hellotailor:

“Why is Alice Eve in her underwear, gratuitously and unnecessarily, without any real effort made as to why in God’s name she would undress in that circumstance? Well there’s a very good answer for that. But I’m not telling you what it is. Because… uh… MYSTERY?”

—

ACTUAL quote from Damon Lindelof, writer of Star Trek Into Darkness. When asked about Benedict Cumberbatch’s shirtless scene (which was apparently scripted at some point but then got cut), he wrote:

“As for the shirtless scene… we scripted it, but I don’t think it ever got shot. You know why? Because getting actors to take their clothes off is DEMEANING AND HORRIBLE AND…

Oh.
Right.
Sorry.”

These guys don’t even pretend to make an effort, do they? TOO MANY DICKS ON THE DANCEFLOOR.

(via hellotailor)

Hard to tell out of context, but this could be his way of saying, “JJ Abrams/the producer made me do it”?

(via gracierocket)

No, it’s not. Lindelof is definitely joking around, but in such a way that makes it clear that he doesn’t have much respect for the criticism. I’m relatively familiary with his sense of humour (I follow him on Twitter, anyhow), and to me this comes across as him acknowledging the problem but also basically saying, “I don’t give a shit”. The movie’s costume designer also said that the reason Alice Even has this scene is purely because there has to be a gratuitous hot-girl scene, and it was “her turn” because Zoe Saldana did it in the first movie.

The Abrams/Lindelof attitude reminds me a lot of Steven Moffat’s jokey way of brushing off all criticism as the ramblings of ~crazed internet feminazis. And all three share Christopher Nolan’s belief that if you show your scripts to your wife, it’s like an official sexism vetting process. “I’m married to a woman, I CAN’T be sexist!”

Also, Damon Lindelof and JJ Abrams are longtime collaborators so this definitely wasn’t a situation where Lindelof had an artistic vision that was quashed by Abrams. All publicity interviews with JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof or Roberto Orci (another co-writer and producer, alongside Alex Kurtzman) have them presenting a united front re: attitudes towards classic Trek, the Star Trek fanbase, and women/female characters in general. Orci and Kurtzman are also longtime writing partners, and co-wrote the first two Transformers movies.

Star Trek Into Darkness: Too many dicks on the Enterprise.

Over the years, various Star Trek movies have attempted to redress the gender imbalance in the original crew of the Enterprise. With one woman and six men in the core cast, it’s already kind of a sausage-fest. This movie adds Carol Marcus, played by Alice Eve, but although her role is that of a scientist and a Starfleet officer, she isn’t exactly treated with respect. Not only does she have a completely gratuitous semi-nude scene halfway through the movie, but McCoy hits on her while she’s trying to defuse a bomb. Oh, and her most important role in the movie is governed by her relationship with a male character—her father.

Other than Carol Marcus and Uhura, there pretty much aren’t any women at all in Into Darkness. Seriously. At the beginning of the movie we see Noel Clarke’s comatose daughter and grieving wife, and later on Kirk has a threesome with two hot alien chicks—part of Abrams’ image of Kirk as “a player,” which somehow sounds a lot douchier than Kirk’s admittedly flirtatious characterization in the original series. Onboard the Enterprise we do see a new female helmsman (helmswoman?), but unlike the male background officers, she doesn’t get any lines.

I actually understand a lack of interest in adding women to the core crew of the Enterprise. Those roles are already filled: by Kirk, Spock, Bones, and the rest. But when it comes to side characters and antagonists, almost every single one is male, for no discernable reason. At one point, we see one of the main villains in the captain’s chair of a ship that seems to be crewed entirely by men. Earlier, Kirk, Spock and Uhura are confronted by a platoon of Klingons—all apparently male as well. Are we expected to believe that a mysterious plague has wiped out 75% of the women in the galaxy? Throw me a bone, here. [READ MORE]

I walk into a room, and for this industry, I’m impossibly tall. When they find it hard to pair you up with the opposite sex, then what’s left for a woman? Either you’re the ball-buster or the not-so-attractive girlfriend standing by the lead. I mean, traditionally not so attractive. Because you have your starlets and then you have their best friends who are these character actresses. When you fall within the cracks, you thank God for sci-fi, because they’ll give you a gun, and they’ll say, ‘Go over there and conquer that world. You kick some ass, girl!’

(via codenamecesare)

swingsetindecember:

scienceing:

mybluedecember:

princess-munchkin:

How the fuck does Bill Nye expect this to happen? What do you want to do, force women to enroll in science courses, regardless of whether or not they want to do it? Just for the sake of having “enough” women? Why the fuck do these fractions matter so much? It’s not like people are holding guns to our head and threatening to kill us if we become interested in science.

Maybe, just maybe, a lot of us DON’T FUCKING WANT to be scientists. Is that a crime?

Hi there, princess-munchkin. Female engineering student here. 

