representation

why the Fosters is the best show ever

representation:
•lesbian couple with kids
•shows the life and struggles of a trans boy
•interracial families
•poc representation
•younger (12-13 y/o) kids learning their sexuality
•shows genderqueer/non-binary people

addresses important issues:
•racism on black characters
•police brutality on black character
• girls realize they can be both “smart and sexy”
•feminism issues
•life as foster kids
•domestic abuse
•relationships & sex between young teenagers

and has a great storyline. too many people sleep on this show.

anonymous asked:

What is the bechdel test in writing? I've heard of it and seen it in comments, but I don't really understand what it is :( (I very possibly may have spelled it wrong)

more-legit here

The Bechdel test is a quick test meant to highlight gender inequality in fiction. To pass it you must fulfill three conditions:

 - The material has at least two named female characters in it.

- They talk to each other

- About something other than a man.

The Bechdel test is the absolute minimal requirement of women’s representation in fiction and so many movies fail it just by the first condition.

That said, I don’t think the Bechdel is the alpha and omega of women’s representation in fiction. First of all because it is the minimum requirement. Just because you pass the Bechdel doesn’t make you a feminist fiction. And there are some cases in which a material fails the Bechdel, but still does so well at other representation components that you could hardly call it sexist. 

Pacific Rim for example famously fails the Bechdel, but it also inspired its own test. The Mako Mori test proposes another low level women representation requirements list that goes like this:

- the material has at least one female character

- who gets her own story arc

- that is not about supporting a male character’s story.

The Bechdel and other tests  like it work better if you use them as a criticism of fiction in general than as a criticism of specific works. Knowing that very very very few movies pass this test at all is a good way to realise just how unequal gender representation in the media is. But Disney’s Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty pass the Bechdel with flying colours. It doesn’t make either film feminist icons. They also pass the Mako Mori incidentally. It is also somewhat disingenuous to constantly try and classify works as feminist or sexist, but that’s another discussion.

more-legit-gr8er-writing-tips

blackgamedevs.com
Black Game Developers

Black Game Developers is a simple site that is exactly what it sounds like: a large list of black game developers. The site’s tagline:

A list of black game developers, designers, artists, and more. Here they are. Hire them. Buy their stuff.

While representation in games themselves is an important issue to continue tackling, it’s equally important to increase the number of minorities and other marginalized groups making games. This site is a great reminder of that, so check it out and see what you can do to support the people on the list!

youtube

SPREAD THIS!

On pop media, enjoyment, and being a demanding consumer

I’ve read every single comment and tag that anyone has left on the Janet Van Dyne post (sorry capfalc for killing your activity page for the day, I had no idea it would blow up like that). 

A lot of you have had very valuable things to say and I appreciate them all– or, well, almost all– and I’ve addressed some of your points privately or publicly as I thought was appropriate, but I want to get a few important things across to all of you:

1) You are allowed to be happy about representation AND unhappy about representation in the same piece of media.  You’re allowed to like and dislike aspects of the same work.  This happens all the time.

2) You don’t have to consume a piece of entertainment to criticize its creators or marketing strategy, decide you’re uncomfortable with it, or determine that you don’t want to see it.

3) You don’t have to avoid a piece of entertainment just because you think some aspects of it are problematic.  If there are enough other things that appeal to you, you get to make the decision whether that outweighs the problems with it.

These are all 100% valid ways of interacting with media.  You are allowed whichever one is right for you, and you can have a different feeling about how you interact with one TV show or book or movie from the feeling you have about another TV show or book or movie.

When I tell people why I’m bothered by something, it doesn’t mean I expect you to be bothered, too. It means I want to put something in words so you can understand why I’m bothered and respect my decision to be bothered even if you don’t share it.  It’s okay for you to see all of the information I present and feel differently about it. Likewise, you don’t need to try to prove that people who don’t share your opinion are wrong– if someone else feels uncomfortable about a piece of media, just take them at their word that they are uncomfortable, and respect that, even if the same information doesn’t make you uncomfortable.  We all have different experiences and perspectives and are naturally going to see things differently, and their discomfort isn’t an attack on you.

Everybody gets to set their own rules about their own comfort levels and interests and at what point their comfort level overrides their interests.  Entertainment is entertainment and you should not feel obliged to consume or avoid something based on other people’s opinions if you consider them and decide you don’t share them. 

