"You mean the generation that paid three times as much for college to enter a job market with triple the unemployment isn’t interested in purchasing the assets of the generation who just blew an enormous housing bubble and kept it from popping through quantitative easing and out-and-out federal support? Curious."

When comments are better than the article, Atlantic edition (“The Cheapest Generation: Why Millennials aren’t buying cars or houses, and what that means for the economy”)

The Atlantic also recently pondered why millennials aren’t having babies. Um… because kids are fucking expensive? Just a thought.

(via thebicker)

(Source: bostonreview, via kaotosaurion)

nenya-kanadka:

sophiagratia:

there’s a thing that happens in internet apology discourse that i want to address.

'when someone calls you out, it is your job to immediately apologize. do not defend yourself, apologize.’

this is a reaction to people who say racist/sexist/transphobic/classist/misogynist/etc things, and then instead of examining what they’ve said and trying to take a lesson in self-awareness and humility, get defensive and resort to tone-policing, gaslighting, derailing, good old-fashioned patronizing, or any of a number of other possible rhetorical postures designed to make the injured party sit down and shut up. to that degree, encouraging self-examination as a first instinct is important.

and how this works depends a lot on who receives this discourse, it really does.

HOWEVER.

i see ‘shut up and apologize’ being used as a general, universal rule of thumb, the law of how to engage with being called out.

and i believe that it is also wrong to encourage people to assume that because someone on the internet has told them they are wrong, they must necessarily be wrong, must necessarily owe an apology. it is wrong to preach ‘shut up and apologize’ because call-out culture can very easily function as a form of bullying: by adopting an ostensibly righteous political position and using the terms of what passes for ‘social justice’ discourse, one person can easily set themselves up as an authority in a way that does not give their interlocutor any room to maneuver. the caller-out might be wrong. ‘shut up and apologize’ dismisses that possibility.

'shut up and apologize' discourages active, continuous critique. kneejerk political correctness stands against engaged thought.

but above all it enables the accuser to disregard their own blindspots. the accuser needn’t be a careful reader. the accuser needn’t consider the multiple axes of power and meaning at work in a given statement.

'shut up' might be a good first step. do not react immediately. sit with your discomfort for a while. ask yourself why it is uncomfortable. what specifically is this person reacting to in what you've said? disregard their tone for just a minute, and ask yourself what the content of what they've said conveys about what you might not know or understand, what experiences might not be available to you. take that time for thought, because thought takes time, and because you owe yourself the opportunity to learn something.

but don’t apologize as a first instinct. even if an apology is due (and admittedly, it’s not unlikely that an apology is due), it only matters if you know what you’re apologizing for. i often find myself saying to people, ‘i don’t want you to apologize, i want you to think about this. i want you to not do it again.’ i don’t care about the apology. i care about the thought, the learning.

and it is possible that you do not owe an apology. it is possible that you are being bullied by a call-out artist who is using the framework of ‘social justice’ to leverage some authority for themself. it is possible that they are being just as thoughtless as they are accusing you of being.

accusation and apology are shitty tools for a rhetoric of justice. ‘shut up and apologize’ does not look to me like a path to liberation.

"i believe that it is also wrong to encourage people to assume that because someone on the internet has told them they are wrong, they must necessarily be wrong"

"one person can easily set themselves up as an authority in a way that does not give their interlocutor any room to maneuver"

—-

This, yes. The instinct to stop, think about it, consider that the other person may have a point even if they’re not expressing it the way you would or are telling you you’re wrong is a GOOD one. But you have the right to engage your brain. You do not have to knuckle under every time someone disagrees with you, even if they are doing so loudly. Even if they are doing it in the name of a good cause. 

I think this is especially important for people socialized female, and/or survivors of emotional abuse, and/or people with anxiety issues. 

You are not always wrong. Just give it a second, think about it, take some deep breaths, and don’t reply with either apologies or flames in the heat of the moment. 

