alltruthwaitsinallthings-deacti
You’re a fucking hypocrite. You want the internet to be free, but you don’t want the rest of us to be free on it. You want YOUR version of freedom. Well, guess what? Brutsch hasn’t been banned from the entire internet. He can still use the internet and be as shitty as he ever was. No one is stopping him. He hasn’t been silenced. You know what he’s getting? He’s getting the full free speech experience, not the distorted one you and your clown-ass compatriots have made up in your head. Free speech means that people get to speak back, to engage you, to confront you, to force you to defend your ideas, and to hold you accountable via discourse. You want to stifle a free press. Love it or hate it, Brutsch made himself a public figure and a figure in whom people had an interest. When the Amanda Todd story came to public awareness, there was even more interest in people who do things like sexually exploit and humiliate teens online. Women and girls who don’t show their breasts to people were also targets of people like Brutsch. We have an interest in knowing just who are these people who take upskirt photos of us when we’re going about our day. You want to cut off the right of people to have access to information via our free press. Why do you hate that aspect of free speech?Adrian did what people who do investigative journalism do: he investigated. He gave Brutsch a chance to defend himself, to tell his side of the story. George Orwell said it best: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is just public relations.” Guess what? We’re not going to let you whiners turn our free press into a PR campaign for the exploitation of others. You can champion it if you want, but other people have a right to hear the other side and express their opinion.
alltruthwaitsinallthings-deacti
House Republicans are still blocking the reauthorization [of the Violence Against Women Act], which passed the Senate this spring, because of added protections and services for LGBT, Native American, and immigrant abuse victims.
inlovewiththepractice

theinebriatedfangirl:

searchingforknowledge:

Documentaries are supposed to present truths, or something approximate thereto. 

I am watching “Prohibition”,  a PBS doc series by Lynne Novik and Ken Burns. Of course, there are many many MANY things that piss me off about the doc and the way the story is constructed. But the thing that made me stop watching to compose this letter of outrage is the way they treated the story of George Remus. Their narrative in brief: George Remus was a defense lawyer who decided to get into the bootlegging business by exploiting the holes in the Volstead Act, which was a law passed to help enforced the 18th Amendment: Prohibition. Dude got rich as Croseus. Dude married two wives, one after the other. Dude bribed EVERYBODY.  Dude got overconfident and eventually got brought to heel by the Justice Department. Dude spread his money around in jail, but an Agent Dodge was sent in and his high life came to an end. Dude sent letters to his wife claiming that they would settle down after his 2 year sentence cause all he got was jail time, he was still rich. Wife, however, took up with the agent, sold EVERYTHING and divorced him. Dude left jail. On the way to final divorce hearing, dude saw wife and step daughter in a passing taxi. Dude instructed his taxi to run theirs off the road and shot her in front of their daughter. He went to jail, wrote in his letters that he felt at peace for the first time in years. Went to trial defended himself using the temporary insanity card, got off scott-free after 19 min jury deliberation (one woman that I remember on the jury) and took off.  And the story of Prohibition moves on.  Please note that the usual tricks were applied, with the camera moving in on Imogene’s eyes, the music changing, all the narration excerpts from his diary and or whatever writings he kept.

So, oh followers, take a look at this story and tell me, what is missing here?

1. Oh several things. Why on earth did the wife promptly take up with the FBI agent who added insult to injury by fucking up ole Remus’ fun times in jail? And she decided to sell all his shit? Why? There has be a reason for that, right?

2. What in the hell happened to the young woman WHO SAW HER MOTHER SHOT TO DEATH RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER AND THE MURDERER GET OFF SCOT FREE???!!? Not even a throwaway line there, Ken Burns and Lynn Novik??!?! are you KIDDING ME?????

So here is the funny thing. The directors of this thing spent a lotta time noting that some of the reasons for white women’s (whether or not black women supported the thing was not mentioned cause as we all know, America = white people, rest of us are useless minorities who were apparently not doing a damn thing during history) support of the constitutional amendment was that alcohol binges would lead men to perpetuate  serious serious SERIOUS domestic violence on women and girls. And they spent a good deal of disc two telling us all about the violence of Al Capone and the rest of them. And yet, in a two hour doc; they had no time at all to add a few sentences that might have addressed the motives for Madam Imogene to do what she did?! As a matter of fact, they DELIBERATELY set up the narration and the graphics to give the impression that she was a gold-digging wench who just transferred her allegiance once her man wasn’t watching. That nice and tidy “ungrateful woman” narrative just fit real tidily over her, didn’t it. After all, they started that section by noting that dude made said wife a large pool and named it after her. And the houses were lavish and he wrote so much about his love and trust for her….

