filter lens

hello there yes I still love this ship 

it doesn’t have enough art so i had to


Loch Achray by Tim Haynes
Via Flickr:
Drive road. Turn corner. See view. Find parking spot. Grab camera. Trot back and take photo. Admire light and reflection. Such is the way of the roadside photographer, anyway

“Hack Snyder ruined Superman”

“Superman should make me wet my panties first and foremost”


“They only stopped fighting because their moms had the same name, that’s so stupid it should be like The Avengers where they only stop fighting because some random agent they barely know and never bother to mention again dies”

“Superman has powers and a smoking hot girlfriend, therefore he should always be happy and have no internal conflicts.”

“Why doesn’t he smile more”

Supergirl is doing Superman right”

“When are they finally going to make a good DC movie?”

“Course correcting”


“Needs more color”

“lens filters”

People talk about compulsory heterosexuality as though it is an illness some lesbians and bi women come down with as children and which they can only shake with enough exposure to other lesbians and use the theory to say it is perfectly fine for women who are absolutely sure they’re attracted to men to call themselves lesbians; but it isn’t a personal condition or state of mind and that’s such a poor understanding and poor application of the theory.

The term refers to a set of social conditions which reward heterosexuality and punish deviance from it to such an extent that the entire field of understanding our sexual and romantic desires is filtered through the lens of the pervasiveness of heterosexuality as a system of organizing appropriate relations between men and women. The effects can include lesbians having a difficult time understanding and articulating their love of other women because it’s the answer to a question you’re never supposed to ask, and which entire societies are set up to keep you from asking. But that’s just one of many effects, not the system itself.

Male privilege & a basket of tampons

Years ago, a friend went to a party, and something bothered him enough to rant to me about it later. And it bothered me that he was so incensed about it, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. It seemed so petty for him to be upset, and even more so for me to be annoyed with him.

Recently, something reminded me of that scenario, and it made more sense. I’ll explain.

The party was a house party. One of those parties people throw if they’re renting a good-sized house in college. You know the type—loud music, Solo cups of beer, and somebody doing something drunk and stupid before the end of the night.

At some point, my friend had occasion to use the bathroom. When he went into the bathroom, he was disgusted to see that the hostess had left a basket of feminine hygiene products on the counter for guests to use if needed.

Later, when my friend told me about it, he wrinkled his nose and said, “Why would she do that? Guys don’t want to see that!”

When I suggested that she was just making them available in case a woman needed them, he insisted that they could be left in the cabinet or under the counter. Out of sight, anyway.

I wish I’d had, at the time, the ability to articulate what I can now.

To me, this situation is, while relatively benign, a perfect example of male privilege.

A man walks into the bathroom and sees a reminder that women have periods. And he’s disgusted. He wants that evidence hidden away because it offends his senses. How dare the hostess so blatantly present tampons and pads where a man might see them? There’s no reason for that!

A woman walks into the bathroom and sees that the hostess is being extra considerate. She gets it. She knows what it’s like to have a period start unexpectedly. The feeling of horror because she’s probably wearing something she doesn’t want ruined—it is a party after all. The sick embarrassment because someone might notice, especially if she’s wearing light-colored clothes, or worse, sat on the hostess’s white couch. The self-conscious, semi-nauseated feeling of trying to get through a social event after you’ve exhausted every avenue to get your hands on an emergency pad or tampon, and you’re just hoping to God that if you tie your jacket around your waist—you brought one, right?—keep your back to a wall, clench your buttcheeks, squeeze your thighs tightly together, and don’t…move…at…all—you might get through the evening, bow out gracefully, and find an all-night convenience store with a public restroom.

Or maybe she came to the party during her period, but didn’t bargain for her flow to suddenly get that heavy. Or she desperately needs a tampon, but her purse is in a room where a couple is not to be disturbed. Maybe she doesn’t know the hostess well enough to ask if she can use one. Or she doesn’t know anyone at the party well enough to ask. Or she figures she can make do with some wadded up toilet paper or something.

