ZThemes

irresistible-revolution:

laffbending:

sokkasass:

can we talk about joan outsmarted moriarty

a woman of color outsmarted a white woman

this doesn’t happen often

thank you elementary writers

#’the mascot’ #yeah that mascot just outsmarted your ass moriarty

image

(Source: euglassia--watsonia)

lynzave:

If you ever sent me a nice anon message I hope all your dreams come true and may your harvest be bountiful

versacebitch:

the worst thing about speaking two languages is trying to use an expression from one language that fits perfectly into your conversation but the other person won’t get it

First volume of Shaman King: A young boy discovers that he can see ghosts.
Last volume of Shaman King: TWO BROTHERS FIGHT TO THE DEATH AFTER SEVERAL BLOODY MASSACRES TO SEE WHO GETS OWNERSHIP OF GOD

spazure:

spyroshy:

if we talk and we get really close and stuff and then for like a while afterwards I don’t make much of an effort to talk to you

I’m really sorry

That’s just how I function and its not because I don’t like you anymore or I don’t think about you

I just forget a lot and want to be alone and I get wrapped up in myself and my life and I get distracted so I’m really sorry

TO: anyone who has ever been my friend ever

Muslims face prejudice, but Muslims from the Caucasus face a particular kind of prejudice - the kind born of ignorance so great it perversely imbues everything with significance. “There is never interpretation, understanding and knowledge when there is no interest,” Edward Said wrote in Covering Islam , and until this week, there was so little interest in and knowledge of the Caucasus that the ambassador of the Czech Republic felt compelled to issue a press release stating that the Czech Republic is not the same as Chechnya.

Knowing nothing of the Tsarnaevs’ motives, and little about Chechens, the American media tore into Wikipedia and came back with stereotypes. The Tsarnaevs were stripped of their 21st century American life and became symbols of a distant land, forever frozen in time. Journalist Eliza Shapiro proclaimed that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was “named after a brutal warlord”, despite the fact that Tamerlan, or Timur, is an ordinary first name in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Her claim is equivalent to saying a child named Nicholas must be named in honour of ruthless Russian tsar Nicholas I - an irony apparently lost on New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who made a similar denouncement on Twitter (to his credit, Kristof quickly retracted the comment).

Other journalists found literary allusions, or rather, illusions. “They were playing the nihilists Arkady and Bazarov in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons ,” explained scholar Juan Cole, citing an 1862 Russian novel to explain the motives of a criminal whose Twitter account was full of American rap lyrics. One does not recall such use of literary devices to ascertain the motives of less exotic perpetrators, but who knows? Perhaps some ambitious analyst is plumbing the works of Faulkner to shed light on that Mississippi Elvis impersonator who tried to send ricin to Obama.

Still others turned to social media as a gateway to the Chechen soul. Journalist Julia Ioffe - after explaining the Tsarnaevs through Tolstoy, Pushkin, and, of course, Stalin - cites the younger Tsarnaev’s use of the Russian website VKontakte as proof of his inability to assimilate, then ranks the significance of his personal photos.

“The most revealing image of Dzhokhar is not the one of him hugging an African-American friend at his high school graduation, but the one of him sitting at a kitchen table with his arm around a guy his age who appears to be of Central Asian descent,” she writes . “In front of them is a dish plov , a Central Asian dish of rice and meat, and a bottle of Ranch dressing.” Again, it is difficult to imagine a journalist writing with such breathtaking arrogance - why is the Central Asian friend more “revealing” than the African-American one? What, exactly, are they “revealing”? - about the inner life of someone from a more familiar place.

One way to test whether you are reading a reasonable analysis of the Tsarnaev case - and yes, they exist - is to replace the word “Chechen” with another ethnicity. “I could always spot the Chechens in Vienna,” writes journalist Oliver Bulloughs in the New York Times . “They were darker-haired than the Austrians; they dressed more snappily, like 1950s gangsters; they never had anything to do.” Now substitute the word “Jews” for “Chechens”. Minority-hunting in Vienna never ends well .

Sarah Kendzior, “The Wrong Kind Of Causcasian,” Al Jazeera 4/21/13 (via racialicious)

When I was in Saudi for my Hajj, I saw a very strange kind of hostile prejudice for the Muslims from the Caucasus (again, light skin ≠ White), and I learned from my father about the ridiculous, petty reasons for it. I spent most of my evenings around Maghrib prayer with some of the most loving, humble Chechen Muslims.

After the Boston events, not only did Twitter prove the majority knows virtually nothing about the Caucasus, so did Tumblr with its lack of knowledge, biased behavior in addition to “smart” journalists - all of this proved how shallow the understanding of these people was. The very same bias polices and erases identity. 

