I really wanted to love Lily Allen’s new song and video, “Hard Out Here.”
The British artist, who took time off to start a family, has recently burst back into the music scene with a punchy, sarcastic pop song that slams the widespread objectification and harsh criticism of women’s bodies in so…
A summary that just wouldn’t stop growing as I wrote it:
- Generally only focusing on gay men despite calling themselves an LGBTQ group.
- Perpetuates images of ‘sassy gay men' across their websites.
- Their posts featuring lesbians often show hot, young, white, feminine girls kissing, thus continuing the image of sexualized lesbians (and teenage girls in general) rather than focusing on inequality or any sort of intersectionality.
- Basically never focusing on trans*, pan, ace or gender-queer people at all.
- But when they do mention trans* people, boy do they heck it up. (tw: misgendering)
- Casual cissexism everywhere.
- Supports Dan Savage, who is notoriously biphobic, transphobic, ace-hating, fat shaming, racist and ableist and just generally a horrible person. (Again, focuses on gay white men and no one else.)
- Also supports Family Guy, despite its history of being offensive to basically everyone.
- Also a bit of Lady Gaga in there too. (Issues with Lady Gaga)
- Uses quotes from cishet people rather than people who are actually queer, and then only quotes from gay people who are white/cis/able-bodied/etc (lots of Ellen Degeneres and Neil Patrick Harris).
- Many of the images shared on their Facebook and tumblr are taken without permission or notification from people’s blogs (you only have to scroll down their facebook to see all the tumblr screen caps with their logo slapped on top.)
- When asked to remove these by the original posters, the people running the pages become immature and rude.
- Also stealing ideas and selling them.
- The entire Russian gay colouring book debacle which has the potential to do massive amounts of harm to innocent people in Russia.
- Lots of micro-aggressions, such as using ‘gays' and the whole idea of “no labels just human!”
In addition, their way of advertising using young children can be seen as questionable and people have also pointed out their exclusion of POC and the use of sassy/angry black people as jokes (being white I can’t really comment on this, but I’m sure there are more examples).
How much of their profit is actually getting donated is also a question nobody can really answer.
On a much lesser note, people also have taken issue with their customer service. Definitely not as important, but a nice little fact to end on.
It also speaks wonders that I could find nearly every example needed in this answer by scrolling through the ‘FCKH8’ tag and their facebook and tumblr posts from the past week alone. These are all current and continuing issues that aren’t looking to be solved any time soon.
Michael Lee on animating Frozen
So that’s their (blatantly misogynistic) excuse for scrapping all but two of the female characters; that they’re too hard to animate? Those emotional female characters, they’re all the same, right? Here’s a hint: their “femaleness” isn’t what’s making them indistinguishable.
I read this in the most whiny baby voice imaginable
An animator actually saying out loud that he thinks all women are the same.
Just like most storytellers who actually get their work funded in this patriarchal society of ours, he thinks women are just not worth getting to know for real. Men are easy to imagine all kinds of traits and differences for. Men are varied and rich with interesting thoughts and every kind of man is pleasing to see on the screen whether he’s big or small or dark or light or handsome or goofy or just interesting-looking. Women are only worth putting on the screen if they are young white blonde pretty things, and aren’t they all just the same??????
i dont even give a shit about this frozen stuff but this statement makes me so fucking angry
things that are really hard to animate but worth investing the time and energy and creativity and technological innovation and money in to make sure they’re portrayed as close to life as possible:
things that are not worth it:
^click link to read more^
She’s losing by 20k votes. Let’s fix this.
During the Battle of Hong Kong, Chuck speaks up about wanting to ditch their post to assist Alpha and Typhoon, but doesn’t do so until he gets approval to.
Before the Kwoon sequence, Mako speaks up about wanting to co-pilot the Danger, but relents until given approval to do so.
So it’s a man and a woman speaking up against decisions they disagree with, but respecting their superior’s decisions.
So why is it that some people say that Mako is “submissive ” for this, but not Chuck?
This is the same man.
This works quite nicely at debunking the “beefcake guys in comics are objectified for women just like women in comics are for men!”, imo. On the left: a magazine tailored for a male audience, showing him in full beefcake-type mode with headlines about how you, too, can look like this. On the right: a magazine tailored for a female audience, which has a headline about romance and shows him looking more or less like a normal dude.
Tell me again how comic book guys are designed for female sexual enjoyment, completely equivalent to anatomically-improbable spines and giant tits with their own individual centers of gravity, and totes aren’t just male power fantasies.
see also: most lgbtq people are keen to call out ~allies who support gay rights but “fetishise” gay men in fanfiction, but no one (except lesbians) seems to be able to extend this logic to “lesbian” porn even though fanfic and teenage girls are a joke compared to what men do to lesbians
Obviously fetishisation of male homosexuality is still shitty and oppressive, but fetishisation of female homosexuality is infinitely more widespread and harmful.
|—||Courtney Love about Yoko Ono, 1993. (via fuckyouwhiteboy)|