Great Expectations (Not Really)

Just another weird child of the internet.

Fandoms:
-Homestuck
-My Little Pony
-Doctor Who
-Fairy Tail
-Tales of Graces

Hobbies:
-Photography
-Drawing
-Reading
-Writing
-Singing
-Interior Design
dduane:

petermorwood:

„Strumpfwaschmaschineangst“ (the uncertainty of what happens to socks in the wash) is a recognised condition somewhere I can’t quite remember at the moment, and a parable about the ineffability of life manipulated by a greater power than itself. Or something like that, anyway.

And my fave socks, the Rossmann ones, have done just this. Maddening.

dduane:

petermorwood:

„Strumpfwaschmaschineangst“ (the uncertainty of what happens to socks in the wash) is a recognised condition somewhere I can’t quite remember at the moment, and a parable about the ineffability of life manipulated by a greater power than itself.

Or something like that, anyway.

And my fave socks, the Rossmann ones, have done just this. Maddening.

badrowboats:

Because people need to stop hating on other people for shipping whatever characters they feel like. And the injustice isn’t coming from the neutral tags either…

(From a big-name Stand With Nazis person who reblogged my shit this morning.)

It’s so unfair that I go around…

Honestly, people really should use whatever tags they want if people are going to go around stalking the tags meant to exclude them ANYWAY…

But that said, on my anti-Ward post most recently, I went with “GW is a villain” as a tag, seemed to do the trick

In the old days, NFL owners were rich men who accepted the risk of losing money as the cost of doing business. Thanks to the popularity of the game, the NFL and its owners—with the collusion of politicians—have created what amounts to a risk-free business environment. According to Long’s data, a dozen teams received more public money than they needed to build their facilities. Rather than going into debt, they turned a profit.

The perfect example: Seven of every ten dollars spent to build CenturyLink Field in Seattle came from the taxpayers of Washington State, $390 million total. The owner, Paul Allen, pays the state $1 million per year in “rent” and collects most of the $200 million generated. If you are wondering how to become, like Allen, one of the richest humans on earth, negotiating such a lease would be a good start.

In New Orleans, taxpayers have bankrolled roughly a billion dollars to build then renovate the Superdome, which we are now supposed to call the Mercedes-Benz Superdome. Guess who gets nearly all the revenues generated by Saints games played in this building? If you guessed all those hard-working stiffs who paid a billion dollars, you would be wrong. If you guessed billionaire owner Tom Benson, you would be right. He also receives $6 million per annum from the state as an “inducement payment” to keep him from moving the team.

That’s the same amount Cowboys owner Jerry Jones would pay each year in property taxes to Arlington, Texas, where his fancy new stadium is located. Except that Jones doesn’t pay property taxes because, like many of his fellow plutocrats, he’s cut a sweetheart deal with the local authorities.

Why Being a Football Fan Is Indefensible (via kenyatta)

Public funding of stadiums and arenas makes me so goddamn angry.

(via wilwheaton)

(via wilwheaton)

lastcenturykindagirl:

atheistj:

There are actual people who think that May and Skye calling Thor “dreamy” is the equivalent to Ward calling Maria Hill and Natasha Romanoff “eye candy.”

image

It’s called being delusional. One is just slightly more complementary than the other which…

*rips out hair in chunks*

I can’t… I don’t… I…  b…. buh…. 

WHERE DOES ONE EVEN START WITH THIS NONSENSE.

Were those people born with a brain because I’m pretty sure they weren’t

notbecauseofvictories:

also that whole tale of aragorn and arwen thing where he saw her in the woods at twenty and fell instantly in love and it’s very beren and luthien? lies.

aragorn decided he was going to marry arwen when he was like, six.

and everyone thought it was just the

thedeadguyintheback:

how much you wanna bet that was filler text that they completely forgot to replace with an actual caption

(via aghostpepper)

coelasquid:

comicsalliance:

WHY BIG SUPERHERO MUSCLES AREN’T ‘THE SAME THING’ AS SEXY CURVES

By Andrew Wheeler

As a man who reads superhero comics, I confess that I share a commonly-held prurient interest in big-chested, long-legged heroes in skin-baring costumes that barely cover their naughty bits — or as I like to call him, Namor.