Bill Nye is not saying that you HAVE to be a scientist, and you are right that no one is holding a gun to my head because I am interested in science, but let me tell you some of the struggles of being a woman in the STEM fields. 

1) Because I am a woman, I am not expected these fields. I first fully realized this when I was in high school, on my robotics team. See, although my robotics team was about 50% female, most of the women were part of the “business administration” side of things: finance, marketting, PR, membership, etc. Was this a problem? Absolutely not. But I was there to be an engineer, and specifically, to be the robot programmer. This was met with a lot of hesitation at first from some of the other students (all of whom happened to be male. This is not necessarily a bad thing.) You see, all of the robot programmers before me were guys. Computer programming is just a thing that guys do, or so they thought. Even after I had proved myself to the mentors on the team, many of the students still underestimated my abilities. There were rumors going around that I wouldn’t have been able to program the robot at all if the lead software mentor wasn’t there to help me. This was just flat-out false, but it wasn’t until I won an award for the team that the other students actually saw my merit. 

2) There is not a lot of encouragement for women to go into these fields. I first noticed this when I was in elementary school. I was always interested in math, science, you name it, but many of my teachers and family members pushed that to the side for a long time. When I asked for legos for christmas, I would get ballet slippers. In fact, for a long time, I was training to be a professional dancer. I loved to dance. I loved math more, but no one seemed to notice that about me. It wasn’t until I had a long conversation with one particular teacher in high school that I decided to look into engineering. I had never even considered it as an option before, because no one decided to encourage me to pursue my interest in science. If it hadn’t been for that teacher, I would probably not be at the school I am at right now. 

3) For a long time, Engineering/Science/Math WAS a “boys only” club. Let me tell you when some of the top technical schools and societies started letting women in:

• RPI, The oldest tech school in the country, founded in 1824. Started admitting women in 1942 to “replace men called to war.” Campus housing for women wasn’t constructed until 1966. 
• Tau Beta Pi, the Engineering Honors Society - Founded in 1885. Started admitting women in 1968.
• Caltech - Currently rated #3 in undergraduate engineering. Founded in 1891. Started admitting women in 1970. 
• Georgia Tech - Currently rated #5 in undergraduate engineering. Founded in 1885. Started admitting women in 1952. 

Do you see the implications of this? Engineering has been a part of our society since around the late 1800s (in the case of RPI, since the 1820s), but women weren’t even allowed in for the most part until the 1950s, regardless of their merit. 

4) Because of the fact that it was a “boys only” club for such a long time, there are not a lot of women engineers and scientists to look up to. When you’re reading your physics, chemistry, and math text books, the majority of those theories were came up with by men. It is true that much of our history was written by White Men, but this does not mean that the fact that there are few women scientists to look up does not matter. 

So, as you can hopefully see, princess-munckin, or anyone else that shares the opinions of princess-munchkin, Bill Nye was not arguing that women that are not interested in STEM should go into those fields anyway. But he IS arguing against all of the systematic barriers set up against women who ARE interested in engineering and science. There are several women out there who are just as good as the boys at math and science, but will never pursue their interests because it just doesn’t seem like an option. That was me for a long time. I am super grateful for the fact that I fought against that, and that I ended up where I am. 

if you don’t like science, fine. Don’t be a scientist. But if one day you have a daughter and she shows interest in being a scientist, PLEASE encourage her. Because Bill Nye is right, there needs to be more women scientists in the world. 

A+ comment

it’s hard to be a girl in engineering. really hard. you have less chances than a man. they can screw up. but your mistakes are remember. because they remember the girl who made the mistake. so we always have to be on guard.

(via reallyawesomecostumes)

the Baker Street Irregulars: Just found out that in Elementary, Irene Adler is also Moriarty

irresistible-revolution:

ambthecreative:

And apparently this makes this version of Irene Adler better than Sherlock’s Irene Adler because it makes her more idependent.

Still. No.

I haven’t watched Elementary. I refused to watch it because of A. It’s a stolen idea they stole from the…

n7-operative:

bemusedlybespectacled:

before ya’ll go talking about “misandry,” lemme explain you a thing

Also, for further information, Manboobz is an excellent resource. Go there. It’s awesome.

Reblogged this before, reblogged it again, always reblog

(via deducecanoe)

smallpotatoescolored:

Ah yes I can feel the equality.

(via gatissimo)

blessed-are-the-rowdy:

dreary-lane:

tanacetum-vulgare:

cocothinkshefancy:

Animator Scott Benson Eviscerates MRA Arguments with Clever Cartoon

OH MY GOD THIS IS AWESOME

This is actually really propaganda-y and terrifying >_>

It’s so perfectly scary

(via gatissimo)

How ‘Slut Shaming’ Has Been Written Into School Dress Codes Across The Country

Last month, a New Jersey middle school banned girls from wearing strapless dresses to prom. Administrators claimed that the dresses were “distracting” — though they refused to specify exactly how or why. Parents reacted strongly to the rule; some supported the dress code while others deemed it “slut-shaming.” On Friday, the school compromised by allowing girls to wear single-strap or see-through-strap dresses.

