NC. 25. I am a Potterhead, Whovian, Oncer, general geek. I am addicted to art in general, film, and this ridiculous and amazing universe. Also I like to make stuff. All kinds of stuff... check out my craft blog at crannycrafts.tumblr.com

 

So I just got a call that my brother is coming to visit today…. I totally get that they need to get away from S-I-L’s family’s drama and I’m super excited to see them but give me a little warning eh?

Pro-lifers are horrible and the Fosters is pretty awesome sometimes

hernameispersephone:

So the Fosters is a show about a lesbian couple with 5 kids that are biological, adopted, and fostered (as kids or teens). It’s on ABC family. And the couple decided to have another baby, this time biological with the use of a sperm donor. They wanted the baby SO badly. And when she was 20 weeks,…

manif3stlove:

dynastylnoire:

strangeasanjles:

godinthebrokenness:

Plenty of films have taken a stab at bringing Bible stories to life, from “The Ten Commandments” and “Jesus Christ: Superstar” to this year’s “Son of God” and “Noah.” But despite those movies’ different genres and tones, these films all tend to share one similarity: They have white casts, even though the Bible’s characters would have been from parts of Africa or the Middle East. Photographer James C. Lewis of Noire3000 | N3K Photo Studios has decided to rectify by presenting these iconic figures in a new light.

Lewis’ “Icons Of The Bible” photo series depicts some of the most famous characters from the Old and New Testament exclusively as people of color, including Simon Peter, Elijah, King Solomon and the archangel Gabriel. The series, which will be fully released in October, features 70 models who identify as either Asian, Native American, Hispanic, African, Middle Eastern, Black American and West Indian.

"I think it is very important to see one’s self in the Scripture so that it may become real in their eyes," Lewis told The Huffington Post. "The whitewashing of the Bible has always bothered me. However I’m happy to now have the opportunity to give a different point of view."

(Article)

fuckingradfems:

stirringwind:

rifa:

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.
High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.
But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

ok this is really informative and all but i really feel a need to bring up that high heels didn’t start in Europe nor were they for fashion.

High heels came to prominence when worn by the 16th century Persian cavalry- the riders needed to be able to remain steady to fire their arrows while standing up on their stirrups while astride a running horse. The Persian empire had like the largest cavalry in the world, so you can imagine. High heels then spread to Europe because the Persian Shah Abbas was keen to foster ties in a bid to gain allies against his enemy- the Ottoman Empire. 
As a result of these diplomatic exchanges, there was some kind of mania for all things Iranian during that period amongst the Europeans, and that’s how the story of high heels being a European fashion symbol for men really begins.
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21151350

This was some of my favorite shit that I studied in art school :)

fuckingradfems:

stirringwind:

rifa:

prokopetz:

nebcondist1:

prokopetz:

I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.

High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.

But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

ok this is really informative and all but i really feel a need to bring up that high heels didn’t start in Europe nor were they for fashion.

High heels came to prominence when worn by the 16th century Persian cavalry- the riders needed to be able to remain steady to fire their arrows while standing up on their stirrups while astride a running horse. The Persian empire had like the largest cavalry in the world, so you can imagine. High heels then spread to Europe because the Persian Shah Abbas was keen to foster ties in a bid to gain allies against his enemy- the Ottoman Empire. 

As a result of these diplomatic exchanges, there was some kind of mania for all things Iranian during that period amongst the Europeans, and that’s how the story of high heels being a European fashion symbol for men really begins.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21151350

This was some of my favorite shit that I studied in art school :)

micdotcom:

Woman live tweets IBM execs discussing why they don’t hire women, tries not to throw up

Toronto-based editor Lyndsay Kirkham has started a firestorm this week after overhearing what was apparently an incredibly sexist conversation between IBM executives at lunch — and live-tweeting it.

Unaware that they were transmitting sexist nonsense to cyberspace, the IBM executives openly discussed “why they don’t hire women.” If you take Kirkham’s account at its word, it actually gets way worse.