Sadly, Namor is pretty much alone in his category. Contrary to the perception that male heroes in comics are frequently sexually objectified, it’s my experience that even Namor is only rarely presented as someone to lust over. Yet I’m fortunate that my tastes run towards the Hemsworth end of the scale. Like many straight men, I admire the kind of buff dudes that are the staple of superhero comics, even though they are rarely sexualized. If I shared the tastes of most of the women I know, I think I’d find superhero comics an even more frustratingly sexless wasteland.

Big muscles are a male fantasy. That’s not to say that women aren’t ever into them, but let’s face facts; women have never been the primary target audience for superhero comics, and male heroes are drawn with big muscles anyway. Make no mistake; women are there. But those big muscles are not there for women. They’re there for men; straight men who find male power exhilarating. If women didn’t exist, superheroes would be drawn just as buff as they are today — because as far as most superhero comics are concerned, women as consumers do not exist.

Yet I’ve seen it said more times than I can count that male heroes are objectified, sexualized, idealized, just the same as the women — because they’re big and ripped and dressed in tight costumes. It’s an idea that’s completely tied up in the narcissistic notion that androphile women are attracted to the same qualities that men find appealing.

Talk to a few women, and you’ll find that’s broadly untrue.

READ MORE

I realized at some point in a long history of being around guys who call every attractive dude they see “gay”, an unsettling number of straight dudes feel super uncomfortable around what is clearly supposed to be a sexually appealing man. Even if there’s a complete absence of evidence that he’s even gay at all and he’s completely minding his own business and not interacting with them in any way, it’s like if someone is attractive enough that this particular subsect of straight dudes are aware that he is desirable they freak out with insecurity at the fact that he’s handsome and they noticed.

Best example of it I can think of was this one time sitting in a restaurant with some friends and this group of dudes who looked like Russian models or something in white tank tops and jeans walked past us and sat down at a table on the other side of the room. There was kind of a moment of silence while they were passing, and as soon as they got out of earshot a lot of guffawing like “Ha ha they’re SO GAY am I right?” followed. And it was just like… Why? Because they’re so hot that your brain unwittingly acknowledged them as sexually appealing people? That sounds like a personal problem dude, I dunno. But that kind of behaviour is so normalized and so totally accepted in at least North American culture that companies will bend over backwards to accommodate these guys. I have no idea what market share “straight dudes who are super squicked out by sexy men” make up, but I can’t imagine they’re as much of a driving economic force as they’re given credit for.

So like… People can argue about the physiques being equally idealistic up and down the block, catering to that audience that freaks the fuck out out like they just saw a big gross bug when they see an attractive man presented in an alluring way are always going to push this false equivalency angle instead of acknowledging that if men in comics were on average actually as sexualized as women in comics regularly are, everything at your LCS would look like a Glen Hanson pinup

image

image

(via albinwonderland)

lastcenturykindagirl:

Everything in this episode of that show I watch can be related back to the 2 seconds of interaction they had back there. Promise.

gardnerhill:

mediamattersforamerica:

The issue with Fox’s misogyny toward female pilots is that it reinforces the very thing military women already deal with from male counterparts.

And veterans are speaking out.

Read an open letter to Fox about Eric Bolling’s “boobs on the ground” remark, written by U.S. military veterans from the Truman Nat’l Security project:

Before you jump to the standby excuse that you were “just making a joke” or “having a laugh,” let the men amongst our number preemptively respond: You are not funny. You are not clever. And you are not excused. Perhaps the phrase “boys will be boys”—inevitably uttered wherever misogyny is present—is relevant. Men would never insult and demean a fellow servicemember; boys think saying the word ‘boobs’ is funny.

The less obvious implication of your remarks, however, is that by offending an ally and cheapening her contribution, you are actively hurting the mission. We need to send a clear message that anyone, male or female, who will stand up to ISIS and get the job done is worthy of our respect and gratitude.

We issue an apology on your behalf to Major Al Mansouri knowing that anything your producers force you to say will be contrived and insincere. Major, we’re sincerely sorry for the rudeness; clearly, these boys don’t take your service seriously, but we and the rest of the American public do.

Disclosure: Lisa Reed is a Media Matters employee. 

Remember: To the pigs at Fox (and their masters Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes) - and every man who thinks like them - a woman could find the cure for cancer or be a war hero, and she’d still be the focus of 1960s-era jokes about how women are brainless sex toys.

(via dduane)