(Source: beyoncevoters)

socimages:

Girl-on-girl action: A new visual landscape.

Perusing my Facebook feed, I came across a photo proudly posted by a former student — now a hair and makeup artist — of two brides at a wedding.  It was beautiful and the young, conventionally attractive brides were leaning in for a kiss.  

When I saw the image, my mind immediately pulled up similar images it has in storage — frequently described as girl-on-girl action – and I was struck by the similarity of the images and their powerfully different messages.

Until recently, girl-on-girl action was the only type of visual that showed women kissing. Genuine and open female same-sex attraction was almost entirely invisible, hidden and denied.  Today, the proliferation of same-sex marriages offer a new visual landscape for framing what it means for two women to kiss each other.

The meaning, moreover, could not be more different.  Girl-on-girl action shots are ostensibly between two heterosexually-oriented women who are kissing for male attention.  These brides are doing the opposite of that.  They are displaying love and commitment to one another. The kiss is for them and no one else and they are, implicitly if not actually, openly committing to making themselves sexually unavailable to anyone else, male or female.  This is far from kissing a girl to get boys to want you.

I wonder how these images — ones that depict sexual intimacy between women who love one another and do not seek male attention — will ultimately change how we think about “girl-on-girl” action in the U.S.  As they proliferate, will they push back against the male-centrism and heterocentrism of our society?  I think they very well might.

Congrats to the newlyweds! Their wedding photos can be found herehere, and here.

Lisa Wade is a professo1r of sociology at Occidental College and the author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, with Myra Marx Ferree. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

socimages:

How to change the world one shrug at a time.
This is, by far, the best response to inquiries about male cross-dressing that I have ever heard. If you don’t already love Eddie Izzard, you might now. His response in a nutshell? “I’m not wearing women’s dresses. I’m wearing my dresses. I bought them. They are mine and I’m a man. They are very clearly a man’s dresses.”
Johnny Depp does a similarly good job of refusing to take the bait in this clip from the Late Show with David Letterman. Letterman queries his rationale for wearing a women’s engagement ring. Depp just plays dumb and ultimately says that it didn’t fit his fiancée, but it did fit him. So… shrug.
The phenomenon of being questioned about one’s performance of gender is called “gender policing.” Generally there are three ways to respond to gender policing: (1) apologize and follow the gender rules, (2) make an excuse for why you’re breaking the rules (which allows you to break them, but still affirms the rules), or (3) do something that suggests that the rules are stupid or wrong.  Only the last one is effective in changing or eradicating norms delimiting how men and women are expected to behave.
In these examples, both Izzard and Depp made the choice to disregard the rules, even when being policed. It seems like a simple thing, but it’s very significant. It’s the best strategy for getting rid of these rules altogether.
Thanks to Dmitriy T.C. for the links!
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter andFacebook.

socimages:

How to change the world one shrug at a time.

This is, by far, the best response to inquiries about male cross-dressing that I have ever heard. If you don’t already love Eddie Izzard, you might now. His response in a nutshell? “I’m not wearing women’s dresses. I’m wearing my dresses. I bought them. They are mine and I’m a man. They are very clearly a man’s dresses.”

Johnny Depp does a similarly good job of refusing to take the bait in this clip from the Late Show with David Letterman. Letterman queries his rationale for wearing a women’s engagement ring. Depp just plays dumb and ultimately says that it didn’t fit his fiancée, but it did fit him. So… shrug.

The phenomenon of being questioned about one’s performance of gender is called “gender policing.” Generally there are three ways to respond to gender policing: (1) apologize and follow the gender rules, (2) make an excuse for why you’re breaking the rules (which allows you to break them, but still affirms the rules), or (3) do something that suggests that the rules are stupid or wrong.  Only the last one is effective in changing or eradicating norms delimiting how men and women are expected to behave.

In these examples, both Izzard and Depp made the choice to disregard the rules, even when being policed. It seems like a simple thing, but it’s very significant. It’s the best strategy for getting rid of these rules altogether.

