Donald Trump Starter Pack
Donald Trump Starter Pack

Donald Trump Starter Pack

Donald Trumps
Donald Trumps

Donald Trumps

Spoilness
Spoilness

Spoilness

Spoiles
Spoiles

Spoiles

despaired
 despaired

despaired

acception
acception

acception

self pity
self pity

self pity

integrate
integrate

integrate

democratic
democratic

democratic

personable
personable

personable

🔥 | Latest

inferior: You are inferior
inferior: You are inferior

You are inferior

inferior: Genetically inferior by DylanFowlie MORE MEMES
inferior: Genetically inferior by DylanFowlie
MORE MEMES

Genetically inferior by DylanFowlie MORE MEMES

inferior: Genetically inferior
inferior: Genetically inferior

Genetically inferior

inferior: THE SEX BINARY IS A LIE inferior-mirage: antifakiddie: queerlection: [Image description - Image of the intersex pride flag with the text: THE SEX BINARY IS A LIE. End description.] If you disagree with this, you’re denying that intersex people exist/have a right to exist, just sayin. I disagree with this because my intersex disorder (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia) is not a different sex. My diagnosis is specific to the presentation and symptoms expressed in a female body. Many intersex diagnoses - including Klinefelter’s, Turner’s, and hypospadias - continue to resemble our birth sex without confusion. If you disagree with this, you’re denying how variations on human sexual dimorphism cause significant problems to our health and fertility. Disorders of sex development reveal variation, not deliberate and distinct categories. If you read the archives of intersex advocacy organizations like OII or ISNA, we strongly reject being othered as fake males and females. Your ableist approach to erasing our chromosomal and phenotypic abnormalities to mark us separate but equal is not shared by the intersex community, medical professionals, or intersex activists.  Dr. Leonard Sax wrote, “This type of extreme social constructionism is confusing and is not helpful to clinicians, to their patients, or to their patients’ families. Diluting the term intersex to include “any deviation from the Platonic ideal of sexual dimorphism” (Blackless et al., 2000, p. 152), deprives the term of any clinically useful meaning. The available data support the conclusion that human sexuality is a dichotomy, not a continuum. More than 99.98% of humans are either male or female. If the term intersex is to retain any clinical meaning, the use of this term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. The birth of an intersex child, far from being ‘a fairly common phenomenon,’ is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than 2 out of every 10,000 births.” The Intersex Society of North America rejected raising intersex babies as a third sex with this statement: “Sorry, gender warriors… We believe there are two problems with trying to raise kids in a ‘third gender.’ First, how would we decide who would count in the ‘third gender’? How would we decide where to cut off the category of male and begin the category of intersex, or, on the other side of the spectrum, where to cut off the category of intersex to begin the category of female? Second, and much more importantly, we are trying to make the world a safe place for intersexed kids, and we don’t think labeling them with a gender category that in essence doesn’t exist would help them.” Your flag is a lie. “Having two arms is a lie and if you disagree with this you’re saying that people with birth defects that give them additional limbs don’t have a right to exist!” What the fuck kind of logic is that? Intersex is by definition a defect that exists outside of the norm. Gender may be more up for debate but sex is definitely a binary.
inferior: THE SEX
 BINARY
 IS A LIE
inferior-mirage:
antifakiddie:

queerlection:


[Image description - Image of the intersex pride flag with the text: THE SEX BINARY IS A LIE. End description.]
If you disagree with this, you’re denying that intersex people exist/have a right to exist, just sayin.

