MiaZilla is a Fangirl

Likes teh pretty. Spends to much time in front of the computer. Fangirl. Atheist. Knitter. Doodle-er. Swede. Aromantic Asexual. She/her.

Sep 3
mysoulhasgrowndeep-liketherivers:

blackgirlsinked:

Esther Jones, known by her stage name, “Baby Esther,” was a singer and entertainer of the late 1920s. She performed regularly at The Cotton Club in Harlem. Helen Kane saw her act in 1928 and appropriated Jones’ ‘baby’ singing style for a recording of “I Wanna Be Loved By You.” Jones’ style went on to become the inspiration for the voice of Betty Boop.(What I Looked up)

Today in Black people invented everything you hold near and dear…

mysoulhasgrowndeep-liketherivers:

blackgirlsinked:

Esther Jones, known by her stage name, “Baby Esther,” was a singer and entertainer of the late 1920s. She performed regularly at The Cotton Club in Harlem. Helen Kane saw her act in 1928 and appropriated Jones’ ‘baby’ singing style for a recording of “I Wanna Be Loved By You.” Jones’ style went on to become the inspiration for the voice of Betty Boop.(What I Looked up)

Today in Black people invented everything you hold near and dear…

(via thebicker)


(via thebicker)


gaywrites:

Pakistan has its first pro-LGBT children’s book. In February, Pakistani blogger and artist Eiynah ‘Nice Mangos’ created an illustrated blog post called “My Chacha Is Gay,” about a boy named Ahmed and his gay uncle. With the help of a crowdfunding campaign, she raised enough money to publish the post as a children’s book.

“The treatment of LGBTQ people in Pakistan is incredibly unjust, as is the treatment of most minorities, or anyone that doesn’t fit the expected mould,” Eiynah told BuzzFeed in an email. “The concept of LGBTQ rights does not exist in any large-scale mainstream way. People are isolated from family, friends and loved ones over things like this. It’s no way to live… Admittedly we are not as extreme as countries like Iran in our homophobia, but that doesn’t mean the situation is not horrendous. I’m still working on getting “My Chacha Is Gay” into Pakistan, but that is proving to be quite a challenge, not unexpectedly.”

View the whole book at BuzzFeed or order it here. This is seriously beautiful. 

(via thebicker)


durgapolashi:

"Pop stars traffic in symbology, so when white girls like Miley, Katy, and Lily Allen hide behind the claim that they just didn’t know any better, it seems insufficient. Maybe they didn’t, but somebody around them at some point should have. Which is why it felt tone-deaf when Taylor Swift put out a music video for her new single that featured a couple of scenes in which she used black dancers as props to offset her own clueless whiteness."

(…)

"Into this humid cultural climate strolls Nicki Minaj, whose new video for “Anaconda” isn’t technically a response video to “Shake It Off,” but might as well be. The “Anaconda” video is an extremely self-aware deconstruction of twerking as a trend. Nicki inverts the Miley paradigm, putting her own body front-and-center and surrounding herself with dancers of all races. “Anaconda” turns Nicki’s butt into a literal force of nature, causing earthquakes in a jungle setting. After parodying the idea of exoticism by opening on a jungle scene, she shifts into a workout setup with comically small weights. All of these setups make the same point: Nicki’s body is the modern ideal. And because Nicki is spitting rapid-fire jokes the whole time she is onscreen, it’s impossible to feel like she’s been reduced to a mere body."

Molly’s Nicki piece x Ayesha’s Nicki tweets

(via thebicker)


Sep 2

actuallyintersex:

Just a friendly reminder that “micropenis” is a dyadist slur. (It refers to the intersex condition Clitoromegaly.)

I don’t care if you’re using it without the intent to hurt intersex people, it’s still a dyadist slur. Stop trying to sound “edgy” at the expense of intersex people.


misandry-mermaid:

nihileigh:

When we live in a world where you can access free content of naked consenting women in less than 5 seconds, why are people still invading the privacy of non-consenting women for nudes?

