My Mama
My Mama

My Mama

The Same
The Same

The Same

Have
Have

Have

The
The

The

Other
Other

Other

And
And

And

wear
 wear

wear

yall
yall

yall

🤖
🤖

🤖

dank
dank

dank

🔥 | Latest

Apparently, Beard, and Community: Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g Okay, let me tell you about my friend Jose. Jose is AMAB, 6'5" and built like a linebacker, with lots of visible tattoos. They're trying to grow a beard but the genes for it aren't quite there so for now it's Quentin Collins-style mutton chops. /1 big lumberjack 12:42 PM Aug 27, 2019 Twitter for iPhone 1.8K Likes 657 Retweets > Topher? Is thata thing? @topher_g 5h Replying to@topher_g Jose is a master of wearing just enough eyeliner to make you question whether they're wearing eyeliner or just have really pretty eyes. But in general if you saw them on the street you'd likely think "that is a big scary looking dude." /2 2 t 16 882 Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g 5h Jose is non-binary (And pansexual but that's not important to the story) and uses singular "they." /3 2 ti 19 897 Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g 5h Yesterday Jose was excited to go to a local meetup for Latinx "women and nonbinary people" because they were hoping to make some friends/community connections. /4 2 ti 35 925 Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g 5h I spent an hour last night at Jose's apartment with them literally crying on my shoulder because they were told they weren't welcome at the meeting. /5 4 ti 39 1K Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g 5h Someone there told them when they said "women and nonbinary people" what they actually meant was "women, and women who identify as nonbinary." That's apparently an actual quote. /6 O 24 t1138 1.4K Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g Someone there told them when they said "women and nonbinary people" what they actually meant was "women, and women who identify as nonbinary." That's apparently an actual quote. /6 12:42 PM Aug 27, 2019 Twitter for iPhone 138 Retweets 1.4K Likes Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g I have always had issues with the phrase "women and nonbinary" but today I am LIVID that my friend went looking for community and allies and basically got rejected for not being some waify androgyne. /7 12:42 PM Aug 27, 2019 Twitter for iPhone 2.3K Likes 178 Retweets droideka-exe: NB 👏 Does 👏 Not 👏 Mean 👏 Woman 👏 Lite link to thread
Apparently, Beard, and Community: Topher? Is that a thing?
 @topher_g
 Okay, let me tell you about my friend Jose. Jose is
 AMAB, 6'5" and built like a linebacker, with lots of
 visible tattoos. They're trying to grow a
 beard but the genes for it aren't quite there so for now
 it's Quentin Collins-style mutton chops. /1
 big lumberjack
 12:42 PM Aug 27, 2019 Twitter for iPhone
 1.8K Likes
 657 Retweets
 >

 Topher? Is thata thing? @topher_g 5h
 Replying to@topher_g
 Jose is a master of wearing just enough eyeliner to make you question
 whether they're wearing eyeliner or just have really pretty eyes. But in
 general if you saw them on the street you'd likely think "that is a big scary
 looking dude." /2
 2
 t 16
 882
 Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g 5h
 Jose is non-binary (And pansexual but that's not important to the story) and
 uses singular "they." /3
 2
 ti 19
 897
 Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g 5h
 Yesterday Jose was excited to go to a local meetup for Latinx "women and
 nonbinary people" because they were hoping to make some
 friends/community connections. /4
 2
 ti 35
 925
 Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g 5h
 I spent an hour last night at Jose's apartment with them literally crying on
 my shoulder because they were told they weren't welcome at the meeting.
 /5
 4
 ti 39
 1K
 Topher? Is that a thing? @topher_g 5h
 Someone there told them when they said "women and nonbinary people"
 what they actually meant was "women, and women who identify as
 nonbinary." That's apparently
 an actual quote. /6
 O 24
 t1138
 1.4K

 Topher? Is that a thing?
 @topher_g
 Someone there told them when they said "women and
 nonbinary people" what they actually meant was
 "women, and women who identify as nonbinary." That's
 apparently an actual quote. /6
 12:42 PM Aug 27, 2019 Twitter for iPhone
 138 Retweets
 1.4K Likes