(via mehreenkasana)

bigdamndragonlady:

Can we talk about how Elementary casted a trans*woman as a trans*woman

Can we talk about how they didn’t make her storyline about how she is trans* AND she was seen as something desirable

Can we talk about how she had OCD but it wasn’t something that was made fun of or a big deal at all, nor did it define her character

Can we talk about how in the scene where Watson was changing on camera, they didn’t make it sexual nor objectified her body whatsoever.

Can we talk about the huge amount of minorities in the Elementary cast, ALONG WITH A MAIN CHARACTER BEING A WOMAN OF COLOR

Can we talk about how changing Watson into a woman didn’t change the dynamic of Sherlock and Watson’s relationship whatsoever, thus showing that a man and a woman can be friends without any romantic entanglements whatsoever, and the writers intend to keep it that way

Can we just talk about HOW FUCKING PERFECT ELEMENTARY IS AND IF YOU DON’T WATCH IT JUST BECAUSE WATSON IS A WOMAN THAN YOU’RE MISSING OUT

(Source: watsoniaeuglasia)

transientsound:

redbeautyftw:

^^^ this.

Unfortunately. 

(Source: confessuponatime)

theongreyjoy:

PSA: if somebody likes a problematic/unhealthy ship but doesn’t try to defend the problematic elements of that ship and simply enjoys it in a fictional/narrative context with all of it’s fucked up ness and you attack them and bring their personal morality into question for shipping it,  you are the asshole in that situation. 

reloha:

obamalock:

you know, if Moriarty had something to do with Irene’s disappearance/death (as opposed to Irene using the killing spree as a tool to disappear herself)

I sort of hope he had no idea about her relationship with Sherlock. And that if he caused her to disappear or if he killed her, it was for reasons unrelated to Sherlock

And if Moriarty didn’t have anything to do with her, and she just used the killing spree as a ruse or red herring, then I hope her disappearance had nothing to do with anything happening in Sherlock’s life—I hope it had something to do with things happening in her own life separate from him

because one of my favorite things about Irene Adler and her relationship to Sherlock is how Sherlock and everyone else was a bit player in her story; even though it was told from Sherlock & Watson’s POV, she was the “good guy” being hounded by Sherlock when all she wanted to do was start her life with her husband.

Like I just want it to turn out she had her own adventures that had nothing to do with Sherlock, and maybe even nothing to do with Moriarty

Fantastic.

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of either gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

— Lindy West for Jezebel: “If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?” (via lauratheoutlandish)

(Source: jezebel.com)

thepanicmoon:

I want queer people to be able to turn on the tv and see themselves.

i want them to be able to watch a shitty romantic comedy with an obvious plot and see themselves, to watch a serious tv show about vampire killing FBI agents and see themselves, to watch a fairytale kid’s movie and see themselves-

i want queer people to count as people outside of shitty, offensive dramas that see queerness as a gate to more drama, something all-defining and life-ruining, written by writers who don’t care enough to learn what’s a stereotype and what’s reality and still want cookies for putting goddamn cardboard cuttouts on their show-

and i want that queerness to be evident and unarguable.

i don’t want shitty backhanded references to a dude’s “friendliness” with his best friend-

i don’t want half-hearted mentions of a main character’s gay friend in an attempt to prove that the character and that the show aren’t homophobic-

I don’t want queerbaiting, that straight viewers can claim was just a joke, because it was, it’s just a joke the show can profit off for “representing” someone they don’t even fucking count as enough of a person to deserve to be treated with respect-

And i want queer ladies and queer dudes and genderqueer queers and i want them to be different races and classes and have different goals and opinions and lifestyles and fashion choices and interests and lives and challenges, because queer people are not one, shitty, poorly done stereotype

I want to count as a fucking person 

i want every single queer person to count as a fucking person

a person whose story isn’t a joke, isn’t something to be ashamed of, isn’t something you see once in an afterschool special about not bullying people, until they get “turned straight” or “fixed” or “just hadn’t met the right person” or fucking kill themselves or turn out to be the villain if they “stay queer” because being queer means one has to be ‘punished’ for it-

I want us to fucking count, and i want the media to acknowledge we count.

Why I almost defriended everyone who had an HRC logo…

agnesgalore:

It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that, though I didn’t think about this at the time, I probably started a blog because I need somewhere to vent my boundless rage that is not random people’s Facebook walls. I mean, one thing among the many thousands of things that are guaranteed to raise my blood pressure is when folks get all “the internet isn’t real, and it’s not a viable platform for communication,” but also like, Facebook fights are dumb, I’m supposed to be an adult now.

So here’s the thing that got me all het up this week: gay marriage.

 

Specifically, these goddamn things: 

image

Read More

b3wbi3s:

i’ve told most of my friends about this but it warranted a full post on tumblr

trigger warning: rape

Read More

eatyourpaisley:

queenofadodi:

Men had no problem violating women’s bodies while they had on corsets, petticoats and farthingales, so what the fuck makes you think a short skirt has anything to do with it? 

holy shit

(Source: morenamagia)