Showing posts tagged media
(Reblogged from feministdisney)


(east)Asian American and (east)Asian women stereotypes

If you’re willing to sit through a 15 minute video, take some time to see this. This video explains where the stereotypes and fetishization of (east)Asian women came from.

(Reblogged from wocinsolidarity)


This is a jar full of major characters 


Actually it is a jar full of chocolate covered raisins on top of a dirty TV tray. But pretend the raisins are interesting and well rounded fictional characters with significant roles in their stories. 

We’re sharing these raisins at a party for Western Storytelling, so we get out two bowls. 


Then we start filling the bowls. And at first we only fill the one on the left. 


This doesn’t last forever though. Eventually we do start putting raisins in the bowl on the right. But for every raisin we put in the bowl on the right, we just keep adding to the bowl on the left. 


And the thing about these bowls is, they don’t ever reset. We don’t get to empty them and start over. While we might lose some raisins to lost records or the stories becoming unpopular, but we never get to just restart. So even when we start putting raisins in the bowl on the right, we’re still way behind from the bowl on the left. 

And time goes on and the bowl on the left gets raisins much faster than the bowl on the right. 




Until these are the bowls. 

Now you get to move and distribute more raisins. You can add raisins or take away raisins entirely, or you can move them from one bowl to the other. 

This is the bowl on the left. I might have changed the number of raisins from one picture to the next. Can you tell me, did I add or remove raisins? How many? Did I leave the number the same?


You can’t tell for certain, can you? Adding or removing a raisin over here doesn’t seem to make much of a change to this bowl. 

This is the bowl on the right. I might have changed the number of raisins from one picture to the next. Can you tell me, did I add or remove raisins? How many? Did I leave the number the same?


When there are so few raisins to start, any change made is really easy to spot, and makes a really significant difference. 

This is why it is bad, even despicable, to take a character who was originally a character of color and make them white. But why it can be positive to take a character who was originally white and make them a character of color.

The white characters bowl is already so full that any change in number is almost meaningless (and is bound to be undone in mere minutes anyway, with the amount of new story creation going on), while the characters of color bowl changes hugely with each addition or subtraction, and any subtraction is a major loss. 

This is also something to take in consideration when creating new characters. When you create a white character you have already, by the context of the larger culture, created a character with at least one feature that is not going to make a difference to the narratives at large. But every time you create a new character of color, you are changing something in our world. 

I mean, imagine your party guests arrive


Oh my god they are adorable!

And they see their bowls


But before you hand them out you look right into the little black girls’s eyes and take two of her seven raisins and put them in the little white girl’s bowl.

I think she’d be totally justified in crying or leaving and yelling at you. Because how could you do that to a little girl? You were already giving the white girl so much more, and her so little, why would you do that? How could you justify yourself?

But on the other hand if you took two raisins from the white girl’s bowl and moved them over to the black girl’s bowl and the white girl looked at her bowl still full to the brim and decided your moving those raisins was unfair and she stomped and cried and yelled, well then she is a spoiled and entitled brat. 

And if you are adding new raisins, it seems more important to add them to the bowl on the right. I mean, even if we added the both bowls at the same speed from now on (and we don’t) it would still take a long time before the numbers got big enough to make the difference we’ve already established insignificant. 

And that’s the difference between whitewashing POC characters and making previously white characters POC. And that’s why every time a character’s race is ambiguous and we make them white, we’ve lost an opportunity.

*goes off to eat her chocolate covered raisins, which are no longer metaphors just snacks*

(Reblogged from stfu-moffat)


You know what pisses me off in TV shows?

  •  When one of the female characters gives birth, and then right after the birth her child is taken and raised away from her…
  • And from then on the other characters attribute elements of this woman’s personality to the fact that “she’s a mother.” 
  • No. She’s not a mother. She gave birth to a child, but she never actually got to be a mother. 
  • Vala from Stargate interacting with Adria for like five minutes when Adria was four doesn’t count as being a mother
  • Amy from Doctor Who growing up with River as a childhood friend doesn’t count as raising her
  • Stop attributing these women’s wisdom or ferocity to the fact that they’re “mothers”
  • because guess what, these elements of their character come from THEMSELVES, not the fact that they gave birth to a child
  • and calling it their ‘motherhood’ perpetuates the idea that women’s entire psychological make-up is rewritten once they’ve given birth
  • which is entirely fucking untrue
  • guess what? women can be strong and important without being mothers
  • and the fact that the other characters only recognize their strength and importance once they’ve given birth 
  • and even then, they attribute it to the fact that the woman’s a “mother”
  • that sends the message to girls that the most important role they can play in their life is having babies
  • and that they need to be “a mother” in order to be appreciated or in order to even be a worthy person
  • and that is downright fucked up
  • and don’t get me wrong moms are awesome, but moms are also their own people
  • and women can also be awesome people without being moms
  • the fact that some TV writers need this spelled out for them actually disturbs me
(Reblogged from stfu-moffat)