 Topher? Is that a thing?
 @topher_g
 I have always had issues with the phrase "women and
 nonbinary" but today I am LIVID that my friend went
 looking for community and allies and basically got
 rejected for not being some waify androgyne. /7
 12:42 PM Aug 27, 2019 Twitter for iPhone
 2.3K Likes
 178 Retweets
droideka-exe:
NB 👏 Does 👏 Not 👏 Mean 👏 Woman 👏 Lite
link to thread

droideka-exe: NB 👏 Does 👏 Not 👏 Mean 👏 Woman 👏 Lite link to thread

Barbie, Bitch, and Definitely: gay-son-of-a-pastor: shoptiludropdead: muffinsandmatriarchy: m00nqueer: ok this is “earring magic ken” who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued shortly thereafter) basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn’t think ken was “cool” enough SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all  this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to be a cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren’t very amused and discontinued the doll  OH MY GOD YOU’RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART SO MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned rings on him are for “magic earrings” and clip on charms. These charms are advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there’s a Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them to match, because he’s STRAIGHT Here’s the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it’s DEFINITELY GAY.(And if you’re thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering, Ken is a Bottom.) AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD.LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they’re forever haunted by Magic Earring Ken at the top of their charts. Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll.Pride. please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring Ken™ gay history
Barbie, Bitch, and Definitely: gay-son-of-a-pastor:

shoptiludropdead:

muffinsandmatriarchy:

m00nqueer:

ok this is “earring magic ken” who was introduced in 1992 (and discontinued shortly thereafter)
basically mattel had done a survey and discovered that girls didn’t think ken was “cool” enough
SO someone had the bright idea to research coolness by sending people to raves which, at the time, were mostly hosted & attended by gay men. so they went to these raves and took notes on what the fashions were and finally landed on this outfit, mesh shirt & all 
this doll became the best selling ken doll in history, mostly because gay men bought it in droves. (many of them said his necklace was supposed to be a cockring) but mattel and a number of parents weren’t very amused and discontinued the doll 


OH MY GOD YOU’RE LEAVING OUT THE BEST PART 
SO
MAGIC EARRING KEN. This bitch gay as HELL. supposedly the aforementioned rings on him are for “magic earrings” and clip on charms. These charms are advertised as totally COMPLETELY heterosexual, not gay at ALL, see there’s a Barbie that also has Magic Earring Action with clip on charms! Ken wears them to match, because he’s STRAIGHT 
Here’s the issue: THERE IS NO MATCHING BARBIE. Magic Earring Ken is out here straight up wearing cock rings on his jacket with a thinly devised advertising ploy to make it SEEM not-gay. But it’s DEFINITELY GAY.(And if you’re thinking, why cock rings? Well way back in 1992 gay culture was HUGE on wearing cock rings, it was the in-style. Everyone who was gay wore one, even women; you sewed them to your leather jacket, and the placement indicated some of your sexual preference. In case you were wondering, Ken is a Bottom.) 
AND IT GETS BETTER. Magic Earring Ken was on the shelves for six weeks before they pulled him. In that short amount of time? Magic Earring Ken became the BEST SELLING Barbie Doll Mattel has EVER SOLD.LET THAT SINK IN. SIX WEEKS. And now every time these wheezy old hetero windbag execs go to look at their sales board, they’re forever haunted by Magic Earring Ken at the top of their charts. 
Gay as hell, Cock Ring Bottom Ken, the Best Selling Mattel Doll.Pride.


please take the time out of your day to read about Magic Earring Ken™


gay history

gay-son-of-a-pastor: shoptiludropdead: muffinsandmatriarchy: m00nqueer: ok this is “earring magic ken” who was introduced in 1992 (and d...

Target, Tumblr, and Black: sodomymcscurvylegs: surprisebitch: it looks like he’s wearing black socks
Target, Tumblr, and Black: sodomymcscurvylegs:
surprisebitch:
it looks like he’s wearing black socks