Funny how they managed to make not a peep, not a word, not a mention of the domestic abuse. 

Here is The Milwaukee Journal of Dec 17, 1927 under the headline “Girl Despises Remus Name: Slaim Wife’s Daughter is here to attend Father’s Funeral” interviewing Ms Ruth Remus, soon to change her name to Holmes just before the verdict came in.

“Remus gave my mother the home at Cincinnati as a wedding present but he soon wanted it back. He became so angry that he hit my mother so her nose bled and she was hysterical for two hours. He is not insane. He has the most vicious temper that I have ever seen and the worst of it is that he could control it if he wanted to. He used to break dishes and smash furniture inhis scenes, but he always picked out inexpensive articles to break. He liked to act violent and make a great crash.”

Oh for real? Might that have been the reason why our Imogene proceeded to have an affair with Agent Dodge as soon as her husband was put away in the clink? Would it have really killed you guys to make a passing mention of these allegations? Would it have made the documentary that much longer? To continue: “I think he would have killed me one time at the home in Cincinnati if a guest in our house had not interfered. Remus swung a kitchen chair over his head and aimed it at me. The visitor knocked it to one side.” But ya’ll were too busy trying me to sympathize with dude collapsed when he got home and saw Imogene had stripped the house of “every stick of furniture”. How could she, after he had promised her a trip around the world and to settle down quietly afterwards, you voice of godded the audience. What an ungrateful bitch. In fact, you went so far as to blame Imogene for breaking up the marriage of Remus and his first wife, with those gold-digging wiles of hers! Because surely Remus had not a fucking thing to do with choosing to get with Imogene of course. Oh wait:Immigrant Entrepreneurship.org

In 1915 Lillian had threatened to divorce Remus. She had heard rumors about her husband not only being involved with another woman, but also paying that woman’s rent. Remus had indeed become overwhelmingly infatuated with a young woman in her late twenties by the name of Augusta Imogene Holmes. Imogene was working in a delicatessen and in the process of divorcing her husband, Albert W. Holmes. She was living with her daughter Ruth in Evanston, just across the north side border of Chicago. Remus would come into the delicatessen, buy some groceries, and make small talk with Imogene. When her divorce was finalized in 1917, Remus vigorously began to pursue a relationship with Imogene, eventually moving out of the family’s home to take up residence with her on December 26, 1918.
Shortly after moving in with Imogene, an incident involving Remus and a plumber by the name of Herbert Youngs would demonstrate Remus’ tendency for unprovoked violence. Youngs had come to Imogene’s home to return a watch that her daughter Ruth had lost. Youngs demanded a $15 reward (about $217 in 2010$).[3] While Imogene agreed to provide a reward, she felt that $15 was excessive and instead offered Youngs $5 ($72 in 2010$). They began to quibble over the amount when suddenly, out of nowhere, Remus appeared, punched the plumber in the jaw, and then chased him from the property. Youngs proceeded to file a charge of assault and battery against Remus with the Evanston Police. When the case came up for a hearing on February 8, 1919, Remus asked for a change of venue and the prosecuting attorney dropped the charge. Of course, all of this was reported in the press and confirmed Lillian Remus’ suspicion of her husband’s infidelity.

And Mrs. Lillian didn’t have a word to say about atrocious domestic abuse. Oh wait. Immigrant Entrepreneurship.org

Lillian Remus filed for divorce on the grounds of extreme and repeated cruelty. The case was heard in Superior Court on March 7, 1919. In her testimony Lillian stated that her husband had provided a home for another woman for the last three years. She also charged that Remus had beaten her on several occasions, pinched, choked, and kicked her. The court granted the divorce to Lillian along with $25 per week ($315 in 2010$) in alimony. In addition, she was granted a $50,000 ($630,000 in 2010$) lump sum payment. Remus’ daughter Romola was also awarded a $30,000 ($378,000 in 2010$) lump sum payment.


