I realized these were all the snapshots which our children would look at someday with wonder, thinking their parents had lived smooth, well-ordered lives and got up in the morning to walk proudly on the sidewalks of life, never dreaming the raggedy madness and riot of our actual lives, our actual night, the hell of it, the senseless emptiness.
(via searchingforselfless)
I am incredibly grateful to my parents for giving me both kinds of toys. I preferred the dolls, but at least I know that was my own honest choice.
My mom wouldn’t let me have toys.
I still find most commentary on the sexist division of girl toys and boy toys to be rather lacking. Of course if is terrible that girls and boys are given toys that encourage them to enact stereotypical gender roles ways so young; this type of socialization might prime them to fill specific roles later on in life. But people are still undervaluing “girls toys,” equating them with passive frivolousness. And how sexist is that? The sentiment is that “gender neutral” toys, always verging towards “boys toys,” are constructive, educational, and worthwhile. Dolls aren’t. This is the kind of sentiment that dismisses the value of “women’s work” of care-giving later on in life.
“Boys toys” tend to be physically complex. “Girls toys” tend to be socially complex. The complexity of the imaginary play that children often engage in with dolls is intangible and made invisible early on—because you aren’t looking. It is so much easier for a child to say “look what I made” and get a pat on the back than to say “watch me engage.”
I played with lot of different types of toys. Sure, I liked to build things with legos. But I much preferred my dolls. And guess what? All forty or so of my beanie babies had individual personalities. They had roles, romances, they interacted with each other in complex ways. There were smaller subgroups of birds or bears. I used them to create a complete micro-society. But an adult passerby would see that pile of critters as a rather useless and excessive collection.
Understanding social complexities, the kind of play which “girls toys” encourage, is undervalued from an early age.
Let’s please stop with the “dolls are dumb” rhetoric. It isn’t helpful. It’s still sexist. The problem of gendered children’s toys won’t be fixed by allowing free access to “boys toys” for all, but by seeing the value in diverse types of play, and encouraging all children to engage in them.
Re-reblogging for commentary.
And to add that dolls ought to be marketed/designed in a way that encourages that kind of creative play, rather than the way they seem to be done now, with pre-packaged personalities and an emphasis on how “sexy” they are.
(via jamesloveslily)
3,471 notes
do not ever say that “this is about superheroes therefore it shouldnt need to be drawn realistically”
that is fucking bullshit. most comic book art styles are in a realistic style. they are attempting pseudo-realism. so regardless of subject matter or whatever, if the style is pseudo-realism, the art should be drawn realistically. therefore, the anatomy should be realistic and if people (particularly women) are drawn in poses that are physically impossible, the anatomy is not realistic, the style is not successful, and these are the signs of poor art. these are professional artists. they should have a basic understanding of anatomy and human proportion and when poses are physically impossible.
it literally does not matter if the story is about superheroes. do they look like real people? do they have anatomy that imitates real anatomy?
then it should be drawn as anatomically correct as possible.
“its their style!!!!” is literally not a valid argument in regards to this whatsoever. and if their style is to draw all women in body contorting, overly sexual poses, then fuck them anyways.
and im not even going to get into how women are treated in comics, especially in art, especially with professional artists that apparently do not give a fuck about how women appear aside from unnatural, disfigured creatures that are only there for masturbatory pleasure of the generic basement-dweller.
regardless of whether its about superheroes or slice-of-life or whatever, if the style is realistic, things should be drawn realistically. if the style is cartoony, things should be drawn like a cartoon. anime, macabre, etc. these are professional, taught artists. they have no excuse to do otherwise.
and btw? can we please not tell people that theyre not allowed to judge art because they cant draw any better? because thats completely wrong. you do not have to be some ~*amazing artist*~ to know when art is shit.
get it? get it.
(via coulbitches)
80 notes
I know, this may come as a shock to some of you but…
People are not perfect or saints. Including people from history. Queen Elizabeth I thought women were weak. Her quote, ” I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too,” isn’t all that empowering to women. She is saying she is strong because she has the heart of a king of England even though she has the body of a week and feeble women. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Abraham Lincoln was a racist fuck. Martin Luther King Jr. was rather sexist and so was Martin Luther. John Adams believed most Americans were stupid and lower class people could not be trusted. Abigail Adams didn’t really give a damn about most women, she just wanted property rights. Does that change the fact that all these people did good in their life? No. However, they are human and just like every other human they are flawed individuals. Lets stop holding people in the past up as saints because they are not. People make historical figures out to be mythical saints who we can idly worship when in reality they are as fucked up as the rest of us.
I had one person tell me I should only post about “inspirational history” because history was supposed to be inspirational. Fuck that shit. Most of history is not inspirational. If we only post about inspirational people, we will make saints out of incredibly flawed human beings. Should we acknowledge the good and inspirational things people do? Yes. However, we should also address their more problematic qualities. We need to stop looking at historical figures as one dimensional characters. History needs to be accurate and truthful. If the truth happens to be inspirational, great. If not, owell. We shouldn’t make history inspirational so people feel good about it.
(via coulbitches)
420 notes
Just a girl who loves music, candles, conversation, learning, organized chaos, books, tea, combat boots and bubble baths. 20. Long Island, New York."A glass can only spill what it contains."
-mewithoutYou