Though i say all this with the caveat that it’s also totally fair if someone revises their opinion of you based on your decision to consume or avoid something, if that choice is really, really offensive to them.

I’m still not sure if I’m going to see Ant-Man. I’ve heard from all accounts that it’s narratively very good, and I’m still holding out a little hope that the movie will prove me wrong, at which point, I’ll move on to criticizing their marketing strategy for being so unsuccessful that it made me believe this.  But if it doesn’t?  At this point, every Marvel movie is making me a little less hopeful and eventually that lack of faith will hit a breaking point. I think that is happening for a lot of fans right now.  I have friends who hit it with Age of Ultron already and unless Ant-Man exceeds a lot of our expectations,I think a lot more people are going to hit it there. 

But make up your own mind about whether you want to see it and don’t feel like other people saying they want to see it or don’t want to see it obliges you, personally, in any way.

And so, Piper Chapman, is a white woman who never really belongs in this system, while the Latinas and Black women who are also imprisoned are perpetually drawn out as the backdrop of this complex. Granted, the entire premise of the show follows Piper’s experience in prison. The show succeeds comically because we are told, from the first episode, that Piper doesn’t belong in prison, which raises the question, who does? Her not-belonging in prison is a symptom of her whiteness, while the Latinas and Black women do belong in prison, as others like them have come and gone through the same system. In fact, the first episode depicts Daya, a Latina, interacting with (okay, being slapped in the face by) her own mother, Aleida, showing a continuation of the cycle inflicted on women of color. Piper, meanwhile, is completely alone in the prison, because she is white, and people like her don’t go through the system.
—  Fatima Zehra “Orange is the New White

Chinese privilege is when a widely-circulated women’s magazine employs a senior writer who assumes that all Singaporean women aspire towards “fair, porcelain skin” and necessarily look to South Korea and Japan and pan-Asian girls as role models - not to mention making many sexist remarks in the process

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153390648945127&set=o.188928884492906&type=1&theater

weyheyitsmaddie asked:

Is it bad that when I read PoA for the first time and saw Hermione described as "very brown" it stuck in my mind that she had Native American or at least Indian in her? As a Native American, I was happy one of my favorites looked like me. For once.

I totally feel you here! I used to do the same thing with Hermione as a kid, imagining her as South Asian (The fact that Hermione’s hair was just like mine helped a little there). And there’s absolutely no problem with that! Even if there was anything in the text about Hermione having light skin (there’s not), you should definitely imagine her any race you’d like because kids deserve to see themselves in the characters they love. If the author doesn’t provide that representation, well…it makes me a little happier that some of us were able to find it ourselves. <3

I love all the responses I’m getting to the Ant-Man posts from men who try to use “logic” to argue about why it wouldn’t “make sense” to have more female characters. 

I especially love the ones who talk at length about how the MCU is different from 616 but do not appear to think it would be humanly possible to age Jan down or change her relationship with Hank or somehow make her a hero independent of Hank.

It’s like no one making these movies could have sat down and said “guys, it’s important to keep Jan front and center in the movie. How do we do that?” 

Do you know how easy that is to do?  It is REALLY REALLY EASY.

Jan wasn’t a priority. Jan could have been a priority if anyone had wanted her to be.  No amount of fanboy logic can change that.

its not that some of us are slapping labels onto fictional characters for entertainment- its just that many of us are in need of representation not just sexuality but even with mental illness and disorders. Many who faces mental challenges everyday are in need of a special companion even if they are just made up or fictional.

gammacazador asked:

Not entirely sure why you are harping on Hope being a lesser known character from the Spider-Girl universe. Characters with less appearances than her have shown up in the MCU. The Daredevil TV show even had a heroic version of Gladiator.

1) I made that post for people who aren’t familiar with comics canon so they can understand what’s going on and where they can find these characters in canon, since a lot of people either thought Hope was part of 616, or assumed she was made up for the film, which are very fair assumptions for newcomers to make.    I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference between “helping” and “harping.”