Whatever the case, she walks into the bathroom, and she hears the hostess saying “Hey, I know what it’s like, and just in case, I’ve got your back.”  She sees someone saving her from what could be a minor annoyance or a major embarrassment.

The hostess gets it. The woman who just walked into the bathroom? She’s either going to see that the person throwing the party is super considerate, or she’s going to be whispering thanks to Jesus, Krishna, and whoever else is listening because that is a basket full of social saviors.

But to the guy who wrinkled his nose, it’s still offensive that those terrible little things are on the counter, reminding his delicate sensibilities that the playground part of a woman is occasionally unavailable due to a gross bodily function that he should never have to think about.

In the grand scheme of things, it’s a tiny thing. It’s a tiny annoyance for the man, and a more significant but relatively tiny courtesy for the woman. After all these years, my friend has probably forgotten, but I never have.  As a woman whose life is partially governed by a fickle uterus that can ruin an evening faster than a submerged iPhone, his story has stuck with me.

How can you be so offended by a small gesture that has zero effect on you, but could make such an enormous difference to the person who needs it?

It occurs to me now that this is a small but effective illustration of how men and women see the world. It’s part of the same thought process that measures a woman’s value through her bra size and her willingness to have sex with him—that everything about us is displayed or hidden based on how men perceive them or what he wants to get from us. Unattractive women should be as covered as possible, while attractive ones shouldn’t be hiding their assets from male eyes (or hands, or anything else he wishes to use).

A woman who isn’t smiling is an affront to him because it detracts from her prettiness, despite the fact that there might be a legitimate reason for her not to smile (or more to the point, that there isn’t a legitimate reason for her to smile). Her emotional state is irrelevant because she’s not being pretty. It’s the line of thinking where a man blames anything other than cheerful sexual consent on the woman being a bitch, being a lesbian, or—naturally—being on her period. Everything we do, from our facial expressions to our use of hygiene products, are filtered through the lens of “how it looks to a man.”

It’s the line of thinking where a small gesture from one woman to another, an assurance that someone else understands and will help her without question or judgment, a gesture which could save a woman’s evening from being ruined, is trumped by a man’s desire to see an untainted landscape of pretty, smiling women with visible cleavage and vaginas that never bleed.

And people wonder why we still need feminism.

White Diamond Theory

in color theory, when painting, it is understood that something is black because it absorbs all colors of visible light.  thus black is the combination of all colors.  However when it comes to light the opposite is true.  White light is the combination of all colors.  Shine white light through a prism and it splits into the color spectrum, a rainbow.  one way to get white light?  take three lights. one filtered through a blue lens, the next pink, the last yellow.  shine all three lights at the same spot and it will appear white.  we already know that on Home World there are no problems with same gem fusion.  so why couldn’t it be that White diamond is the fusion of  all three originals.  evidence to support this is that we have yet to see another white gem.  except… pearl, our pearl.  the diamonds are accompanied by gems that compliment their color.  if white is the head Diamond then it makes sense that all colors compliment her.  also, if this is true, maybe it is a secret.  which is why no one has yet to mention it.  well secret to all but pearl.  this also means that because rose shattered Pink diamond no more white diamond,  though maybe a green.  If some one has already posted this, sorry for being slowpoke.  love the show.

anonymous asked:

why do you think svtfoe has white savior undertones???

firstly, id like to thank you nonnie for being so patient, this was kind of a busy week for me with school work, charity work, and regular work, ah the joys of being 17.

secondly i want to reiterate that i do not think these undertones are at all intentional, after the Le Fou incident I think it’s a pretty safe thing to assume that Disney isn’t always as sensitive to minority views  and feelings as they are to white middle America

thirdly, if i overlook anything 2 things to keep in mind: i am white and financially well off so everything i see and interpret will inevitaby be filtered through that lens, and i am not a huge fan of SVTFOE (i do not care for the voice acting or humor style of the show)

and now with that said:

Star vs. the forces of evil is a show produced for the 12-14 demographic, with enough rainbow colors and princess themes to maybe attract a number of younger children as well, but after a quick google of the show’s official merchandise…

^this being the only piece produced thus far

…leads me to believe that disney is content to sell this to a near exclusive pre-teen demographic due to the lack of dolls so far produced, which is fine.

