s cognitive performance and help-seeking behavior. Benevolently sexist people are more likely to negatively evaluate the job performance of women who violate gender norms. (I can dig up studies upon request but am lazy.)
Benevolent sexism implies that women are weak and pure Angels of the Home, and that it is bad for women to violate gender norms. This is not good for women.
Here’s my problem with this.
There’s this idea that “the patriarchy hurts men too”. Even when some stereotype or social norm screws men over, it’s supposed to be interpreted as a side effect of social structures that keep men dominant.
If some stereotype or norm favors men or hurts women, that obviously proves patriarchy.
If some stereotype or norm hurts men, that shows “the patriarchy hurts men too”, and therefore proves patriarchy.
If some stereotype or norm favors women, that shows “benevolent sexism”, and therefore proves patriarchy.
So you’ve contorted the system enough that every possible observation is evidence for your theory.
Consider an alternate system:
There are gender stereotypes about both men and women. Either of those stereotypes can be interpreted in a positive or negative manner, based on the situation.
For example, men can be positively stereotyped as assertive, strong, efficient and competent. But the same stereotype interpreted in a negative light makes them aggressive competitive barbaric jerks.
Women can be positively stereotyped as prosocial, loving, beautiful, and sophisticated. But the same stereotype interpreted in a negative light makes them vain incompetent touchy-feely pushovers.
This talk of “patriarchy hurting men” and “benevolent sexism” seems to miss all that in favor of an argument that the only the positive stereotypes about men really count (but sometimes have minor corollaries that accidentally hurt men) and only the negative stereotypes about women really count (but sometimes have minor corollaries that accidentally help women). This ignores the fundamental symmetry in the situation.
I’ve suggested before that the point of a lot of these arguments isn’t to come up with meaningful analyses, but instead to justify your ability to use snarl words to insult the outgroup while denying the outgroup the ability to use snarl words to insult you.
"Men have male privilege that admittedly sometimes backfires, but women suffer sexism which admittedly is sometimes benevolent" seems like a perfect example of that. The outgroup is only conceptually capable of being associated with something that makes it guilty (regardless of the empirical facts), and the ingroup is only conceptually capable of being associated with something that makes it the oppressed victim (again, regardless of the empirical facts)
#scott hasn’t figured out how to turn off gender posts in his feed yet
This seems mostly like you’re attacking strawmen (something that you do a lot when you discuss feminism and anti-racism, btw).
Who, specifically, is going around claiming “If some stereotype or norm hurts men, that shows ‘the patriarchy hurts men too’, and therefore proves patriarchy”? Can you please quote the person? Because I’ve never heard that. I have doubts that the person is representative or important.
What I mostly hear is people saying “nah-nah, men’s lives are sometimes tough, therefore feminism is disproven” (or some functional equivalent) and feminists responding “patriarchy hurts men too” (or some functional equivalent).
There’s a important logical difference between “that men suffers proves feminism” and “that men suffer does not disprove feminism,” which I trust I don’t have to spell out. But the latter is the only one I’ve actually heard feminists say.
You also write “‘Men have male privilege that admittedly sometimes backfires, but women suffer sexism which admittedly is sometimes benevolent’ seems like a perfect example of that,” which frankly makes it appear that you haven’t read the post of Ozy’s you were responding to. Ozy wasn’t saying “women suffer sexism which admittedly is sometimes benevolent”; they were saying that, despite being named “benevolent sexism,” BS (heh) actually <i>isn’t</i> beneficial to women in empirical practice.
unfriendly reminder that body-shaming terrible people is still body-shaming, still sends the message that people can be objectively ugly, that being...
- bhekugiepxcm said:WOMAN1: I just lost my baby after 10 weeks of pregnancy. I feel so sad. FEMINISTS: Aw, we feel so sorry for you. Your and your baby had a precious bond and I'm sure she's loving you from heaven. WOMAN2: I just had an abortion at 10 weeks. I'm not sorry. FEMINISTS: Good for you! That gob of goo is definitely not a baby and deserves no respect whatsoever.
People have emotional connections to things that are not actually sapient. If I had a fish and my fish died, then I would be really sad, even though...
my parents are visiting tomorrow
please pray, think good thoughts, or acausally trade with superintelligences for me, as per your belief system
- Congratulations, Superhero Girl
The Adventures of Superhero Girl is one of my favorite comics, and one of the ones I’m proudest to have...
- Trains and Their AlternativesBy far, my favorite species of libertarian writing is the article which attacks a government spending project by...