anonymous said:

My little sister is 14. She is the alleged target demographic of the show. Her and her friends watch Teen Wolf casually, and I saw them fast forwarding through the Draeden scenes in 4x08--when I asked why, she made a face and said, "They're really weird together. It's kind of hard to watch. Plus, if he's turning human shouldn't the other main guys be trying to help him? I don't get it." They lost interest in the season after 4x09 and quit watching because nothing made sense. 14 YEARS OLD.

The median income of Tumblr users is $80K a year

"New market research provided by Tumblr to AdWeek reveals that the median income of Tumblr users is higher than that of other main social media platforms.

That means that all those businessy types who spent years declaring Tumblr’s business prospects “unattractive,” and handwringing over its perceived cultural status as a vapid, arty playground for teenage girls may now be eating their words. It turns out Tumblr’s younger, mostly female demographic has more money to spend than everyone else.

Tumblr reported to AdWeek that the median household income of its user base is $80,075. That puts it just ahead of Twitter and Facebook ($79,562 and $78,967, respectively), and well-ahead of Pinterest ($70,124).”

[Read more]


anonymous said:

???? Who is that person?? Republicans literally do not support abortion at all right? They want ALL CHILDREN to have the chance at life, even gays and blacks??? Republicans by far are the least racist I have found. If anything, Liberals are in favour of eugenics via abortion since they think a woman should be able to choose to murder her baby for any reason and at any time...

Well see, this idiot thinks that Republicans hate gay people and black people so much that pro-life Republicans would decide that some people should be murdered for their race or sexuality.

Clearly their knowledge of what Republicans believe and the demographics of Republicans is based on something she heard once on an MSNBC or Comedy Central “news” show.

anonymous said:

fun fact - researchers find 'SJW' type persons are actually upset based on logic, not emotions. injustice doesn't make logical sense - so by not supporting equality, you're actually just a bigot. so maybe you should work on your logic and focus less on hating things you don't understand.

fun fact - researchers find ‘SJW’ type persons are actually upset based on logic, not emotions

For more interesting ‘facts’ such as these, please follow facts-i-just-made-up.

Also, being upset is an emotion you fallacy of equivocation perpetrating fuck bucket. 

injustice doesn’t make logical sense

Redundant sentence is redundant. It isn’t logical or it doesn’t make sense, pick one. 

so by not supporting equality, you’re actually just a bigot

Supporting equality is the reason I appose SJW’s. All you do is create racial and social divides and set different standards for different demographics. The complete opposite of equality. 

focus less on hating things you don’t understand.”

Considering you just wasted both of our fucking time to send me hate mail without knowing shit about me, I suggest you heed your own advice, less you make yourself a hypocrite in one more regard. 

also most snack food mascots were downright sociopathic and unlikable characters. I just remembered an ad for Flaming Hot Cheetos where a BORING ADULT was making an elaborate ice sculpture that he’d poured hours of his life into while kids watched on annoyed by how boring it was (who was even forcing them to be there?) and Chester Cheetah rides in on a snowboard, melts the ice sculpture with his firebeath, and throws the kids bags of flaming hot cheetos probably talking about how much you suck if you don’t eat his trans-fat snack foods. 

like I feel so bad for that ice sculpture guy. People just trying to live honest lives coexisting with these all-powerful corporate forces of chaos who are bringing them down for not being their targeted demographic 

mayqueen517 said:



No seriously whoever was responsible for making the previews managed to make the movie look like a silly Transformers knockoff, thereby ensuring that a large swathe of its ideal demographic and potentially passionate fans would never see it. I didn’t see it in theaters, the only reason I saw it at all was because <ACTUAL REASON REDACTED> and I couldn’t afford GameCenter last year so I ended up pirating a lot of movies instead and GOD. GOD DAMN IT. I COULD HAVE BEEN HANGING WITH Y’ALL SINCE LAST SUMMER, WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK MOVIE-PREVIEW-MAKER-PERSON????

*bonus round*

That the only cut scenes we got to see on the DVD/Blu-Ray centered around all the white guys. C’MON GUILLERMO, YOU’RE KILLING ME, YOU. ARE. LITERALLY. KILLING. ME.


cloudcuckoocountry said:

I know that extremist feminists etc. very often go overboard when criticising media for gender representation, but is there still a legitimate and constructive discussion to be had about how certain art and entertainment portrays the sexes?