Dear any POC on tumblr who blogs about television and/or fandoms


If anyone gives you the whole “If you want shit to change in media become a director or writer and change it” bullshit 

Show them this

Heres a little quote, 

“In this day and age, it’s quite disappointing that so many shows failed to hire even a single woman or minority director during the course of an entire season — even shows whose cast and crew is notably diverse, Barclay noted. “And, ‘We just don’t know anybody’ doesn’t cut it anymorethe pool of talented and experienced women and minority directors grows every year, and too many of these qualified, capable directors are still overlooked.”

This is from the Directors Guild of America basically saying that there a DROVES AND DROVES of women, women of color, men of color all different types of brown people, WHO ARE TALENTED AND EXPERIENCED who do NOT get hired. 

Don’t want to believe the LA Times? It’s right there. From the horses mouth.

So please. When people give you that 

  • Go make some media if you don’t feel represented
  • There probably aren’t that many POC making media
  •  They want to find the best people and they just so happened to be white


(Source: )

(Reblogged from spacehelmetforacow)


We’ve all seen the headlines at the check-out counter. “Kristen Stewart Caught.” We’ve all thumbed the glossy pages here and there. “Kris and Rob a couple?” We all catch the snaps. “I like that dress. I hate the hair. Cute couple. Bad shoes.” There’s no guilt in acknowledging the human interest in public linens. It’s as old as the hills. Lift up beautiful young people like gods and then pull them down to earth to gaze at their seams. See, they’re just like us. But we seldom consider the childhoods we unknowingly destroy in the process.

I have been an actress since I was 3 years old, 46 years to date. I have no memories of a childhood outside the public eye. I am told people look to me as a success story. Often complete strangers approach me and ask, How have you stayed so normal, so well-adjusted, so private? I usually lie and say, “Just boring I guess.” The truth is, like some curious radioactive mutant, I have invented my own gothic survival tools. I have fashioned rules to control the glaring eyes. Maybe I’ve organized my career choices to allow myself (and the ones I truly love) maximum personal dignity. And, yes, I have neurotically adapted to the gladiator sport of celebrity culture, the cruelty of a life lived as a moving target. In my era, through discipline and force of will, you could still manage to reach for a star-powered career and have the authenticity of a private life. Sure, you’d have to lose your spontaneity in the elaborate architecture. You’d have to learn to submerge beneath the foul air and breathe through a straw. But at least you could stand up and say, I will not willfully participate in my own exploitation. Not anymore. If I were a young actor or actress starting my career today in the new era of social media and its sanctioned hunting season, would I survive? Would I drown myself in drugs, sex, and parties? Would I be lost?

I’ve said it before and I will say it again: if I were a young actor today I would quit before I started. If I had to grow up in this media culture, I don’t think I could survive it emotionally. I would only hope that someone who loved me, really loved me, would put their arm around me and lead me away to safety. Sarah Tobias would never have danced before her rapists in The Accused. Clarice would never have shared the awful screaming of the lambs to Dr. Lecter. Another actress might surely have taken my place, opened her soul to create those characters, surrendered her vulnerabilities. But would she have survived the paparazzi peering into her windows, the online harassment, the public humiliations, without overdosing in a hotel room or sticking her face with needles until she became unrecognizable even to herself?

Acting is all about communicating vulnerability, allowing the truth inside yourself to shine through regardless of whether it looks foolish or shameful. To open and give yourself completely. It is an act of freedom, love, connection. Actors long to be known in the deepest way for their subtleties of character, for their imperfections, their complexities, their instincts, their willingness to fall. The more fearless you are, the more truthful the performance. How can you do that if you know you will be personally judged, skewered, betrayed? If you’re smart, you learn to willfully disassociate, to compartmentalize. Putting your emotions into a safety box definitely comes in handy when the public throws stones. The point is to survive, intact or not, whatever the emotional cost. Actors who become celebrities are supposed to be grateful for the public interest. After all, they’re getting paid. Just to set the record straight, a salary for a given on-screen performance does not include the right to invade anyone’s privacy, to destroy someone’s sense of self.