But wait, there’s more Follow micdotcom

U.S. Court Tosses Out Lawsuit Accusing Chiquita Bananas of Funding Death Squads

socialismartnature:

And yet US politicians have the gall to vilify child refugees, while simultaneously abetting the terrorism and violence sown by US companies in Central America …

===

Obama to Urge 3 Central American Leaders to Slow Tidal Wave of Migrants

socialismartnature:

The gall of Obama is almost unbelievable — to place the onus on the Presidents of Central America to do more to stop the flow of refugees! This in three countries — Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvados — which have probably been the Central American nations most heavily fucked with by US intervention over the last few decades, including CIA-sponsored coups and civil wars, US-trained death squads through its School of the Americas program, devastating US-based corporate exploitation and indigenous market destruction, land grabs and speculation, de-forestation and de-population, and massive parasitic indebtedness through institutions like the IMF and World Bank.

For Obama to demand that Central America stop the flow of refugees without first addressing the myriad and ongoing crimes of the US in that region is unconscionable.

===

President Obama will urge the presidents of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to do everything they can to stem the flow of migrant children toward the United States when he meets with them on Friday at the White House, officials said.

In particular, officials said Mr. Obama will urge the presidents to amplify the public message that most people trying to get into the United States will not be permitted to stay. Mr. Obama will also ask the leaders to do more to go after the smugglers who, for a price, are bringing the children to America.

stfuprolifers:

the-elderscrolls:

Polish doctor that refused to perform abortion named a “hero”
Dr Bogdan Chazan was visited by an expecting mother (32 weeks into pregnancy), who already had 5 miscarriages before and was worried about her health. It turned out that the fetus had hydrocephalus, undeveloped brain and was missing many bones from its skull. The Doctor refused to perform an abortion and didn’t send the woman to another hospital which could do so (according to polish law, if a doctor doesn’t want to perform an abortion, he has to choose another hospital which will agree to do so). Chazan was named a “local hero” and “true warrior of Jesus in the name of life of the unborn” by many polish politicians and catholic activists. He used conscience clause as an excuse for his actions.
The woman gave birth to the child through a C-section. She and her husband spent 10 painful days watching their deformed child die a horrible death. When she finally decided to speak out, she said:
“During these 10 days, no priest, no pro life activist or even dr Chazan came to see the child, to ask if they can help. It was really hard to look at our child. We knew what was coming, but it was still very hard to cope with”
Congratulations, pro-lifers - another “life” saved, another “happy” child and “happy” family. 

Reblogging again because this is the “good” that anti-choicers do in this world.
Forsake actual people for their oppressive beliefs.
And in the end, did they even really care about the fetus or the family?
Nope.

stfuprolifers:

the-elderscrolls:

Polish doctor that refused to perform abortion named a “hero”

Dr Bogdan Chazan was visited by an expecting mother (32 weeks into pregnancy), who already had 5 miscarriages before and was worried about her health. It turned out that the fetus had hydrocephalus, undeveloped brain and was missing many bones from its skull. The Doctor refused to perform an abortion and didn’t send the woman to another hospital which could do so (according to polish law, if a doctor doesn’t want to perform an abortion, he has to choose another hospital which will agree to do so). Chazan was named a “local hero” and “true warrior of Jesus in the name of life of the unborn” by many polish politicians and catholic activists. He used conscience clause as an excuse for his actions.

The woman gave birth to the child through a C-section. She and her husband spent 10 painful days watching their deformed child die a horrible death. When she finally decided to speak out, she said:

During these 10 days, no priest, no pro life activist or even dr Chazan came to see the child, to ask if they can help. It was really hard to look at our child. We knew what was coming, but it was still very hard to cope with

Congratulations, pro-lifers - another “life” saved, another “happy” child and “happy” family. 

Reblogging again because this is the “good” that anti-choicers do in this world.

Forsake actual people for their oppressive beliefs.

And in the end, did they even really care about the fetus or the family?

Nope.