Well. Funny how not a word of THAT made it to your doc. Biased much? Instead there were nice Aftereffects push ins on Imogene’s eyes over ominous music while you told the tale of her many wrongdoings against poor hardworking bootstrapping brainy betrayed immigrant George Remus who was breaking a silly and stupid law anyway. And if you fucked up that big on that story, remind me again why I should trust the entire thing? What other holes will I see if I feel like digging deep enough? And really, Would it have killed ya’ll to add an update on what happened to the NINETEEN YEAR OLD KID WHO WATCHED HER STEPDAD KILL HER MOM IN FRONT OF HER AND WATCH HIM GO FREE??? Did you think about her at all, that girl who he nearly killed with a kitchen chair? I turned up that stuff with a two second google search. I guess that her story didn’t fit the one you wanted to  tell. Well. Fuck your story. 

Here is more on Imogene’s last days:

George Remus was determined to seek revenge for Imogene’s infidelity. (my annoyed note: of course he would. Nevermind HIS philandering and cheating, no sir!) Though she had filed for divorce on August 31, 1925, the divorce case was delayed several times by suits, countersuits, and continuances. During one deposition taken in the Chicago law office of Imogene’s attorney, Remus suddenly became enraged and attempted to throw him out of a window. Furthermore, both Remus and Imogene accused each other of plots to kill each other. When they appeared in court, they usually had bodyguards.

On October 6, 1927, the day the divorce suit was finally scheduled to be heard in domestic court in Cincinnati, Remus found out that Imogene and her daughter were staying at the Alms Hotel. Remus had his driver take him over to the hotel that morning and waited until Imogene and Ruth emerged and got into a taxi. Remus then pursued them at high speed intoEden Park where his driver cut off the taxi forcing it to the curb. (You said that he saw the taxi passing by and ran it off the road, oh directors. ) Imogene jumped out of the cab and began to run up a hill with Remus in pursuit. According to Ruth, Remus “was cursing and swearing and acted like he was crazy. He grabbed my mother saying, I’ll fix you, I’ll fix you.”[29]   When he caught up with her, Remus put a revolver to Imogene’s abdomen and pulled the trigger. He then calmly walked out of the park. It was only the second time in his life that Remus had fired a gun. Two hours later, following emergency surgery at Bethesda Hospital, Imogene died.

Remus immediately turned himself in to the Cincinnati police. When a reporter later asked Remus why he did not take flight from justice, Remus responded, “Why should I go about the country as a fugitive from justice – a man with a price upon his head. If you have a clear conscience, you have nothing to fear. A man who feels that he has performed a duty to society and that he has committed no moral wrong, does not run away from the consequences of his act.” [30]


I have no idea what happened to Ruth Holmes. I hope she had as best a life as she was able to under the circs. But George Remus was an abusive, philandering misogynistic premediatately murderous little shit. And that fact deserves to be part and intimate parcel of any story told about the fucker. So here is my contribution to making sure that that happens. And here is my ever growing skepticism about ya’lls interpretation of history. 

Thank you for this.

blue-author
twentysomethinghussy:

(Rebloggable by request.)

Oh wow. Ohhhhhhh wow.
What person does the same thing over and over and expects different results each time? An insane person. Or a douchebag. I suspect you are one of the two.
Here’s a short story for you: Today, I was walking from one class to another. On my way across campus, I walked by a guy who was kind of dancing to some music on his speakers. As I passed him, he turns to me, starts kind of walking with me, and says something along the lines of, “I really like your sunglasses. You’re beautiful.” I ignored him and kept walking and I could tell he was peeved. What you don’t understand is that not only was I not asking for comments on my appearance from a stranger (or anyone, really), in a rape culture — which we definitely live in — his comments came off as threatening. I was scared. I picked up my pace. I didn’t want to stop and say thank you and have him be even creepier. I didn’t owe him anything just because he commented on my appearance.
Here’s another view from an anonymous person who wrote me in a while ago. Here’s my response to another person who probably has the same views as you. Here’s a quote that sums up my thoughts quite well:

“There’s a poisonous double standard in our society which says that it’s reverse-sexist and wrong for women to feel threatened by creepy-awkward male behavior because our fear implies that we hold the negative, stereotypical view that All Men Are Predators, but that if we’re raped or sexually assaulted by any man with whom we’ve had prior social interaction – and particularly if he’s expressed some sexual or romantic interest in us during that time – it’s reasonable for observers to ask what precautions we took to prevent the assault from happening, or to suggest that we maybe led the guy on by not stating our feelings plainly. The result is a situation where women are punished if we reject, avoid or identify creepy men, and then told it’s our fault if we’re assaulted by someone we plainly ought to have rejected, avoided, identified.”