I think it’s possible to have that discussion, but context is pretty all-important in my opinion. It would also need to be a pretty damn comprehensive analysis. Like, taking into account as many games (or whatever art/entertainment you’re looking at, but I’m gonna go with gaming cuz it’s easier than typing in qualifiers every seven words to include all other forms of art/entertainment, so just take it as read that ‘gaming’ here is merely a placeholder for the purposes of making this manageable); indie and AAA; as humanly possible, and tracking the evolution with an honest and objective eye over the course of gaming history while taking into account the primary demographics of gamers and the various marketing strategies used to appeal to them, as well as corporation’s reasons for using or discontinuing them (ie [Insert Game Dev Here] tries a marketing campaign to get more girls to play video games in the 80’s, sales in the female demographic don’t justify continuing the campaign, campaign is dropped due to marketing costs], and probably a lot of other variables I’m not taking into account here.

I think that looking at a singular game and saying that this is indicative of the entire industry, however, is incredibly myopic even if that game is a AAA title. So, for example, if some feminist critic wanted to talk about (and I’m just pulling this from the ether, Idk if anyone’s actually made this argument) how the death of Sniper Wolf in Metal Gear Solid promotes violence against women and this is indicative of the way women are perceived by society at large, that kind of analysis is not only unhelpful in the discussion but also counter-productive. 

It only focuses on one aspect of Sniper Wolf as a character (her sex), and doesn’t take into account her past, her skill level, the difficulty of the fight, her ranks in the enemy hierarchy, etc. It’s boiling all of that away and just saying, “A woman was killed therefore misogyny,” and that is a big problem I have with feminist media critics. 

Unfortunately, on the other side of the coin, this type of behavior; which has become a sort of prevailing narrative over the past few years; leads to reactionary and also ill-thought-out criticism of that criticism. For example, a feminist critic makes the argument I constructed (read: pulled out of my ass) above about Sniper Wolf. Someone who’s opposed to feminism in general will turn around and say something to the effect of, “Well you’re ignoring all the guys that die in that game, too! WAY more men are killed than women, what makes Sniper Wolf’s death more special or important than theirs?” This criticism (while, I think, is a fairly valid critique of the feminist who says that one woman’s death is a tragedy even in a video game but doesn’t speak one whit about all the male deaths) is still just as myopic as the original critique about the death of Sniper Wolf. It, just like the argument it’s attempting to counter, is ignoring context almost completely, and boiling everything down to which demographic died more often, people with dicks or people with vaginas. 

And unfortunately this is the climate we find ourselves in right now.

A feminist will give a critique of women’s portrayal in video games, several other people will respond with something like the above argument (that I still pulled out of my ass but have heard before), and it seems like the point of the first argument is to address what the person doing the critique sees as a legitimate problem (whether it actually is a problem is immaterial, the point is that this person thinks it’s a legitimate problem) while the point of the reactionary argument is to mainly shut them up. And this could be because the feminist is wrong and the person doesn’t want to sit there and go through all the bullshit of proving them wrong completely so they’ll just spout some line that invalidates the feminist’s argument, or it could be rhetoric they’ve heard used and agreed with and merely repeat without thinking. Either way it does little to further the discussion and look objectively at the issue, and whether the feminist is right or wrong has little bearing on that. That’s how science works, and it’s how social science needs to start working if it wants to be taken seriously.

So ideally it would work like this: someone proposes some idea about culture (women are portrayed as X), and other people begin to compile as much data as possible and see whether or not the manifestations of this culture actually bear this out or not.

The original someone may be right, they may be wrong, but immediately jumping down their throat and yelling at them about their assumption/hypothesis/proposal/idea doesn’t actually prove them either right or wrong. 

It just proves who can shout the loudest.

So do I think there’s still productive discussion to be had? Absolutely. And there’s nothing wrong with looking at the situation (say, women in gaming, for example) from a certain perspective (feminist, MRA, functionalist, Marxian, etc.). 

The problem comes in when you let your perspective taint your perception of reality. So when a feminist (or whoever) says something like (and I’m about to set up another strawman example, here), “Women in video games who are abducted by men and then rescued by men are seen as possessions to be acquired,” they’re completely ignoring the other side of the equation (that these women are frequently the loved ones of the men doing the rescuing and all that entails) in favor of their bias, and that’s not helpful to anyone. If you want to examine media from a certain perspective, I’m all for that. Different people weighing in with different perspectives are how we eventually compile a full picture (which is why I never identified with any of the main schools in sociology, but that’s another story altogether), but a serious issue arises when you say that your perspective is the only way to look at things and everyone else’s opinions/analyses on the matter are invalid because they don’t fit your personal bias. 

