🔥 | Latest

false equivalence: 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
false equivalence: 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: au...

false equivalence: 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 thewickedverkaiking: 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. MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE
false equivalence: 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
thewickedverkaiking:
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.

MEN WANT OBJECTS WOMEN WANT PEOPLE

thewickedverkaiking: aglassroseneverfades: pmastamonkmonk: schnerp: feminism-is-radical: auntiewanda: brithwyr: auntiewanda: brith...

false equivalence: Katie Halper O @kthalps Will Alexandria @Ocasio2018 Ocasio- Cortez be able to recover from this hit by a life-long Republican, GOP "strategist" who convinced John McCain to run with Sarah Palin? Steve Schmidt attacks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for 'dishonest progressivism' - and says it's bad as Trumpism' FS DAVID EDWARDS 27 JUN 2018 AT 10:50 ET Flipboard Facebook Twitter in Linkedin SAVE UP TO 60% THIS MONTH ONLY Pocket Compass Mo... R CHAOS Steve Schmidt appears on MSNBC (screen grab) 6/27/18, 4:52 PM odinsblog: So this is one of the people MSNBC loves to elevate, pass the mic to, and basically parade around as an example of a “good” Republican? The guy who helped the GOP unleash Sarah Palin on American politics? And remember David Brock, the Republican who lied on, and tried to slut sham Anita Hill? LOL, he’s yet *another* DNC surrogate, fundraiser, and trusted Clinton/DNC/DCCC insider. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/book-author-says-he-lied-his-attacks-anita-hill-bid-aid-justice-thomas.html LMAO, centrist Dems STAY tryna rehabilitate Republicans, even as they’re busy attacking progressives. Republicans and corporate Democrats are allies united against a common foe: actual progressives. Establishment Democrats love Republicans and “ex” Republicans more than their own progressive base. Not even a week after her victory, and the allegedly “liberal” network has already started attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This is just mud slinging by centrists. It’s corporate Dems trying to push their hopelessly flawed “horseshoe theory”. Remember, it was centrist Democrats—not Republicans—who coined the phrase “alt-left” so that they could create a false equivalence with the alt-right. Remember kids: “centrists are 50 percent Republican and 25 percent ‘former’ Republican” and that’s 75 percent too much Republican for me. Alexandria Osasio-Cortez is against literally EVERYTHING Trump represents. It’s journalistic malpractice to suggest that they’re even remotely the same. Republicans and centrist Democrats teaming up on cable tv to attack Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is proof that the Fishhook theory is a lot more accurate than the Horseshoe theory. I’m glad Ocasio kicked their sorry ass old white guy, Joseph what’s-his-face, down the stairs.
false equivalence: Katie Halper O
 @kthalps
 Will Alexandria @Ocasio2018 Ocasio-
 Cortez be able to recover from this hit
 by a life-long Republican, GOP
 "strategist" who convinced John
 McCain to run with Sarah Palin?

 Steve Schmidt attacks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for
 'dishonest progressivism' - and says it's bad as
 Trumpism'
 FS
 DAVID EDWARDS
 27 JUN 2018 AT 10:50 ET
 Flipboard
 Facebook Twitter in Linkedin
 SAVE UP TO 60% THIS MONTH ONLY
 Pocket Compass Mo...
 R CHAOS
 Steve Schmidt appears on MSNBC (screen grab)
 6/27/18, 4:52 PM
odinsblog:

So this is one of the people MSNBC loves to elevate, pass the mic to, and basically parade around as an example of a “good” Republican? The guy who helped the GOP unleash Sarah Palin on American politics? And remember David Brock, the Republican who lied on, and tried to slut sham Anita Hill? LOL, he’s yet *another* DNC surrogate, fundraiser, and trusted Clinton/DNC/DCCC insider.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/book-author-says-he-lied-his-attacks-anita-hill-bid-aid-justice-thomas.html

LMAO, centrist Dems STAY tryna rehabilitate Republicans, even as they’re busy attacking progressives. Republicans and corporate Democrats are allies united against a common foe: actual progressives. Establishment Democrats love Republicans and “ex” Republicans more than their own progressive base. 

Not even a week after her victory, and the allegedly “liberal” network has already started attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This is just mud slinging by centrists. It’s corporate Dems trying to push their hopelessly flawed “horseshoe theory”. Remember, it was centrist Democrats—not Republicans—who coined the phrase “alt-left” so that they could create a false equivalence with the alt-right. 

Remember kids: “centrists are 50 percent Republican and 25 percent ‘former’ Republican” and that’s 75 percent too much Republican for me. 

Alexandria Osasio-Cortez is against literally EVERYTHING Trump represents. It’s journalistic malpractice to suggest that they’re even remotely the same. Republicans and centrist Democrats teaming up on cable tv to attack Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is proof that the Fishhook theory is a lot more accurate than the Horseshoe theory. 