I disagree with this because my intersex disorder (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia) is not a different sex. My diagnosis is specific to the presentation and symptoms expressed in a female body. Many intersex diagnoses - including Klinefelter’s, Turner’s, and hypospadias - continue to resemble our birth sex without confusion.
If you disagree with this, you’re denying how variations on human sexual dimorphism cause significant problems to our health and fertility.
Disorders of sex development reveal variation, not deliberate and distinct categories. If you read the archives of intersex advocacy organizations like OII or ISNA, we strongly reject being othered as fake males and females. Your ableist approach to erasing our chromosomal and phenotypic abnormalities to mark us separate but equal is not shared by the intersex community, medical professionals, or intersex activists. 
Dr. Leonard Sax wrote, “This type of extreme social constructionism is confusing and is not helpful to clinicians, to their patients, or to their patients’ families. Diluting the term intersex to include “any deviation from the Platonic ideal of sexual dimorphism” (Blackless et al., 2000, p. 152), deprives the term of any clinically useful meaning. The available data support the conclusion that human sexuality is a dichotomy, not a continuum. More than 99.98% of humans are either male or female. If the term intersex is to retain any clinical meaning, the use of this term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. The birth of an intersex child, far from being ‘a fairly common phenomenon,’ is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than 2 out of every 10,000 births.”
The Intersex Society of North America rejected raising intersex babies as a third sex with this statement: “Sorry, gender warriors… We believe there are two problems with trying to raise kids in a ‘third gender.’ First, how would we decide who would count in the ‘third gender’? How would we decide where to cut off the category of male and begin the category of intersex, or, on the other side of the spectrum, where to cut off the category of intersex to begin the category of female? Second, and much more importantly, we are trying to make the world a safe place for intersexed kids, and we don’t think labeling them with a gender category that in essence doesn’t exist would help them.”
Your flag is a lie.


“Having two arms is a lie and if you disagree with this you’re saying that people with birth defects that give them additional limbs don’t have a right to exist!” What the fuck kind of logic is that? Intersex is by definition a defect that exists outside of the norm. Gender may be more up for debate but sex is definitely a binary.

inferior-mirage: antifakiddie: queerlection: [Image description - Image of the intersex pride flag with the text: THE SEX BINARY IS A...

inferior: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
inferior: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:

This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose...

inferior: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man.  Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews!
inferior: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
ebonyheartnet:
jewishdragon:

feministscoundrel:

This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 


Wiatiti And Portman are also BOTH jewish! Jews lifting up Jews!

ebonyheartnet: jewishdragon: feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was...

inferior: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
inferior: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:
This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose n...

inferior: squ33ble legally-bitchtastic catch-the-ghost monsterkissed here is an idea: normalise the idea that adopting kids is a valid option even for parents who could conceive a child themselves, and not just an inferior backup option for parents who can't Yesterday one of the girls in the unit who's about my age was complaining about her period and expressing a wish for the doctors nearby to "Just take me down to the OR real quick and give me a hysterectomy." Immediately half the nurses (all mothers mind you) start telling her about how she's gonna regret it and she doesn't know yet if she really doesn't want kids, blah blah blalh Anyways, I was walking past so l said, "You know what, you do what you want. If you want end up wanting kids later go adopt some, we've got plenty that get left behind on the second floor [our labor and delivery unit]." All the older nurses shut down so fast and the girl I was talking to suddenly threw up her hands and me and said, "See??? That's what l mean! THANK YOU." NORMALIZE THIS SHIT!! WE REALLY DO HAVE WOMEN COME INTO L&D TO HAVE A BABY AND THEN JUST LEAVE IT HERE AND TAKE OFF. ADOPT!!! Also, don't ask the parents of adopted children if they had fertility problems. That shit is personal. My sister adopted her son and when asked if she is infertile, she likes to ask them what position their children were conceived with, because that's on the same level of appropriateness Like, some people really DO want to experience pregnancy on their own, but that's not the only way to be a parent? On the other hand, some people want kids but DON'T want to be pregnant themselves. Adoption is awesome Birthing a baby is awesome. Hiring a surrogate is awesome. Stop judging parental options, as long as the kids are safe and well taken care of! Family is a choice
inferior: squ33ble
 legally-bitchtastic
 catch-the-ghost
 monsterkissed
 here is an idea: normalise the idea that adopting kids is a valid
 option even for parents who could conceive a child
 themselves, and not just an inferior backup option for parents
 who can't
 Yesterday one of the girls in the unit who's about my age was
 complaining about her period and expressing a wish for the doctors
 nearby to "Just take me down to the OR real quick and give me a
 hysterectomy."
 Immediately half the nurses (all mothers mind you) start telling her
 about how she's gonna regret it and she doesn't know yet if she
 really doesn't want kids, blah blah blalh
 Anyways, I was walking past so l said, "You know what, you do what
 you want. If you want end up wanting kids later go adopt some,
 we've got plenty that get left behind on the second floor [our labor
 and delivery unit]."
 All the older nurses shut down so fast and the girl I was talking to
 suddenly threw up her hands and me and said, "See??? That's what
 l mean! THANK YOU."
 NORMALIZE THIS SHIT!! WE REALLY DO HAVE WOMEN COME
 INTO L&D TO HAVE A BABY AND THEN JUST LEAVE IT HERE
 AND TAKE OFF.
 ADOPT!!!
 Also, don't ask the parents of adopted children if they had fertility
 problems. That shit is personal. My sister adopted her son and when
 asked if she is infertile, she likes to ask them what position their children
 were conceived with, because that's on the same level of
 appropriateness
 Like, some people really DO want to experience pregnancy on their own, but
 that's not the only way to be a parent? On the other hand, some people want
 kids but DON'T want to be pregnant themselves. Adoption is awesome
 Birthing a baby is awesome. Hiring a surrogate is awesome. Stop judging
 parental options, as long as the kids are safe and well taken care of!
Family is a choice