In 2001 I spent 5 months with Kristen Stewart on the set of Panic Room mostly holed up in a space the size of a Manhattan closet. We talked and laughed for hours, sharing spontaneous mysteries and venting our boredom. I grew to love that kid. She turned 11 during our shoot and on her birthday I organized a mariachi band to serenade her at the taco bar while she blew out her candles. She begrudgingly danced around a sombrero with me but soon rushed off to a basketball game with the grip and electric departments. Her mother and I watched her jump around after the ball, hooting with every team basket. “She doesn’t want to be an actor when she grows up, does she?” I asked. Her mom sighed. “Yes … unfortunately.” We both smiled and shrugged with an ambivalence born from experience. “Can’t you talk her out of it?” I offered. “Oh, I’ve tried. She loves it. She just loves it.” More sighs. We watched her run around the court for a while, both of us silent, each thinking our own thoughts. I was pregnant at the time and found myself daydreaming of the child I might have soon. Would she be just like Kristen? All that beautiful talent and fearlessness … would she jump and dunk and make me so proud?

There’s this image I have of a perfect moment. It comes to me as a square format 8mm home movie with ’70s oversaturated reds and blues, no sound, just a scratchy loop … there’s a little white-haired girl twirling in the surf. She’s singing at the top of her lungs, jumping and spinning around in the cold water, all salty, sandy, full of joy and confidence. She’s unconscious of the camera, of course, in her own world. The camera shakes a little. Perhaps her mom’s laughing behind the lens. Could a child be more loved than in this moment? She’s perfect. She is absolutely perfect.

Cut to: Today … A beautiful young woman strides down the sidewalk alone, head down, hands drawn into fists. She’s walking fast, darting around huge men with black cameras thrusting at her mouth and chest. “Kristen, how do you feel?” “Smile Kris!” “Hey, hey, did you get her?” “I got her. I got her!” The young woman doesn’t cry. Fuck no. She doesn’t look up. She’s learned. She keeps her head down, her shades on, fists in her pockets. Don’t speak. Don’t look. Don’t cry.

My mother had a saying that she doled out after every small injustice, every heartbreak, every moment of abject suffering. “This too shall pass.” God, I hated that phrase. It always seemed so banal and out of touch, like she was telling me my pain was irrelevant. Now it just seems quaint, but oddly true … Eventually this all passes. The public horrors of today eventually blow away. And, yes, you are changed by the awful wake of reckoning they leave behind. You trust less. You calculate your steps. You survive. Hopefully in the process you don’t lose your ability to throw your arms in the air again and spin in wild abandon. That is the ultimate F.U. and—finally—the most beautiful survival tool of all. Don’t let them take that away from you.

- Jodie Foster

(Reblogged from isaia)

So, yes, for the fucking love of God, movies matter. TV shows matter. Novels matter. They shape the lens through which you see the world. The very fact that you don’t think they matter, that even right now you’re still resisting the idea, is what makes all of this so dangerous to you — you watch movies so you can turn off your brain and let your guard down. But while your guard is down, you’re letting them jack directly into that part of your brain that creates your mythology. If you think about it, it’s an awesome responsibility on the part of the storyteller. And you’re comfortable handing that responsibility over to Michael Bay.

It’s just something to keep in mind, that’s all.

5 Ways You Don’t Realize Movies Are Controlling Your Brain (x)

(Source: miaartemisia)

(Reblogged from mumblingsage)

What all of these stories have in common with the hair fiasco is that they reveal the media’s appetite for negative portrayals of Black femininity and, per Cottom, its inability to “accommodate [a] narrative…of a [woman of color] being extraordinary.” Now that Gabby’s excellence is so proven that it can’t be ignored, the media has latched on to a manufactured controversy that conveniently distracts from her accomplishments. Some in the media have preferred to portray Gabby’s family as “broken” and mismanaged by an inadequate Black mother.