Thanks to Dmitriy T.C. for the links!

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter andFacebook.

(Source: a-n-t-i-gone, via projectqueer)

demdimpleskhudobin:

If we empty out hearts every night, they won’t get too heavy or cluttered. Our hearts will stay light and open with lots of room for good, new things to come. -Glennon Doyle Melton 

A year later, we remember and remain strong. |4/15/13-4/15/14|

(via nandoismcfly)

socimages:

Survey questions matter.
A survey finds that 98% faith-driven customers are dissatisfied with Hollywood depictions of biblical events. Huh, I wonder how they got that statistic?
It turns out, they were asked this question:

"As a Faith Driven Consumer, are you satisfied with a Biblically themed movie — designed to appeal to you — which replaces the Bible’s core message with one created by Hollywood?"

Sociologist Jay Livingston says no, just no, at Sociological Images.

socimages:

Survey questions matter.

A survey finds that 98% faith-driven customers are dissatisfied with Hollywood depictions of biblical events. Huh, I wonder how they got that statistic?

It turns out, they were asked this question:

"As a Faith Driven Consumer, are you satisfied with a Biblically themed movie — designed to appeal to you — which replaces the Bible’s core message with one created by Hollywood?"

Sociologist Jay Livingston says no, just no, at Sociological Images.

(Source: caturday)

tastefullyoffensive:

Get well soon. [x]

tastefullyoffensive:

Get well soon. [x]

(via boomchickapoop)

thethoughtsofacook:

therealdestructables:


phoenix5power:

This actually made me fucking cry.

I find this really fucking relevant today of all days.


Life in 20s.

thethoughtsofacook:

therealdestructables:

phoenix5power:

This actually made me fucking cry.

I find this really fucking relevant today of all days.

Life in 20s.

(via wertheyouth)

gemmafemma:

From my Limited Edition zine You Don’t Know Me, made for Sticky Institute’s Feed The Animals 2014 (now all sold out, sorry!)

More of my zines and artwork on my Etsy store <3 <3 <3

www.gemmaflack.com

(via wertheyouth)

"the fact that “love your body” rhetoric shifts the responsibility for body acceptance over to the individual, and away from communities, institutions, and power, is also problematic. individuals who do not love their bodies, who find their bodies difficult to love, are seen as being part of the problem. the underlying assumption is that if we all loved our bodies just as they are, our fat-shaming, beauty-policing culture would be different. if we don’t love our bodies, we are, in effect, perpetuating normative (read: impossible) beauty standards. if we don’t love our individual bodies, we are at fault for collectively continuing the oppressive and misogynistic culture. if you don’t love your body, you’re not trying hard enough to love it. in this framework, your body is still the paramount focus, and one way or another, you’re failing. it’s too close to the usual body-shaming, self-policing crap, albeit with a few quasi-feminist twists, for comfort."

on “loving your body” (via silkchemise)

Pretty sure I’ve reblogged this before, but the sentiment still rings true. White supremacy makes me feel ugly as shit 99% of the time, and in the moments where I express my feelings of ugliness to feminist friends I am met with “why don’t you love yourself better?” “Omg you need a lots of self care” (which i dont always have the luxury of time/money for) and the worst of them, “Honey I think something’s really wrong with you, you need professional help :(“

Man, fuck that shit. The only “help” I need is good friends who want to help tear down the system with me. More often then not, however, my self-esteem dips and emotional responses to systemic oppressions usually result in my being told I’m not doing a good enough job of loving myself, instead of recognizing that we live in a world that makes it virtually impossible for marginalized (fat, brown, differently abled) folks to love our bodies in the first place.

(via tothedirigible)

Important

(via iamoffendedbecause)

(via tangledupinlace)

staythatswhatimeanttosay:

By request: this is how much I love you guys. This could be considered the blooper reel of our wedding. 

Photography credit goes to the awesome Megan Clemence. Ch-ch-check her out!