Family is a choice

inferior: antifemalesoci... Q 2 Follow Romanticising womanhood is not good for men. In fact, it is an insult. You cannot claim to accept you are inferior on one hand and then perform mental gymnastics in order to make yourself feel better about that. You will ultimately end up kidding yourself that you are, somehow, quietly equal, and that is itself offensive to mankind; you are not, and never will be, equal to men by any stretch of the imagination. Anything else is fantasy. Taking joy in being a good woman i:s wonderful. Taking pride in being a woman, for any reason, is not. Remember that all of your achievements, progress and joy in life come only as a result of male guidance, control and assertiveness. Remind yourself how lost you would be without it. The instrument does not gain praise after a great orchestra; the composer does It is this tendency which partly creates the need for strict boundaries and regular discipline. Whether or not you think you are good enough to believe comforting lies and remain a good woman is immaterial. You are not capable of knowing that for sure, ever. Remember this during discipline. Remember it always dr0pacid: roastedoranges: yallarewild: dr0pacid: shameshack: it is with a heavy heart that i must announce that antifemalesociety is at it again @yallarewild this is a whole new type of crazy i’m gonna mcfucking lose it Hi quick question what kind of motive was this guy trying to make while writing this His page is about some sort of anti woman “movement” as he calls it. Where women should be put in cages and submissive to man, not viewed as human. Just as sex slaves and means to an end with breeding. It’s really disgusting.
inferior: antifemalesoci... Q 2 Follow
 Romanticising womanhood is not good for
 men. In fact, it is an insult. You cannot claim to
 accept you are inferior on one hand and then
 perform mental gymnastics in order to make
 yourself feel better about that. You will
 ultimately end up kidding yourself that you are,
 somehow, quietly equal, and that is itself
 offensive to mankind; you are not, and never
 will be, equal to men by any stretch of the
 imagination. Anything else is fantasy.
 Taking joy in being a good woman i:s
 wonderful. Taking pride in being a woman, for
 any reason, is not. Remember that all of your
 achievements, progress and joy in life come
 only as a result of male guidance, control and
 assertiveness. Remind yourself how lost you
 would be without it. The instrument does not
 gain praise after a great orchestra; the
 composer does
 It is this tendency which partly creates the
 need for strict boundaries and regular
 discipline. Whether or not you think you are
 good enough to believe comforting lies and
 remain a good woman is immaterial. You are
 not capable of knowing that for sure, ever.
 Remember this during discipline. Remember it
 always
dr0pacid:

roastedoranges:

yallarewild:

dr0pacid:

shameshack:

it is with a heavy heart that i must announce that antifemalesociety is at it again

@yallarewild this is a whole new type of crazy

i’m gonna mcfucking lose it 

Hi quick question what kind of motive was this guy trying to make while writing this

His page is about some sort of anti woman “movement” as he calls it. Where women should be put in cages and submissive to man, not viewed as human. Just as sex slaves and means to an end with breeding. It’s really disgusting.

dr0pacid: roastedoranges: yallarewild: dr0pacid: shameshack: it is with a heavy heart that i must announce that antifemalesociety is...