Here’s the article that comes from.
Point is, if people aren’t responding to your compliments well, it’s probably because you’re being fucking creepy. Even if by some chance you’re not, you’re likely still a douchebag purely for the fact that you’re only doing something “nice” because you expect something in return and get mad when things don’t go quite as expected without even bothering to think of the implications behind it.
One last thing, from my suggested reading material to you.

Acknowledge that you don’t get to define other people’s comfort level with you. Which is to say that you may be trying your hardest to be interesting and engaging and fun to be around — and still come off as a creeper to someone else. Yes, that sucks for you. But you know what? It sucks for them even harder, because you’re creeping them out and making them profoundly unhappy and uncomfortable. It may not seem fair that “creep” is their assessment of you, but: Surprise! It doesn’t matter, and if you try to argue with them (or anyone else) that you’re in fact not being a creep and the problem is with them not you, then you go from “creep” to “complete assbag.”

Boom.

twentysomethinghussy:

(Rebloggable by request.)

Oh wow. Ohhhhhhh wow.

What person does the same thing over and over and expects different results each time? An insane person. Or a douchebag. I suspect you are one of the two.

Here’s a short story for you: Today, I was walking from one class to another. On my way across campus, I walked by a guy who was kind of dancing to some music on his speakers. As I passed him, he turns to me, starts kind of walking with me, and says something along the lines of, “I really like your sunglasses. You’re beautiful.” I ignored him and kept walking and I could tell he was peeved. What you don’t understand is that not only was I not asking for comments on my appearance from a stranger (or anyone, really), in a rape culture — which we definitely live in — his comments came off as threatening. I was scared. I picked up my pace. I didn’t want to stop and say thank you and have him be even creepier. I didn’t owe him anything just because he commented on my appearance.

Here’s another view from an anonymous person who wrote me in a while ago. Here’s my response to another person who probably has the same views as you. Here’s a quote that sums up my thoughts quite well:

“There’s a poisonous double standard in our society which says that it’s reverse-sexist and wrong for women to feel threatened by creepy-awkward male behavior because our fear implies that we hold the negative, stereotypical view that All Men Are Predators, but that if we’re raped or sexually assaulted by any man with whom we’ve had prior social interaction – and particularly if he’s expressed some sexual or romantic interest in us during that time – it’s reasonable for observers to ask what precautions we took to prevent the assault from happening, or to suggest that we maybe led the guy on by not stating our feelings plainly. The result is a situation where women are punished if we reject, avoid or identify creepy men, and then told it’s our fault if we’re assaulted by someone we plainly ought to have rejected, avoided, identified.”

Here’s the article that comes from.

Point is, if people aren’t responding to your compliments well, it’s probably because you’re being fucking creepy. Even if by some chance you’re not, you’re likely still a douchebag purely for the fact that you’re only doing something “nice” because you expect something in return and get mad when things don’t go quite as expected without even bothering to think of the implications behind it.

One last thing, from my suggested reading material to you.

Acknowledge that you don’t get to define other people’s comfort level with you. Which is to say that you may be trying your hardest to be interesting and engaging and fun to be around — and still come off as a creeper to someone else. Yes, that sucks for you. But you know what? It sucks for them even harder, because you’re creeping them out and making them profoundly unhappy and uncomfortable. It may not seem fair that “creep” is their assessment of you, but: Surprise! It doesn’t matter, and if you try to argue with them (or anyone else) that you’re in fact not being a creep and the problem is with them not you, then you go from “creep” to “complete assbag.”

Boom.

eshusplayground

lightspeedsound:

I really fucking hate it when white people are like “well most white people aren’t racist.”  

like fuck you.

The reason you think most white people aren’t racist is because you’re NOT A FUCKING TARGET FOR WHITE PEOPLE’S RACISM.

I have heard the argument that “because I grew up in an area predominantly white, racism wasn’t an issue. Black people were just…normal. Really.” 

No, bitch. It’s because there wasn’t as much opportunity to be racist. 

And while we’re at it, the whole pro-men’s rights argument of “most men aren’t rapists/douchebags/creepers”?

Yeah, fuck you. 

Because most men are not motherfucking trying to get you in bed.

Why do you think you’re so fucking homophobic? Is it because you think most gay men would want you in bed?