With that established, as a show aimed at perhaps the most angsty of the demographics, SVTFOE has heavy themes of rebelling, social awkwardness, coming of age, etc.

Now Disney is not new to the whole ‘rebel princess’ trope and in the past 2 decades have used it to only further their unmovable grasp on the wallets of parents across the world,

Originally posted by celebratingmagic

…some less successful than others

however Star vs the forces of evil goes a step further in implying that not just the ruling family’s treatment of the princess, or one ancient law or old royal family tradition is problematic, but that the entire structure of the kingdom it’self is inherently unjust

not only is the majority of the kingdom shown to be impoverished while the royal family lives in magical corn brought luxury, but the kingdom is shown to have been built on stolen lands ala America colonization…

…with the native people monsters being so devastated by the white people mewmans troops, magic, and smallpox blankets that the show literally refers to the event as the trail of tears- “the great monster massacre” with the present day kingdom segregating and oppressing the monsters to such an extend there is literally an entire episode dedicated to the monsters trying to steal corn from the kingdom bECAUSE THE LAND THEY LIVE ON IS INFERTILE AND THEY ARE ALL LITERALLY STARVING 

so, we have a racist classist kingdom with a hot topic centric princess as the lead, what’s the problem

the problem is that the show literally holds her up as being the destined savior of natives monsters despite being one of the single greatest benifactors of the conflict

not only, but Star is also held as the show’s morality center, with monsters who rightfully hate her labelled as ‘evil’ while the good monsters are those that conform  to and revel in the idea that they have done and can do nothing to help themselves and that Star is their only beacon of light…

.subtle, real subtle disney

…all while remaining completely passive to the liberation narrative at large, the show also has this weird emphasis on both blameless segregation (everyone just forgives eachother and doesn’t acknowledge the show’s established centuries of injustice and everyone becomes friends and live happily ever after) and the idea that both monsters and mewmans have wronged each other easily due to the presence of what i can only describe as a monser centric terrorist group…

again, real fucking subtle disney

….that seem to be comprised of no more than 20 monsters at any given time, and yet still placed on equal footing as a massacre, displacement , segregation, and strategic starvation.

now lets compare SVTFOE to a show very similar in both central conflict and themes, Avatar the last airbender

now is it fair to compare SVTFOE to avatar? no. is it fair to compare anything to avatar? fuck no

but like SVTFOE, Avatar focuses on a pre-teen in a pre-industrial inspired setting who lives in a world where the ruling race has destabilized and massacred the remainder of the population, except by means of war and no colonization. However, Aang is not the son of the fire lord, nor is he even part of the fire nation at all, in fact Aang is the last member of his tribe due to genocide at the hands of the fire nation, he is the part of the group that has lost the MOST due to the status quo of the show. Hell later on Avatar even acquires a fire nation main character, the reformed zuko, an angsty teenaged prince who is still learning magic and despite being at odds with his family still fights to maintain their status,

sounds an awful lot like another character huh?

The Appeal Of Kyoto Animation

I have seen many people saying how K-On is a cheap anime with no creativity and effort put behind this anime. In this blog I want to try to explain what makes Kyoto Animation so appealing and why this statement is not true.

Kyoto Animation is a popular studio which is known for great animation and their slice of life stories, with their unique character designs and very relaxing atmosphere. The funny thing is that what I just said is something you normally shouldn’t. Let me explain this.