It’s no coincidence that hair, one of the most visible markers and symbols of Black women’s difference in a White-dominated culture, has become a focal point of Gabby’s story. The media must forever make an issue of our difference, even in moments of triumph, but never in a way that engages with critical analysis of power and oppression. We’d rather focus on Olympians’ finances than on the fact that the U.S. is virtually alone in denying government funding to Olympic hopefuls - forcing middle-class athletes away from home and to the brink of poverty to achieve their Olympic dreams. Media erasure of swimmer Cullen Jones, the latest “controversy” over Serena Williams’ celebratory crip-walk, and sexist attacks on Lolo Jones are just the most recent examples of how Black athletes at the top of their game are never allowed to simply be great.
But instead about this we’re talking about hair, and the much more significant story of Black girls and women celebrating Gabby and pushing back on racism and sexism in coverage of her has been lost.

T.F. Charlton, “The Media’s Gabby Douglas Problem,”, 8/8/12 (via racialicious)
(Reblogged from racialicious)


I keep wanting to say something about what happens when single black mothers upset the Welfare Queen narrative, & what it means that Gabby’s father was married to her mother (twice) & is in fact on active duty right now & why her being a success with dark skin & poverty is fucking up NBC’s whole reality. But I have a feeling that if I start I might not ever stop. Because this is really about punishing her & her family for existing outside that narrative. This what happens when you don’t fit the stereotypes & you don’t have a white savior in your story & yet you succeed. They can barely accept the idea that we survive. This idea of us thriving, of parental love & sacrifice & a family that is healthy & happy & loving even if it is different? They don’t know what to do with that at all.

Gabby’s smiling & sweet & funny. Her hair isn’t done & sure there were some critiques of that hair, but even still black people showed up & showed out when whiteness tried to come for her joy. We’re scaring them. She’s scaring them. That’s what they’re not trying to admit even as the dehumanizing & demeaning patter continues. See, America has controlled the message about black women for so long, & now not only do we speak for ourselves in public, other people are stepping up to speak with us. Turns out some part of the revolution is being televised. And tweeted. And Tumbled. That’s what makes this all so fucking scary to them. We are own signals & there are too many of us in too many places to be silenced.

(Reblogged from bankuei)


UPDATE: Gabby Douglas leads Team USA to the Gold.


I purposely titled this essay to highlight Gabby Douglas’ leadership of the USA Women’s Gymnastics Olympic Team, which she led to victory yesterday, by capturing 33% or 1/3 of the total points  the team received.

You heard right. This kid, who commentators continue to suggest is “unable to handle the pressure,” was the only member to compete in all four events — vault, bars, beam, and floor.

So though she’s only 1/5 of the team, she did 100% of the events, and captured 1/3 of the points.

Of course she didn’t get 33% of the coverage, or even a quarter of the love her teammates got.

During the medal ceremony the camera panned to and stayed with Jordyn, ofttimes obscuring Gabby’s face. Commentators were exultant about Jordyn’s gold medal. “Jordyn’s gold.” As though there were a medal with her name already engraved on it or something.

But um…

The Olympics trades in Gold Medals, not Gold Stars! Put another way, there are no “A’s for effort.”

I want to be clear. I have nothing but love for Jordyn. She’s the reigning world champ. She’s mega talented, and she showed up for Team USA in a major way yesterday. I do not want to diminish her accomplishments in any way in this post.

But I take serious issue with the media’s coverage of her accomplishments and the sense of white entitlement that permeates that coverage. The coverage magnifies Jordyn’s victories, while minimizing Gabby’s. And it isn’t right. Not to mention that it is classic passive aggressive white racism. (Yeah, I said it.) The kind that injures not by heaping insults but by failing to grant recognition, when it has power to do so.

Gabby didn’t receive the low score in any of her four events, and she received the highest score in two of them (beam and bars). (See all scores here. Click on the plus out to the side for individual scores in each event.) Gabby outscored Jordyn on each of the three events they competed in yesterday, and she outscored Aly in one of two events. She didn’t put up one score less than a 15.066 in any event.

The first to do floor, Gabby’s performance received a score of 15.066. Solid. I literally waited on the commentators to find anything good to say about the routine. *Crickets* They said virtually nothing. And then Jordyn performed. They were glowing with accolades and affirmations for her, in a routine that was technically less difficult than Gabby’s. When the scores came back, Jordyn had a 15.000. And you could almost hear the disappointment, not at Jordyn’s solid score, but that it was lower than Gabby’s.

I guess I should be happy that at least this time, the media found it appropriate to actually pan to some shots of Gabby’s family watching in the audience. But unlike her counterparts, they never said who those three Black people were. I guess we could just Match them up based on skin tone. Contrast that with the fact that every time they panned to Aly’s or Jordyn’s parents, there would be some commentary about their reactions.