SO, TO HOPEFULLY RAP THIS UP, it’s perfectly possible to have a discussion about the portrayal of the sexes in art and entertainment. I won’t deny that it’s a damned interesting subject that I’d like to hear more objective discussion on, myself. But; and I personally think this is due to the tribalistic nature of human beings and is something that has to be consciously worked against, but my speculations about where this stems from aside; the narrative very frequently devolves into echo chambers on both sides. Feminists circlejerk about how X’s criticism of gaming media is so right on and women have it so utterly and completely bad in gaming; anti-feminists (be they tradcons, MRA’s, mere anti-feminists, MGTOW’s, liberals who don’t identify as feminists, whatever) circlejerk about how wrong they know X is about a certain issue, and the entire community is kind of forced to arrange itself on these party lines and pick a side whether they agree with everything that side says or not. For example (and this is just an example, I don’t pretend to know this person’s opinion on anything), when Tim Schafer tweeted Anita Sarkeesian’s video at JonTron, Tim is seen as a feminist who’s propagandizing for the party. We don’t actually know Tim’s opinions on these matters, only that he agrees with Anita on some level. He may not agree with everything she says, he may have thought only one part of the video was right on while everything else was utter garbage, he may have his head so far up her ass he can’t even see the light of day anymore. We just don’t know. But because he’s tweeted out her video as something that someone else should watch in his opinion, he’s painted as complicit in enemy propagandizing by the people who don’t like Sarkeesian (whether their dislike is valid or simply actual misogyny). 

So, while it is possible to have this discussion, this tribalistic behavior needs to be routed out first, and at the scale it’s operating at (not to mention the number of people perpetuating it) I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon. For the foreseeable future it’s most likely going to be feminists and white knights massing under the banner of feminist media critique being opposed by a disparate group of people massing under the banner of anti-feminism, meanwhile the more moderate voices get drowned out. And I’m guilty of this as well, I won’t deny my part in all this, so I’m effectively throwing myself under the bus and indicting my own behavior by writing this.

But people don’t like long discussions and having to weigh what a person says in context, so the sound bites get the most attention. Someone could see me supporting gun rights and assume that I’m a Republican, or someone else could see me supporting men’s issues and assume I’m an MRA, or someone else could see me supporting abortion rights and assume I’m a feminist, or any opinion on any other polarizing issue and assume I’m a member of a certain political movement, and they’ll run with this assumption rather than find out where I actually stand on issues. I understand this behavior, it’s easier to do than all the work it takes to get the full skinny, but it’s part of what feeds this tribalism. So I think that this is more of a problem with how human neurology is wired more than anything, and it’s also why I think it’s not going away anytime soon. Given that, it’s possible for moderates to have the discussion, but nobody’s going to listen to these long, drawn-out arguments. Moderates are basically the Green Party in American politics. They get passed over because people think they have to choose a side in issues rather than represent themselves, and discussing these issues at length is tiresome. It’s a lot easier to toe a party line.  

But that’s basically my thoughts on it, sorry it got so damn long, but I’ve kinda been mulling this over in the back of my head for a while now and pretty much it all spilled out at once. I’ll stop rambling incoherently and pretentiously now. 

Tatyana Ali came to my school tonight. Her speech was informative and eye opening. She spoke on the importance of representation, how 80s and 90s were important times for black sitcoms, how black woman have changed the demographic for media etc. After her speech I find myself as a major in communications itching to be a part of the wave of new ideas that are sprouting from the minds of creative Black artists.

Speaking of calls for independence in regards of Scotland (which I have strongly supported for years)

To be totally honest with you guys, I am a strong supporter of an independent Bisayas. There are many Bisdak, such as myself, who want the Bisayas to be independent from the Philippines, in particular of imperial Manila. One of the reasons is that all the taxes people give out to Manila is barely if ever returned back and no money is given to help the development and support of the provinces. Another reason is language. Many Bisayans still resent the fact Tagalog is the basis of the Filipino language and that they are forced to learn the language over their own when in terms of demographics and geography Bisaya is the most spoken. Not to mention how they are often made fun of or seen as rude and unrespectful by the Tagalogs because they don’t say po in every sentence. Third reason is culture and identity. Bisayans already have a strong culture and identity, one that has been unbroken since precolonial times. We know who we are and are very proud of our history and culture. Add someone like Miriam Santiago, a Bisaya woman from Iloilo in Panay, who can definitely improve the state of the Bisayas if she manages to get through with her lung cancer treatment.

Another reason is that before the proclaimation of the Philippines and Aguinaldo, the Bisayas and Mindanao were already independent. We Illongos already defeated Spanish forces and had a government separate from the Katipunan. Same with Negros (Buglas). Also, did any Bisayan or someone from Mindanao sign the declaration of Philippines independence? Aguinaldo imposed that to everyone when not everyone agreed or even acknowledged it, better yet it wasn’t even spoken with to people of the Bisayas or Mindanao if they wanted to be a part of the Philippines it was just imposed that they would. Mindanao never even bowed down to the Spaniards and was just added in through the Americans and Tagalogs, it was separate and had their own government already. Heck Aguinaldo tried to arrest General Lacson who led the revolts in Negros. And you want to know the ironic truth? The Katipunan lost to the Spaniards. However Panay and Negros already won and the rest of the Bisayas was following.