Hint: It has something to do with people feeling entitled to making any woman their personal porn, even if it violates or humiliates her in the process.

Double hint: It might also have to do with the way that society celebrates and romanticizes the non-consensual sexualization of women.


sunborn-sundered-sound:thepeoplesrecord:herhonestlife:

FUCK ANTI RAPE NAIL POLISH

Do you think that we haven’t been trying hard enough?

This is what happens in rape culture. Men systematically rape women, and then come up with shit like nail polish to “protect women”.

(via aimmyarrowshigh)


Two churches located across the street from each other. At least the Catholics have a sense of humor.

paranoidrobot:

imageimageimageimageimageimageimageimageimage

(via lightspeedsound)


bikiniarmorbattledamage:

yondamoegi:

dreamsofjade:

hoganddice:

captkylej:

themaskednegro:

bowiesnippleantennae:

whatarefrogs:

JonTron just linked this image as an example of how men are stereotyped and exploited in video games I’m literally laughing out loud holy shit

for anyone who still doesn’t get it notice the background please

Fun fact: topless slave girls are COLLECTIBLES in this game.

See, the problem is that the guys objectification is empowering. You’re empowered because you’re taking advantage of the other objectified people.

Also, can my followers who like guys please comment on whether or not they find this guy sexually attractive?

nah, too much muscle. Muscle is hard… I want something soft to rest my head on! :P the only guy that i’ve ever been attracted to who has looked like this is Jason Momoa. 

I personally like muscles. I adore them. They fascinate me.
But this Conan doesn’t look sexually attractive. He looks like he’s gonna kill me - he’s intimidating and forceful. I’d better stay away from him.
If he looked like this
I’d say “Well, hello sexy.”
Objectification and sexualization don’t really depend on character’s looks, even if they use it to objectificate and sexualize. They depend on character’s purpose and agency.
A girl character can run around with her titties exposed but still could be not sexualized.

Just my 2 cents

It got better.
- wincenworks

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

yondamoegi:

dreamsofjade:

hoganddice:

captkylej:

themaskednegro:

bowiesnippleantennae:

whatarefrogs:

JonTron just linked this image as an example of how men are stereotyped and exploited in video games I’m literally laughing out loud holy shit

for anyone who still doesn’t get it notice the background please

Fun fact: topless slave girls are COLLECTIBLES in this game.

See, the problem is that the guys objectification is empowering. You’re empowered because you’re taking advantage of the other objectified people.

Also, can my followers who like guys please comment on whether or not they find this guy sexually attractive?

nah, too much muscle. Muscle is hard… I want something soft to rest my head on! :P the only guy that i’ve ever been attracted to who has looked like this is Jason Momoa. 

I personally like muscles. I adore them. They fascinate me.

But this Conan doesn’t look sexually attractive. He looks like he’s gonna kill me - he’s intimidating and forceful. I’d better stay away from him.

If he looked like this

I’d say “Well, hello sexy.”

Objectification and sexualization don’t really depend on character’s looks, even if they use it to objectificate and sexualize. They depend on character’s purpose and agency.

A girl character can run around with her titties exposed but still could be not sexualized.

Just my 2 cents

It got better.

- wincenworks

(via sassy-gay-justice)


medievalpoc:

aseantoo submitted to medievalpoc:

Unknown artist, possibly of the Brazilian School
Black Artist Completing a Portrait of a White Female Aristocrat
Brazil (early 1700s)
Oil on canvas
Philadelphia private collection
[x], [x]
I was thrilled at first to see this image - a pre-modern Black woman artist, portrayed at work! But then I saw this:
Although this black artist appears to be wearing a dress, it is likely to be a male figure. As the scholar Sheldon Cheek explains, the artist wears an earring and a silver collar, both common articles worn by black male servants/slaves in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the collar traditionally indicating slave status. Women rarely, if ever, wore the silver collar. The artist also appears to be wearing a silver “shackle” on the arm.
Ugh. Pretty awful.