2) Come back to me when Melvin is dredged out of practical obscurity, has his his original identity stripped so he can be offered up by men who think it’s okay to make him interchangeable with his sometimes-mom, who was the only female founding member of the Avengers and one of the most important  characters in Marvel history, instead of being a minor villain used as a cute Easter Egg.  (Melvin actually has more appearances than Hope, BTW. You might have Googled that first if you were going to use it as an example.)

what annoys the signs the most about their representation on tumblr

Aries: the extreme anger/violence stereotype

Taurus: the stereotype that they’re always eating

Gemini: that they’re the most hated sign

Cancer: the excessive crying stereotype

Leo: the extreme hate they get during shade hour

Virgo: that they’re the “prissy” ones

Libra: the assumption that they never get into fights and aren’t intelligent

Scorpio: the sex-crazed stereotype

Sagittarius: nothing, they don’t give a fuck

Capricorn: that they’re the overlooked sign

Aquarius: the alien thing??

Pisces: the fish association

Steven Universe and representation

SU has great representations of real life like…

Different body types:

And the characters all have different types of hair:


Theres more than just white characters (not including the gems):

Its okay to cry even if you’re a boy:

The majority of the characters are women, and are powerful:


It shows how different people react to the loss of a loved one:

It shows different forms of sacrifice:


Just like real people the “perfect” characters aren’t always perfect:


Love takes time. Their relationships weren’t flawless:


It has characters who aren’t straight:

They deal with real life struggles like being stuck in something uncontrollable, growing up, and protecting loved ones:

In short steven universe is an amazing show with great representation, both physically and emotionally.

7

Finally, a doll that accurately represents women of color

When Angelica Sweeting’s daughter Sophia said she wanted “‘yellow hair’ and white skin like her dolls had so that she could be pretty,” Sweeting sought a doll that looked a lot more like her daughter. When she only found dolls that were essentially a “spray-painted” version of a doll with white features, Sweeting decided to make her own. She set the Kickstarter goal at $25,000 — but was blown away by what happened next.

fusion.net
'Jurassic Park' is 100 times more feminist than 'Jurassic World'
Aside from the obvious advances in CGI, it's hard to believe this movie came out 22 years after the original.

There’s a short, great movie about dinosaurs somewhere inside Jurassic World, a long, mediocre movie about people. This box office record-shattering blockbuster may be the fourth installment in the Jurassic Park franchise, but its gender politics fall shockingly short of the 1993 original.

The film’s female protagonist is Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), a high-powered executive who works at the massive Jurassic World theme park. She’s a cold, driven career woman who must learn (or, more accurately, who must be taught) the importance of motherhood.

This character is exactly as refreshing as she sounds, possibly less so.

On the phone with her sister, Claire uses the phrase “if I have kids,” prompting Karen (Judy Greer) to disapprovingly correct her to “when,” before tearfully expounding on the importance of family values. Meanwhile, Karen’s imminent divorce is treated with melodrama that wouldn’t feel out of place in a pre-Kramer vs. Kramer movie.

When the Indominus rex, Jurassic World’s unstoppably destructive genetically modified hybrid dinosaur, escapes its enclosure, Claire teams up with hunky, rough-around-the-edges Velociraptor trainer Owen (Chris Pratt) to rescue her visiting nephews. As she totters through the Costa Rican wilderness in a pair of high heels, we watch Claire’s hair go from blow-dried straight to curly as Pratt’s character — who, meanwhile, exhibits no growth whatsoever — literally and figuratively loosens her up.

It’s not just that Jurassic World won’t let Claire have her cake and eat it, too: she can seemingly do neither. Despite Claire’s ostensible professional success, the movie sees her ordered around by man after man after man, from Owen to the park’s owner (Irrfan Khan) to its security chief (Vincent D’Onofrio). Ironically, when she finally gets the chance to tell someone (Lowery, Jake Johnson’s control-room wonk) what to do, she does so in undeniably sexist terms: “Be a man for once in your life,” she scolds him.

In the rare moments when the script actually allows Claire to do something empowering, it’s quick to undercut her triumph. Shortly after Claire and Owen reunite with her nephews, she saves Grady’s life by shooting a Pteranodon off his back. Yet, minutes later, the kids announce, “We want to stay with him,” (meaning Owen, whom they have just met) in what was apparently intended as a hilarious laugh line.

“Your boyfriend is a badass,” one of the boys tells her. She blushes girlishly at this, like she just can’t wait to tell her diary all about it.

To defeat the Indominus rex, Claire cleverly summons the T. rex from its paddock with a lit flare, a nod to Jurassic Park. This is a genuinely heroic moment, swiftly undercut by the fact that she must then flee from the animal in her heels.

As the climactic dinosaur-on-dinosaur battle unfolds, our heroine ends up lying prostrate on the ground, in close proximity to the fighting, for no apparent reason. She is reduced to a helpless damsel in distress, bosom heaving, looking more than a little like Fay Wray in King Kong.