So there are a lot of reasons why I along with many other Bisayans are strongly for our independence and to govern ourselves. Now also with the neglect and abuse from Manila in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda even today its another reason why we should be independent because obviously Imperial Manila with its ruling corrupted political families, not even parties but families and celebrities, don’t give a shit about the Bisayas.

And its not the first time talks of the Bisayas seceding from the Philippines has happened. Back in 2005 governors in the Bisayas were in the talks of a proposed secession. So the secession of the Bisayas and of our independence isn’t something new and is still a possible reality if Bisayans actively voice out their concerns and speak out on their independence.

I for one, if the Bisayas ever was trying to gain independence from the Philippines like Scotland is now, I for one would vote yes.

Everyone vote Christine for America's Favorite Houseguest!!!!!!



Donny is most likely going to win. Casual viewers LOVE Donny and believe it or not the majority of Big Brother fan demographic are not on social media. 

Frankie’s not going to win, don’t worry. He was voted in third for Team America. Honestly he would get more shit for winning then is really worth it….

I liked Frankie, but they need to stop having twists like MVP, Team America or even America’s Favorite hHouseguest when you cast people who already have an established fan base (or sibling fanbase) like Elissa and Frankie. It was unfair last year and its still unfair this year. I have no problem with them being on the show, they’re both excellent players, but production needs to work harder at keeping the game on a level playing field.

AFH Prediction: Donny wins, Zach, Frankie or even Nicole are mixed in for second and third place

"all girls wear in the winter is leggings and boots!"

"no, not me, I’m not like them, I wear jeans all the time!"

ja, okay, the point is to stop trying to be different like idgi saying that you’re not like other girls doesn’t do shit to help the entire demographic as a whole, please understand that not everything is about you.

anonymous said:

Why won't you shop there?

well for UO look at this and brandy melville only sells one size clothing, which is made to fit one body type and while some of their stuff may be oversized “so you can fit it anyways” they promote terrible body ideals, which is detrimental for young girls, the exact demographic their clothes are reaching. i just think they are a nasty company with clothes that you can find similars of at f21 or thrift stores. 

xoxo bekah

people who complain about that shit and act like its a substantial problem that is threatening them

probably do not go outside

because i can guarantee you nobody in real life off tumblr is going to be forming angry mobs complaining about cis people

white people jokes on the internet are not contributing to the normalization of you being denied your basic human rights every day on account of your race

go outside and enjoy the real world where everyone isn’t disgusted and hateful towards you for what you are

im not saying that if you are of a privileged demographic it means you cannot have any problems. that is not what i ever said. i don’t think that’s really what ANY of us have been saying but you’ve been twisting people’s words into that. but i AM saying that you are not going to face substantial hardships in the real world BECAUSE of being part of a privileged demographic.

The average world citizen is getting dumber while our means of doing harm are increasing.

Countries around the world today spend over US$1.7 trillion on weaponry - more than the total global investment in energy supply. Beyond the manufacturers and suppliers downstream, this produces zero economic benefits (weapons become obsolete very quickly and do not generate any returns; on the contrary as, well, they blow stuff up) and the associated costs add to already bloated government debt levels. And that’s US$1.7 trillion less available each year to improve world education, food and fuel availability, the environment and shifting global demographics, all critical issues of the 21st century.

Humanity cannot risk its future falling into the hands of increasingly lethal buffoons. The stakes are just too high now. Hopefully our leaders are paying attention, but this should concern us all.”

"Gender is genetically determined, however societies have implemented gender standards according to cultural norms, demographics, and generation. In the US, these “standards” are exhibited by behaviors that are defied by some and obeyed by others, making gender behavior an individual choice."

get this out of my FACE, i’m so ready to square up in class already

anonymous said:

Why do you, Mr. C, believe women do not seek political office as much as men? Especially in areas where male circumcision is "rampant" - Do you think the two could be related? There were studies done some years ago that said that male circumcision made the males more aggressive and more "goal-oriented" - does this possibly make males more willing to seek political office?

Because running for political office is extremely risky.

As in its almost always a winner take all situation.

Females tend to gravitate towards low personal risk careers where the opportunity for massive failure on a personal level or where such failure would have a massive personal cost is minimal.

This isn’t true in all instances but it’s true enough to manifest as a characteristic of the demographic.

Hold on. Haha I’m looking through the Encounters at the End of the World tag and it’s funny just how many people have blogged about that part with the rogue penguin running off into oblivion. Now, all these folks are talking about lonely suicidal penguins, and while I identify with that demographic quite a lot, that’s not how I saw that penguin at all. He’s Aguirre. He’s our little Kinski or Herzog. He doesn’t know he’s sad. He’s off to fucking El Dorado. That’s what’s so fucking great about that penguin. I have every belief that he is going to survive the journey into the continent. Or rather, I know HE believes it. Hahaha