I think we have all seen statements like “The animation from Studio Madhouse is amazing” or “Toei Animation always suck”. The reason why it’s not really fair to say that is because the staff for the most studios are usually changing. You don’t have the same team working on every Madhouse production. You don’t have the same director working on every Toei Animation production. Many animators are freelancer who have their own style and way of drawing. So if you see a scene which is really badly animated, it could be the result of just one or two animators screwing up. So blaming the whole studio is kinda unfair. The same can be said about great animated scenes.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Do you mind explaining how you use the term male gaze? I know you've said that women who are attracted to women don't have it, but that kind of implies that men who are attracted to women do? Which means you're obviously not using it in its original form and with its original meaning, because that's a film theory that doesn't really exist on an individual, interpersonal level. So what exactly do you mean by it?

The film theory term arises specifically because of the way men look at women in real life. That phenomenon gives rise to the way men portray women on the screen - without the initial gendered difference in the way men see women, there would be no reason their portrayals of women would be so intensely different from how they portray men or how women portray men or women.

Because of the hierarchial structure of gender, because of patriarchial conditioning and systemic misogyny, men objectify women in dozens of subtle ways.

The way men see and understand women is filtered through a lens of male supremacy that’s been enforced via cultural indoctrination from birth. Men who want to do the work to minimize their entitlement and buy-in to male supremacy are going to find that the way they approach women is informed by patriarchy even after they’ve started to dismantle their more overtly misogynistic behaviours.

Sapphic women who worry about having “the male gaze” are worried that by being attracted to a woman, we might be reducing her to merely an object of attraction to which we feel entitled and treating her as less than a whole person, because that’s the way men are taught to be attracted to women, and the way attraction to women is normalized in misogynistic cultures.

Men are taught to internalize the habit of rating each woman they meet according to how useful she can be to him (as visual decoration, supplier of emotional/kinship work, sexual gratification, etc.), and treat her accordingly. Behaving that way is not a necessary part of being attracted to women, it’s a way male supremacy maintains itself.

That’s the male gaze outside of media analysis – basically the reasons the phenomenon exists that the film term describes, the way men see women first as objects that could potentially be useful to them, and not as full and complex people with agency.

Does that make sense?

anonymous asked:

Hi, I'm an INFP and my ultimate goal in life is to find love. I consider this unattainable. I am tired of having my happiness depending on someone else's opinion on me but everything I do points to that same thing; being lovable. I feel like there must be something else in life besides that and I have no clue what that might be. Self-achievement? Helping someone? > so I can be admired and loved, that's my pattern. What is the flaw in my thinking process? I am deeply unhappy because of this.

The flaw in your thinking process is simple in theory. Your mindset is too limited, much like a child in terms of having a weak sense of self. Children do not have the intellectual capacity or life experience to know themselves well, so they must resort to using the external world to define the self until they figure out how to do otherwise. Unfortunately, it is easy to get trapped in this mindset even into adulthood depending on your course of development. Such an approach to life reduces you to desperate attempts to be “something” instead of “nothing”. In Fi doms this can manifest as Te grip behavior where you unconsciously seek out “rewards” from the world that allow you to temporarily feel good about yourself even when those things are not good for your long term development, i.e., you fail to honor your true type potential. Instead of doing the hard work of becoming the kind of person you can love and be proud of, a person with true integrity, it is easier to use others or how much love/admiration you can accumulate to prop yourself up. But this also means that you have no control over your life as you keep chasing after those external “rewards”, living or dying by them without any anchor inside to stabilize yourself.

One consequence of this mindset is that you see everything in the world only in terms of “objects” and whether they can satisfy your cravings and desires. Your vision of the world only extends as far as whatever impacts you most directly. However, an important aspect of personal growth is forming a robust theory of mind whereby you understand with greater and greater depth and nuance that other people are also “persons”, separate from you and possessing their own experiences, hopes, needs, and desires that are just as important to them as yours are to you - this is often the first step to seeing that there is more to life than your own imaginings and desires. It is an easy concept to understand intellectually but surprisingly difficult to apply in real-life. E.g. If the main reason you want to find love is to be loved, then you don’t possess the right moral intention for seeking love, because you are essentially using others to stroke your ego or boost your self-esteem. If you really saw other people as persons in their own right, you would know that this approach to love is misguided because it denies the full existence and autonomy of the other person only to focus on their “usefulness” to you - can this be a truly well-balanced and satisfying relationship? People are ends in themselves, not just a means to an end, so until you can appreciate them as such, your conception of love remains shallow and unrealistic, dark and self-centered, and rightfully unattainable. The fact that you are deeply unhappy about this means that you realize it is necessary to change your thinking, which is a good sign since many people just ignore such warnings and continue on as they always have.