I am extremely proud of team USA. I hope that is clear. I watched the Magnificent 7 win Gold in 1996. Most of these girls were barely toddlers then! After the interview, they talked about the 2004 Olympics as their most memorable one. Made me feel O.L.D. So it was truly awesome to watch us return to that former glory. And these girls deserve every bit of shine they get.

And I am determined at least in this space that Gabby will get her just due.

Because let’s be clear.

Gabby showed up for her team in each and every event, and in Black vernacular, she showed out! But that reminds me of some more ol’ school Black wisdom, too– “you have to be twice as good, to get half as far.” Every Black kid hears this at some point in her lifetime. It still rings true. And what our parents don’t say is that even then, you still might be invisible. Invisible, that is,  in your accomplishments. Your flaws won’t be treated half so graciously.

Anyway, brush your shoulders off, Gabby. (Check her doing just that at the 1:02 mark!)


They may not see you coming, Gabby. But know this. We see you! We SEE you!  And we are cheering you on! #yougotthis

(Reblogged from miscella)

"We had to include hate in the fiction, it was historically appropriate!"


Whenever I hear this “defense”, the question that always comes to mind is, “So how did you portray the oppressors and the fact of oppression?”

When I think of media that does this well, it actually points out how fucked up it is.   But I never hear those stories having to defend themselves.   I only hear it from media that’s basically a celebration of hate.   Suddenly they need to be “true to the times”.

But how can it be true to the times when you repeat the delusions that rationalize the hate, how can you be true to times when you pain the oppressors as GOOD PEOPLE, how can you at all speak of truth when you engage in the same propaganda of the times of the past… when you have generations, or even centuries of progress beyond that?

It’s not about the past.  It’s not like there’s a magic time machine you jump into, open the window and whatever you see is what you see, “Oh, well, that’s how it was”.

You’re making media.  You’re making fiction.   You’re doing this for entertainment. And you’re telling me hate is entertaining (which says a lot about you) and then you’re too fucking cowardly to own up to it - so you’re going to mealymouth out some bullshit about being true to historical vision?

If you were going to be true to history, you’d show the humanity of the oppressed and exactly how false and hateful the oppressors were, how sickenly casual and normalized the hate was, and how, ultimately, it always dehumanizes people.

But that’s never what it’s about.  Because the media that does do those things never ends up having to defend itself.  

Because it was never pro-hate to begin with.

(Reblogged from bankuei)

Just a PSA



  • You just “can’t see a person of color doing” anything that doesn’t involve them being a slave/being a stereotype,
  • You white wash established characters of color in any sort of artwork you create,
  • You defend whitewashing in Hollywood
  • You whinge about how a story is ‘ruined’ because a character whose race isn’t specified turns out to be a POC in the adaptation.
  • You demand the small amount of poc oriented shows to cater to white people while telling poc who want representation in white majority shows to stfu?

You are defending racism and white supremacy.

(Reblogged from polerin)








Brandy’s shoot for YRB magazine

I love how Brandy looks with short hair!  Don’t remember her ever having a short cut.

O.o…… the light bright enough? they washed the hell out of her.

Harpo, who dis woman?

oh come the fuck on. -_-

Lol what the everloving fuck is this? Is this real? 

Before I scrolled down, I honestly thought that this was some fan art that a whitewashing-loving Brandy fan had done…but this is from an actual photoshoot.


Um, YRB Magazine? This is what Brandy loks like…you know, for future reference:


needs more brightness??

Brandy has a cute as fuck nose.


(Reblogged from soflyniggaswannastalkme)

on the subject of the movie brave



because I have nothing better to do besides procrastinate

so I was looking around today and saw a few strange complaints about the movie, most notably being that it “it’s all white people” and “100% crackerlicious crackers” (direct quotes taken from tumblr, not my phrasing) which is true! the cast is predominantly white. however, the reason why I found this complaint strange is because the movie is set in medieval Scotland, at a point when migration towards that particular part of the world wasn’t very strong and, as a result, there was one predominant ethnicity present - Scottish. White people!

While I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with wanting stronger public representation for racial minorities, or any minorities really, (opposite actually!), and critiquing media that exploits racial minorities at the expense of the characters/story is a big part of progression in contemporary society, critiquing a story because it is set in a time and place where the main race was white is strange. I’ve seen a lot of complaints from the sources I’ve quoted above wishing that Disney, for example, would twist their fairy tale stories to accomodate a broader cast of characters. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this - I thought Princess and the Frog was an interesting, original take on the story and it was pretty refreshing to have a new setting.