I’m glad Ocasio kicked their sorry ass old white guy, Joseph what’s-his-face, down the stairs.

odinsblog: So this is one of the people MSNBC loves to elevate, pass the mic to, and basically parade around as an example of a “good” R...

false equivalence: Keegan Stephan @KeeganNYC The left just calls anyone who disagrees with them a nazi." odinsblog: Yes, these are real life Nazis, and NO, we aren’t going to defeat them with “love and tolerance” OTHER LIES you will be hearing from Nazi sympathizers: 1. you should respect a Nazi’s freedom of speech (NO—nobody owes respect to racists or Nazis and hate speech that incites violence is not protected under the 1st Amendment) 2. you’re no better or “the same” as them for fighting back (WRONG—this false equivalence would make the side who believes in genocide and enslavement “just as bad” as the side trying not to be the victims of genocide and enslavement) 3. hate breeds hate (NO—injustice, oppression, racism and generations of systematic discrimination is what breeds hate) 4. “both sides” are at fault (WRONG—this is another false equivalency that treats the aggressor, James Alex Fields, as innocently as the victim, Heather Heyer) 5. “Burning the Confederate flag or destroying Confederate monuments are acts of violence, just as bad as violence against people” (NO—that’s asinine and you’re an idiot if you believe that false equivalence, property ≠ people) 6. it’s just a “difference of opinions” and everyone has a right to their opinions (NO—dehumanization, anti-Blackness, antisemitism, Islamophobia, ablism and trans/homophobia are not harmless opinions; they are tools for systems of oppression, and NO, you do not have to blindly give respect to Nazis who are seeking to destroy others for being their innate selves) Many of these are obviously false equivalencies, but what they all have in common is they essentially tell you not to resist, and eternally turn the other cheek and “love” the people attacking or oppressing you It’s like this: Nazis support genocide. They actively support racism and racial discrimination. They literally believe in a “master race”. Their end goal is to either destroy or subjugate all non-white people. Nazis and white supremacists are a cancer to humanity. If you discovered that you had cancer, you wouldn’t try to love or tolerate it or anything else—you would immediately begin doing everything in your power to eradicate it. There is no such thing as having an acceptable amount of cancer. Nazis and white supremacists need to be treated like the cancer they are And please pay close attention to anyone who uses vague “both sides” language to avoid assigning blame to anyone, or worse, ask you to “try to understand” the Nazis’ side, as if the only two sides aren’t right vs. the side the Nazis are on: evil
false equivalence: Keegan Stephan
 @KeeganNYC
 The left just calls anyone who
 disagrees with them a nazi."
odinsblog:
Yes, these are real life Nazis, and NO, we aren’t going to defeat them with “love and tolerance”

OTHER LIES you will be hearing from Nazi sympathizers: 1. you should respect a Nazi’s freedom of speech (NO—nobody owes respect to racists or Nazis and hate speech that incites violence is not protected under the 1st Amendment) 2. you’re no better or “the same” as them for fighting back (WRONG—this false equivalence would make the side who believes in genocide and enslavement “just as bad” as the side trying not to be the victims of genocide and enslavement) 3. hate breeds hate (NO—injustice, oppression, racism and generations of systematic discrimination is what breeds hate) 4. “both sides” are at fault (WRONG—this is another false equivalency that treats the aggressor, James Alex Fields, as innocently as the victim, Heather Heyer) 5. “Burning the Confederate flag or destroying Confederate monuments are acts of violence, just as bad as violence against people” (NO—that’s asinine and you’re an idiot if you believe that false equivalence, property ≠ people) 6. it’s just a “difference of opinions” and everyone has a right to their opinions (NO—dehumanization, anti-Blackness, antisemitism, Islamophobia, ablism and trans/homophobia are not harmless opinions; they are tools for systems of oppression, and NO, you do not have to blindly give respect to Nazis who are seeking to destroy others for being their innate selves) 

Many of these are obviously false equivalencies, but what they all have in common is they essentially tell you not to resist, and eternally turn the other cheek and “love” the people attacking or oppressing you 

It’s like this: Nazis support genocide. They actively support racism and racial discrimination. They literally believe in a “master race”. Their end goal is to either destroy or subjugate all non-white people. Nazis and white supremacists are a cancer to humanity. If you discovered that you had cancer, you wouldn’t try to love or tolerate it or anything else—you would immediately begin doing everything in your power to eradicate it. There is no such thing as having an acceptable amount of cancer. Nazis and white supremacists need to be treated like the cancer they are

And please pay close attention to anyone who uses vague “both sides” language to avoid assigning blame to anyone, or worse, ask you to “try to understand” the Nazis’ side, as if the only two sides aren’t right vs. the side the Nazis are on: evil

odinsblog: Yes, these are real life Nazis, and NO, we aren’t going to defeat them with “love and tolerance” OTHER LIES you will be heari...