No one can tell you what to do with your life, rather, change and momentum come organically when you learn how to live with more integrity and tap into your potential to become a better person. You have to care about being better and take action to do it. The general challenge for introverts is to understand the world more objectively instead of compulsively filtering everything through the lens of subjective experience. Exercise your Ne, gather and visualize more possibilities for yourself, for your life, for the world instead of defaulting to what you’ve always done/known. You live in a world full of possibility but it is also a world where many people experience suffering, turmoil, chaos, or unrest - can your vision of the world grow and gradually extend beyond you to include that which is within your power to influence but doesn’t directly relate back to you? What would your life look like then? Imagine how people’s perception of you might change if you stopped being like a hungry vampire desperate to feed off them. Imagine that love is not a “goal” or something to “obtain” or “possess” or “hoard” like a scarce commodity but rather something that you can create any time you want. Imagine how more and more opportunities to feel love would naturally arise if you had the capacity to do everything with loving care and to give love and attention to the things in the world that really need it, to care for something other than yourself because that thing is truly worthy of care apart from whatever “reward” you may get. When you realize your own latent power to positively shape the world around you, you can then establish a real and reliable foundation of self-esteem instead of desperately seeking it from fleeting, unhealthy, or unreliable sources.

anonymous asked:

The song (swish swish) is just so bad. I'm exhausted for her sake. Her recent singles have relied to much on premises that are based on extended metaphors (basketball, food etc.) and all the lyrics have to be filtered through that lens. It's so contrived and sad. Katherine, hoNeY, songwriting takes more than utilizing all the euphemisms on Urban dictionary. I wonder how this one will be sold as "purposeful pop"

She’s purposefully putting out terrible pop music. That’s about it.


Obzor 1P63 Tactical Combat Scope w/ Solar Dual White/Green Multipurpose Reticle, AK/AKM Mount. This is the newest collimator made for the Kalashnikov. Representing a new generation of Russian optics production, it is already being used by elite units in Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD): police, Spetznaz Special Forces, OMON, etc. Such units aren’t going to use anything but the best. The Kashtan and the Obzor are use leading edge technologies developed by the NPZ factory. The scope reticle changes its shape in response to light conditions so you literally have three different reticles for daylight, twilight and night conditions. It also has a lever activated tinted lens filter that gives great reticle clarity in bright light conditions, it is a very cool feature and makes this collimator one of our favorites. It not only fills the role of the traditional CQB short range/fast acquisition sight, but also has unique features designed specifically for longer range combat shooting. The reticle and scope ability is geared for a single shot kill on an AK-74N at 400-700 meters. It’s fully coated prismatic lens system provides a remarkable, high contrast, wide angle field of view allowing for fast acquisition of moving and spaced targets. The advanced battery-free, illuminated white&green reticle allows the Obzor be used in ANY conditions. You have an unlimited field of view and maximum ability to register incoming targets. The precision optic system combined with the striking field of view produced by the high quality lens system provides far superior accuracy at distances exceeding those capable with iron sights. The scope has very accurate windage and elevation adjustments in small increments (every turret’ click moves POI by 3 cm at 100 m). The special protective lens coatings protect the scope from scratching and fouling in the extreme battlefield conditions where it was designed to operate. A light-dividing mechanical and coating system produces exceptional dual visualization of the target and reticle at the same time so you see both in high resolution for better targeting.