Claire isn’t the only female character failed by Jurassic World. Her assistant Zara (Katie McGrath) is, notably, the first woman to be killed on-screen in the franchise’s history, which, at least in theory, should be considered progress towards equality. But her drawn-out death at the hands (so to speak) of multiple dinosaurs is memorably, surreally brutal. This isn’t the sort of random casualty that emerges from the disaster movie business-as-usual. Zara’s death is depicted with relish, like it’s a deserved retribution.

That day, Claire had tasked Zara with watching her nephews, who ultimately escape their assigned babysitter’s supervision. By the time of her death, all we know about Zara is that a) she’s not terribly good with kids — although she’s certainly a far cry from the lawyer in Jurassic Park, who meets his end in the jaws of a T. rex after intentionally abandoning two children to die — and, as we overhear from her phone call, that b) she’s against her fiancé throwing a bachelor party.

What, exactly, is Jurassic World punishing her for?

The way Claire ties the tails of her blouse and the purple tank top layered beneath it are probably meant to evoke Jurassic Park’s Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern). Unfortunately, outside of their waist-up style choices, these two women have little in common.

Unlike Claire, Sattler is one hell of a character. She’s brave, passionate, and brilliant, as intellectually and physically capable as anyone else in the movie (perhaps even more so than anyone else in the movie). Sattler, a paleobotanist, is in a low-key romantic relationship with her colleague Alan Grant (Sam Neill), with whom she shares a bond that’s built on mutual respect. On Isla Nublar, she doesn’t bat an eye at Ian Malcolm’s (Jeff Goldblum) heavy-handed flirting. And it’s certainly worth noting that, in contrast to Claire’s heels and pencil skirt — which, at some point that I missed, gets an inexplicable, revealing thigh slit torn into it — Sattler is practically dressed for raptor evasion in hiking boots and khaki shorts. 1993’s stylish comfort sure beats 2015’s rigid constraints.

She’s also an unapologetic feminist. While their Jeep is parked outside the T. rex exhibit, Malcolm waxes poetic about the nature of this experiment: “God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys god. Man creates dinosaurs.”

Sattler doesn’t miss a beat. “Dinosaurs eat man,” she continues. “Woman inherits the Earth.”

When Ellie embarks alone on a dangerous mission to switch the power back on, Jurassic Park’s creator John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) hesitates. “It ought to be me, really, going,” he says, because this is a job for man. This earns an eyeroll from Sattler.

“We can discuss sexism in survival situations when I get back,” she quips.

Despite her partner’s skepticism about kids, Sattler openly expresses her interest in having children. Unlike Jurassic World, Jurassic Park readily acknowledges the existence of women who are both ambitious and maternal.

Family is also a central issue here, but the responsibility of child-rearing falls on male shoulders. Stranded in the park with Hammond’s grandchildren, Grant becomes their surrogate father. He shepherds them to the safety of the visitor’s center, developing real affection for them in the process. Grant’s discovery of his fondness for children is joyful, but inJurassic World, Claire’s is colored with shame and anxiety.

I first saw Jurassic Park as a child and — I expect I’m not alone in this — immediately imprinted on preteen Lex (Ariana Richards), a vegetarian and a gifted “hacker.” It’s Hammond’s granddaughter who singlehandedly reboots the park’s security system, a feat that eluded all of the movie’s grownups, and effectively saves the day.

In Jurassic World, the only young women on screen are nameless pretty young things who function solely as eye candy to be leered at by Zach (Nick Robinson), Claire’s creepy teenage nephew.

If I had a daughter, I know which of these two films I’d rather share with her. Aside from the obvious advances in CGI, it’s honestly difficult to believe Jurassic World came out 22 years after Jurassic Park.

You can make a good movie — a very good movie, even! — that pairs an uptight lady with a macho dude. Two successful romances in this mold areRomancing the Stone (1984), in which Michael Douglas jungle-proofs Kathleen Turner’s shoes by lopping off the heels with a machete, or The African Queen (1951), in which missionary Katharine Hepburn dumps all of boat captain Humphrey Bogart’s gin into the Ulanga River.

But for this formula to work, it requires three-dimensional, fully drawn characters, who mutually learn from one another — and who aren’t shamed for their failure to adhere to traditional gender roles.