This is no isolated incident in the United States. Across the country, young girls are being told what not to wear because it might be a “distraction” for boys, or because adults decide it makes them look “inappropriate.” At its core, every incident has a common thread: Putting the onus on young women to prevent from being ogled or objectified, instead of teaching those responsible to learn to respect a woman’s body. Here are five other recent examples:

1. A middle school in California banned tight pants. At the beginning of last month, a middle school in Northern California began telling girls to avoid wearing pants that are “too tight” because it “distracts the boys.” At a mandatory assembly for just the female students, the middle school girls were told that they’re no longer allowed to wear leggings or yoga pants. “We didn’t think it was fair how we have all these restrictions on our clothing while boys didn’t have to sit through [the assembly] at all,” one student told local press. Some parents also complained, leading the school’s assistant principal to record a voicemail explaining the new policy. “The guiding principle in all dress codes is that the manner in which students dress does not become a distraction in the learning environment,” the message said.

2. A high school principal in Minnesota emailed parents to ask them to cover up their daughters. A principal in Minnetonka, MN recently wrote an email telling parents to stop letting their daughters wear leggings or yoga pants to school. He says the tight-fitting pants are fine with longer shirts but, when worn with a shorter top, a girl’s “backside” can be “too closely defined.” The big risk of having a defined backside, he thinks, is that it can “be highly distracting for other students.”

3. Two girls in Ohio were turned away from their prom for being “improperly dressed.” Laneisha Williams and Nyasia Mitchell were barred from prom this spring for wearing dresses that administrators considered “too revealing.” The girls say that they didn’t believe they were violating a dress code that said dresses couldn’t be too short or show too much cleavage. But one administrator told local news that the high school girls were only allowed to wear dresses that had “no curvature of their breasts showing.”

4. A kindergarten student in Georgia was forced to change her “short” skirt because it was a “distraction to other students.” It’s hard to imagine that a kindergartener’s outfit could be “a distraction to other students,” but a mother in Georgia told locals news there that her daughter had been outfitted in someone else’s pants — without parental permission — after the principal deemed the skirt the young girl was wearing too short.” The girl had apparently wore the skirt, and accompanying leggings, just one week before without incident.

5. Forty high school girls were sent home from a winter dance in California after “degrading” clothing inspections “bordering on sexual harassment.” A school board member’s daughter was among the 40 girls turned away from Capistrano Valley High’s February dance for wearing dresses that either exposed their midriffs or were cut too low. Before the dance, girls were apparently required to flap their arms up and down and turn around for male administrators’ inspection. The school issues image guidelines for appropriate dress on its website — though the images were nearly all of women, and the only male image depicted proper attire. One girl alleges that the principal told her, “Not all dresses look good on certain body shapes.” A grandmother of one of the girls who was turned away from the dance also said that a teacher remarked about her granddaughter, “What mother would allow her daughter to wear a dress like that?” Apparently the school did receive some praise, though, from the parents of two male students.

When most Americans think about “rape culture,” they may think about the Steubenville boys’ defense arguing that an unconscious girl consented to her sexual assault because she “didn’t say no,” the school administrators who choose to protect their star athletes over those boys’ rape victims, or the bullying that led multiple victims of sexual assault to take their own lives. While those incidences of victim-blaming are certainly symptoms of a deeply-rooted rape culture in this country, they’re not the only examples of this dynamic at play. Rape culture is also evident in the attitudes that lead school administrators to treat young girls’ bodies as inherently “distracting” to the boys who simply can’t control themselves. That approach to gender roles simply encourages our youth to assume that sexual crimes must have something to do with women’s “suggestive” clothes or behavior, rather than teaching them that every individual is responsible for respecting others’ bodily autonomy.

(via homoerotics)

jazzseeksjustice:

mikalamode:

recreationalcannibalism:

mirime-veon:

recreationalcannibalism:

Someone wanted this rebloggable and I didn’t see til just now. Sorry bout that, love.

Thank you so much for this. This post actually changed my view. Thank you!

rebubblin for the day crowd

ilu

I think this explains it in a way that might help a lot of people understand

(via deducecanoe)

fazstreetart:

Commentary.

In February, I posted two pieces in Bed-Stuy on Tompkins and Halsey. These two pieces got the most attention of any pieces I’ve put up so far. Within a few days, someone had written his response to the work directly onto the posters. From there, a woman wrote a response to him. And it went on and, on with different hand-written comments creating this kind of interesting discussion. The pieces remained up until a week or so ago, when the phallic image was drawn. That’s when I decided to try to take them down. 

The “Stop Telling Women to Smile” piece remained in tact enough for me to include it in the exhibition. I thought it was important to present in the show, so that people could view these written reactions.

(via stfuconservatives)