sodomymcscurvylegs: surprisebitch: it looks like he’s wearing black socks

Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho. 2 hrs Well, this just happened. Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The packed auditorium went wild. Wow. I'm just speechless CHO! NERT SE prasLE THE caMERa 2G CRap! IG a stock N HEET CRP SERNG P 1RT ENTM FR MA RA what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: houroftheanarchistwolf: aawb: starsapphire: is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that? It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot.  It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for.  I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..? And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters.  Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing. We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine.  What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do. This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks:  Also:  He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence. You can see her butthole for chrissakes I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers. Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity. Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs. Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock. Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you. bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works Lol body painting literally Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way
Clothes, Dad, and Feminism: Frank Cho added 2 new photos with Frank D Cho.
 2 hrs
 Well, this just happened.
 Milo Manara, master artist and storyteller, came in at the last ten minutes of
 my Art and Women panel and handed me a special gift in appreciation for
 fighting censorship- an original watercolor painting of Spider-Woman. The
 packed auditorium went wild.
 Wow. I'm just speechless
 CHO!
 NERT SE
 prasLE THE
 caMERa 2G
 CRap! IG a
 stock N HEET
 CRP SERNG P
 1RT
 ENTM
 FR
 MA
 RA
what-the-fandomm:

2sunchild2:

kukumomoart:
chancethereaper:

aglassroseneverfades:

pmastamonkmonk:

schnerp:

feminism-is-radical:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

brithwyr:

auntiewanda:

houroftheanarchistwolf:

aawb:

starsapphire:

is it time for frank cho and milo manara to die or what

That’s basically a naked woman I’m YELLING

What a pervert. What the FUCK does he not know how clothes work? What the hypothetical fuck is she wearing then if we can see all that?

It’s like how bath towels in comics miraculously wrap completely around breasts. Or how even when injured and dead on the ground women in comics have to be twisted into “sexy” poses. Or how women in comics walk like they’re in high heels even barefoot. 
It’s the only way men know how to draw women, because to them female characters are only there to be sexy. They only think of “women” as exploitative costumes and camera angles, high heels and titillation. Sex objects to ogle, plot objects to further male heroes’ narratives and drama, not heroes to cheer for. 

I’m sorry, I was labouring under the impression that this was the crowd that thought women should wear what they want..?

And that applies to fictional women who are depicted by men how? You can’t apply agency in the plot to something metatextual when it comes to fictional characters. 

Come on, let’s not pretend this is a male exclusive thing.

We’re going to have this argument are we? Not to mention you’re deviating from the original point that attributing agency to fictional characters’ clothing is asinine. 
What you have here are images of power, and do you really believe these characters are designed with titillating heterosexual women and bisexual and homosexual men in mind? Because I don’t think you do.
This is why the Hawkeye Initiative exists. Take common female poses in comics, put a man in the role, and see how “empowering” and “strong” it actually looks: 
Also: 

He got the painting for fighting against ‘censorship.’ Note that they handed him a gross design of a female being objectified, because at the end of the day, that is all they really want, to be allowed to objectify women. They don’t care about censorship in general it is about their ability to sexualise and degrade women without consequence.


You can see her butthole for chrissakes

I think the best imagery I’ve seen to explain the difference between what men think male objectification is vs what women actually want to see is the Hugh Jackman magazine covers.
Hugh Jackman on a men’s magazine. He’s shirtless and buff and angry. He’s imposing and aggressive. This is a male power fantasy, it’s what men want to be and aspire to - intense masculinity.
Hugh Jackman on a women’s magazine.  He looks like a dad. He looks like he’s going to bake me a quiche and sit and watch Game of Thrones with me. He looks like he gives really good hugs.
Men think women want big hulking naked men in loin cloths which is why they always quote He-Man as male objectification - without realizing that He Man is naked and buff in a loin cloth because MEN WANT HIM TO BE. More women would be happy to see him in a pink apron cutting vegetables and singing off-key to 70s rock.
Men want objects. Women want PEOPLE. 

This is the first time I have EVER seen this false equivalence articulated so well. Thank you.

bro you can literally see every fold of her pussy that just isn’t how fabric works

Lol body painting literally


Clothes don’t suction themselves around tiddies.If that was the case I’d be wearing hoodies all year

i mean there is dangerous objectification for male characters, but it’s not prevalent in written or drawn sources because that doesn’t harm the person and therefore isn’t relevant. it’s only something to bring into the conversation when you’re talking about how it affects the actors.male actors are sometimes forced to starve for days so that they can get scenes where their muscles are stood out (there’s a really good post with article links about this i’ll try to find it), but these drawings don’t affect an actual personit’s a completely different subjectand i mean for god’s sake you can’t counter the fact that someone deliberately drew her with her coochie out with some bullshit about how male characters are hyper-masculine in a glorified way

what-the-fandomm: 2sunchild2: kukumomoart: chancethereaper: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: aunti...