However, I do take issue with the fact that people seem to

  1. want this (completed) movie changed to represent characters besides Scots
  2. want the entire setting of the movie changed to accomodate this change
  3. want the characters completely changed as well

and at this point, is it really the same story anymore? I think there’s a little bit of a difference between wanting a fresh take on a pre-existing story, like Princess and the Frog, and wanting a complete rehaul of an original story that does not necessarily adhere to any pre-existing tales. A rehaul of an original story is simply a different story. That’s why twists on things like Princess and the Frog are refreshing - they’re new and different.

Does setting a movie in a time period and location where there’s one specific race present make the story and characters racist? Or are the movie’s creators trying to pick a setting where their story works best? And if you have ideas for ways to change the story, in ways that make the story completely different, are you best served critiquing this movie (that you haven’t seen yet) against your ideas? At that point, and please don’t take this as me saying “if you can make it better WHY DON’T YOU”, when you have an entirely new idea, and a new take on a story, maybe it’s time to put that story into action! A lot of really great stories have come about because the creator was trying to implement their own critique of pre-existing stories into action, and who’s to say you couldn’t make one of those stories?

in conclusion, I just used the phrase “crackerlicious” in writing and it was a little weird

I understand complaints about all white casts in Medieval Europe, because there was a lot of trade there and lots of different ethnicities were mingling!  Making everyone super white is unrealistic.

In comparison though, Pretania was relatively isolated.  There is indication of heavy trade with the Greeks and Phoenicians, but trade seems to be all it was.  When the Romans showed up, they described the Celts as “…a race of tall, fair-haired warriors, strong and agile, easily provoked to battle, boastful before combat like the Homeric heroes and terrifying in their battle rage.”  There’s little to indicate that ethnic diversity encompassed anything more than the four different Celtic groups (Picts, Gaels, Britons and Angles), only one of which was described as looking significantly different than the others.

There was more of an influx of different races during the Roman era—in fact, DNA testing has shown some modern Scots to be of mixed African descent, which historians speculate may have occurred either during the building of Hadrian’s Wall, or from marriages between high-ranking African slaves or freedmen and the native Celts.  However, Hadrian’s Wall was built for a reason, and a lot of that reason was because the Celts were so opposed to any kind of integration or subjugation that the Romans got fed up trying to wrangle them and shoved them all up into Scotland.  They were not a people who supported the melting pot idea, is what I’m saying here.

So while having traders or other individuals of different ethnicities present in Brave wouldn’t have been farfetched in the least, there’s not going to be the kind of ethnic diversity you’d find in Rome or medieval Europe or even medieval England, because medieval Scotland was pretty much pissed off at the world and fighting to keep their own heritage.

Had Brave been set in modern-day Scotland, then yes, there ought to be more ethnic diversity.  Hell, if it was about the Scottish guys who worked at the docks, or a Scottish farrier who works at a busy city, you’d see lots of different skin colors.  But a movie about Scottish nobility is going to be pretty pasty.

If your people are rarely represented by media, you’re gonna get pretty pissed and apathetic about the long parade of white movies.

That’s pretty much the complaint.

That’s my complaint.

Plus the structural racism that’s been in place for centuries that makes it hard for POC to join and thrive in the entertainment industry compared to whites… and so overwhelmingly the directors and writers are white (and male).

So yeah. A bunch of white people run Pixar and Disney… and they continue to make white films. And Princess and the Frog has its problems too. Not a perfect movie with regards to representation by a long shot. Just look up “racism in Princess and the Frog.”

My problem isn’t necessarily with Brave itself as it stands alone but how it stands in the long line of white movies, and the small proportion of movies led by female protagonists that almost always are about “how being a girl is hard” instead of “here’s awesome things that characters who happen to be girls are capable of”.

But when I mention any of the above (whether directly or indirectly), I’ve recently had lots of people telling me to STFU and accept the good graces of Pixar for granting me with a female-led movie. Racist and sexist much?

(Source: halleyrina)

(Reblogged from ballroomnotoriety)



this is why i am a feminist

This is why I’m a feminist as well, and also why I think what images we present in media, especially media targeted towards children and teens, is so important.

(Source: dave-bowman)

(Reblogged from fadedpagesandcupsoftea)