Why is it that somehow, that’s logical, but it’s not logical for me to say “motherfucker, do not touch my body when I do not want to be touched. I will not smile at your smarmy, bed-getting compliments.”

Dude, the gay man was just SITTING NEXT TO YOU and you motherfucking freaked. out. 

basically, what I am trying to say:

Unless you are the target of a specific type of bigotry, there is no fucking way you can be an accurate judge re: the accuracy of said bigotry committed by a social demographic.

Because your sample size is just motherfucking small as fuck. 

hamburgerjack

Remember ladies, if you don’t drop EVERYTHING you’re doing the moment a man comes up to you and talks to you for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, you’re an uppity bitch who doesn’t know what you want. PERIOD

hamburgerjack:

sourcedumal:

You have no right to your own time and space the moment a man comes and talks to you.

You have no right to leisure time

You have no right to your own personal space.

All of you belong to men. T

THE END.

alltruthwaitsinallthings-deacti

rubykatewriting:

lolafeist:

critink:

[[Skank Flank: The New Tramp Stamp]]

A few days ago, @forestine sent me {this article}. It’s another “tattoos are soo trendy” article from a major news source. Like we haven’t heard a thousand people tell us this before.

But here’s the part that really bothered her, and me:

 a popular placement for women’s tattoos has moved from the lower back to the rib area.

“We call it the ‘skank flank,’” [the tattoo artist we interviewed] said. “Every week or two, I see another girl with another rib piece, and you have to tell them that.”

Excuse me?

Wanting to get a discrete tattoo that you can easily cover up makes you a skank?

Since when are ribs considered a sexual body part?

Really, if nothing else this makes the fact that “tramp stamps” are body shaming that much more clear. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the term body shaming, it’s a cultural phenomenon that essentially makes everything you do with your body wrong. You’re fat? Lazy and disgusting. You’re skinny? Eat a cheeseburger you look anorexic. You’re fit? You look like a man. And so on. It’s designed to make women (and increasingly men) feel bad about their body, no matter what they do or how they look.

Here is how the same douchebags would like us to view tattoos:

  • Lower back tattoos: you’re a tramp
  • Rib tattoos: you’re a skank
  • Wrist tattoos: you’re a dumb skank
  • Arm tattoos: you’re a whore
  • Leg tattoos: you’re a whore
  • Feet tattoos: you’re a whore
  • Shoulder tattoos: you’re a whore

There is no bit exaggeration in this. Anyone who would call the girl above a skank for getting a Disney tattoo on her ribs is a fucking idiot.

All of this language is used to control women. To make us judge each other’s bodies, feel self-conscious about our own, or dictate what we can or can’t do (with tattoos, weight gain/loss, or anything else.)

Really, the best way to nip this in the bud is by calling out anyone who uses the language of “tramp stamps.” The logic is the same in both, and by having conversations with people on why this sort of language hurts women, we can start reclaiming our ability to tattoo whatever parts of our body we want.

I have a large tattoo across my lower back.

It’s a design an artist and I came up with for my children.

It makes me crazy in the fucking face that it’s socially acceptable to so many people to call a lower back tattoo a tramp stamp. Skank flank? Ugh I want to nutpunch someone.

My favorite part of this? How long have MEN been getting tattoos along their flanks?

…Ohhh.

Fuck you, sexist douchebags.

Now you know women can’t decide to do things to their bodies. Those belong to men!

blue-author

everythingbutharleyquinn:

svetlana-del-rey:

jenniferlawrencedaily:

Jennifer Lawrence on preparing for Silver Linings Playbook

This made me roll my eyes at first, as do all of Jen’s mentions of how much she loves eating junk and never working out, despite the fact that she’s my actual wife, because the reason people think this is cute is that she’s still quite thin. And beautiful. And I’ve seen pictures of you working out, Jen, so don’t even. It’s actually something that I’ve noticed about several thin women who obviously watch what they eat and probably exercise, to an extent - like Amy Poehler and Tina Fey - this tendency to joke about eating too much and hating work outs. And it’s annoying because you know nobody would be saying “you go, girl!” and “hell yeah stay in bed all day eating fries” if the person in question was, say, Beth Ditto. Or any other obviously overweight woman.

But then I remember what happened when THG came out, the way grown fucking men came at Jennifer Lawrence in reviews to call her fat. Because our society just hates women that much, that a thin woman who’s somewhat curvy is still unacceptable. And this is not even getting into the whole idea of “fat” as evil.