I think we should all be pretty critical of what’s written about this painting. Especially the part you’ve quoted above about how they have assigned the gender of the artist in the painting. I find it bizarre that something that is supposed to indicate enslaved status (not gender) somehow trumps this person wearing women’s clothing (that’s also a woman’s hat to the best of my knowledge).
The Americas, including Brazil, have a long tradition of transgender and third gender people. This is one of those images from the past that falls quite easily through the cracks because it is a collection of “exceptions”; it doesn’t fit nicely into categories that have been created and therefore, it’s more or less ignored.
If anyone’s hesitant to be critical, maybe you should also note that both the articles linked above make claims that slavery in Brazil was “less harsh” than other places. What???
How many of our assumptions are being projected onto this painting? Are the “contradictions” present in it a product of the painting itself, or is the problem with the categories we try to place it in? How many layers do we have to fight uphill through when we even look at this image? After all, History teaches us:
women weren’t artists
Black people weren’t artists
Black people were enslaved
Enslaved people didn’t do anything of worth
Transgender, genderqueer and third gender people didn’t exist before the 1960s
white people control how Black images are perceived, but not the other way around
gender must be immediately perceivable and fit into our categories of “male” and “female”
^ So this is the baggage we bring with us when we look at this image. We look at this painting, and we actively search for indicators that allow us to continue to believe the above assumptions.
If we take away those assumptions, if we try to move past them and see this portrait with new eyes, what are we left with? Whose History do we see here? Maybe it’s mine; maybe it’s yours.

medievalpoc:

aseantoo submitted to medievalpoc:

Unknown artist, possibly of the Brazilian School

Black Artist Completing a Portrait of a White Female Aristocrat

Brazil (early 1700s)

Oil on canvas

Philadelphia private collection

[x], [x]

I was thrilled at first to see this image - a pre-modern Black woman artist, portrayed at work! But then I saw this:

Although this black artist appears to be wearing a dress, it is likely to be a male figure. As the scholar Sheldon Cheek explains, the artist wears an earring and a silver collar, both common articles worn by black male servants/slaves in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, the collar traditionally indicating slave status. Women rarely, if ever, wore the silver collar. The artist also appears to be wearing a silver “shackle” on the arm.

Ugh. Pretty awful.

I think we should all be pretty critical of what’s written about this painting. Especially the part you’ve quoted above about how they have assigned the gender of the artist in the painting. I find it bizarre that something that is supposed to indicate enslaved status (not gender) somehow trumps this person wearing women’s clothing (that’s also a woman’s hat to the best of my knowledge).

The Americas, including Brazil, have a long tradition of transgender and third gender people. This is one of those images from the past that falls quite easily through the cracks because it is a collection of “exceptions”; it doesn’t fit nicely into categories that have been created and therefore, it’s more or less ignored.

If anyone’s hesitant to be critical, maybe you should also note that both the articles linked above make claims that slavery in Brazil was “less harsh” than other places. What???

How many of our assumptions are being projected onto this painting? Are the “contradictions” present in it a product of the painting itself, or is the problem with the categories we try to place it in? How many layers do we have to fight uphill through when we even look at this image? After all, History teaches us:

  • women weren’t artists
  • Black people weren’t artists
  • Black people were enslaved
  • Enslaved people didn’t do anything of worth
  • Transgender, genderqueer and third gender people didn’t exist before the 1960s
  • white people control how Black images are perceived, but not the other way around
  • gender must be immediately perceivable and fit into our categories of “male” and “female”

^ So this is the baggage we bring with us when we look at this image. We look at this painting, and we actively search for indicators that allow us to continue to believe the above assumptions.

If we take away those assumptions, if we try to move past them and see this portrait with new eyes, what are we left with? Whose History do we see here? Maybe it’s mine; maybe it’s yours.


Page 1 of 400