So anyway it’s all super-depressing and makes me much more accepting of Jen’s bragging about her supposed horrible eating habits even though outside of toxic celebrity culture she pretty much has the “ideal” body. Because her current environment is horrible to her too.

boy oh boy am I feeling this and sighing deeply and feeling like shit. They never let us win. They never let us have the ‘right’ body and they make sure we know it so we never, ever feel okay.

notesonascandal

We’re still talking about this? TW: rape

face-down-asgard-up:

I got a lot of messages in my inbox about my MRA posts the other day. Several of them brought up the issue of men who are raped by women.

So, ok, let’s talk about rape, sexism, and whatnot.

We’ll start with a quiz:

Which one teaches that men are incapable of being raped?

  1. Institutionalized sexism backed up by society through generations of tradition, culture, and laws
  2. Feminism

Answer: Number 1.

See, it’s sexism that teaches that men are incapable of being raped because it’s sexism that teaches us that men always want sex and are ruled by their physical desires. One of the reasons that male rape victims have a hard time talking about what happened to them is because when they do, they are not taken seriously.

Look at cases where older women in positions of authority ( teachers, bosses, etc. ) take advantage of the men/boys they are supposed to be supervising ( students, employees, etc. ). When these stories come out I usually see comments from lots of dudes along the lines of, “Man, I wish my teacher back in jr. high had tried to fuck me!” “Why is this guy complaining? He hit the jackpot!” “This isn’t rape, this is awesome!”

Even other men are oblivious to the fact that they are being hurt by sexism. They are being taught that they can’t be raped because men are inherently sexual all the time and are always happy to receive sexual attention. Sexism teaches us that all men would be happy to have a woman force herself onto them. Sexism teaches us that men cannot be abused or be victims, because sexism teaches us that these things don’t happen to men.

Feminism does not teach this. Feminism teaches us that consent needs to be given often and enthusiastically by all parties involved. Feminism teaches that men are capable of not being ruled by their erections and sexual desires and therefore teaches not only that men are capable of not raping people, but also that they can be victims as well.

So for all of those people who want to discuss this issue? You need to understand and accept that the root of the problem is not feminism, “reverse sexism”, or misandry ( Which isn’t really thing because we do not live in a society where women have power privilege over men which leads to men being disenfranchised, devalued, viewed as lesser,and denied equal rights and opportunity.). I cannot take you seriously or have an honest discussion with you about this topic if you cannot first acknowledge that all rape is, at it’s very core, a problem caused by institutionalized sexism and misogyny.

This is why I hate the term “Men’s Rights Activism” being used when discussing this issue. Because it shifts the focus away from the real problem. If you really want to fight for male victims of rape and sexual abuse, then you need to be working with feminists, WOC, trans* individuals and not against them. You are not an MRA if you want to stop people from being raped. You are a Victim’s Rights Activist, because the issue of men being raped is not a separate issue from women and trans* individuals being raped. They are caused by the same thing: Sexism and misogyny.

blue-author
Women read comics. Anyone at all engaged in social media knows this. Women read comics and are a driving force behind fandom. I think I could call them the driving force behind fandom and put up a convincing argument. Just think about it: what fandoms have driven America crazy in the last decade? Could anyone dissuade me from saying that they were Harry Potter, Twilight and the Hunger Games? “Avatar” may have put butts in theater seats, but you don’t hear about it… ever. No one is immersed in the world of “Avatar” except James Cameron and people who enjoy wearing Na’vi Zentai suits. “The Avengers” was pretty darn huge and, if Tumblr is any indication, a whopping portion of the people driving that fandom online do not possess a Y chromosome. Women engage in fandom to levels that men do not. When women get behind something, their sheer numbers and passion force it into the mainstream. That’s why you can name the actor who plays that werewolf kid in “Twilight” and probably sing at least the chorus to one Justin Bieber song. What do tween boys like? I have no clue. Sports? Probably sports.

Brett White, Comic Book Resources (via wandrinparakeet)

Sorry for not exercising my queue more, but y’all are posting some awesome stuff right now and I need it.
Like, now.

(via note-a-bear)

It’s true, most online fandoms are dominated, driven, crafted and directed by women and have been for as long as I’ve been participated online. Women rock.

(via everythingbutharleyquinn)