(via hellscabanaboy)

bornonthebattleground asked: Ok, don't get me wrong because it's just curiosity, but I have to ask: how much of Supernatural is in Demon's Lexicon, if any? Please don't get this wrong, i love your books, it's a great story with great characters (and better storytelling, to be fair). It's just that I started to watch it recently and some similiarities struck me. And because it would be SO great if someone made a tv show out of DL :)

sarahreesbrennan:

Oh, you poor sweetie. Please don’t feel at all self-conscious about asking this question, because it’s totally fine, and I so appreciate you saying you like the books (and I would love to have a TV show!) but this is actually something that comes up a lot. This ask about my books is really nice, which is why I chose it, because people have told me they find hostile asks upsetting. I do myself.

Since this question DOES come up a lot, sometimes in not-so-nice ways, I figured maybe I could use this nice question and write some kind of Ultimate Tumblr Answer to all such questions so I wouldn’t have to answer it again. 

This is going to be kind of a BIG answer and it might feel overwhelming, so check out of it any time after the simple answer, which is:

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

There is no Supernatural in my books. I promise you.

I have only seen a few episodes of the first season of Supernatural, back maybe six years ago, and I didn’t enjoy it. (Which doesn’t mean that people can’t enjoy it. Many people cooler than me enjoy it. I have a brilliant lady astrophysicist friend who owns all the box sets!) I’m not going to go into why I didn’t enjoy it, because then people will come and argue with me about my judgy ways, and criticise all the stuff like Vampire Diaries and Teen Wolf that I do like. Fair enough, people. Let us all like what we like, accept that we like different things, and everything will be lovely!

I always feel like I have to be careful talking about Supernatural: if any Supernatural fans read the Demon’s Lexicon series and think to themselves, ‘Hey, this contains some of the stuff what I like, i.e. demons and brothers (the only two things TDL and SPN have in common)’ - then fabulous. I want people to read my books, and whatever way they get to my books is wonderful.

But it’s also important to be clear and honest: I would not base a book series on a TV show I never saw much of, and which I didn’t enjoy. That would be a lot of time to devote to stuff I didn’t enjoy! I wouldn’t do it. (Why do people think I would? Well, we’ll get to that later.)

There are a lot of demon stories out there, and a lot of family stories out there, but here are some obvious dissimilarities between Supernatural and the Demon’s Lexicon series:

1. The brothers in Supernatural are actually blood related, while the brothers I wrote about are not blood related. They are not even the same species.

2. One of the brothers in Demon’s Lexicon is disabled.

3. Road-Trip-Through-Small-Town America is a very distinct aesthetic Supernatural seemed to be going for. Can’t be achieved when your setting is England. The magic system itself is rooted in American folklore—mine is totally different.

4. There are ladies in my series who are present in every book and important, whereas I do not believe the Supernatural series has a female lead present in every episode or indeed season.

5. There’s also a queer character present and important in every book, and I do not believe the Supernatural series has a queer character present in every episode. Or indeed season.

6. There are no angels in my world and I understand angels become pretty important in Supernatural. Obviously, they like angels and I like—other stuff.

This has come out seeming judgy of Supernatural after all. I understand that Supernatural now has a queer lady character played by Felicia Day, and that’s excellent. I don’t mean to bag on Supernatural. But it is a very different story to the story in my books, and its creators have very different priorities to me, and I think that’s pretty clear.

There’s something else to be discussed here, which is that people may say unto me: Why’d you write books about brothers and demons if you didn’t want people to think your books were fanfiction, you dumb jerk?

I have two answers to that.

1) I can write what I like and I think it’s gross to say that I can’t.

2) It wouldn’t have mattered what I wrote about. Every book I’ve ever written gets this. My books haven’t just been called Supernatural fanfiction. They get called Harry Potter fanfiction, too. Definitely! How would I have the ability to come up with my own characters? 

No, the hero of Demon’s Lexicon is definitely Harry Potter. (Y’all remember that Harry Potter was an evil demon, right?) And Unspoken is definitely Harry Potter too. (Y’all remember that Harry Potter was a part-Japanese sassy girl detective? As well as being an evil demon. That Harry Potter. Such a multi-faceted individual.) 

My books are also Twilight fanfiction. (What isn’t?) And Full Metal Alchemist fanfiction. Just ceaseless fanfiction. And that means of course that the books are very, very bad.

My books get called fanfiction all the time, I think, for two reasons:

a) I am a girl. Dudes get to write perceived-as-derivative/actually-derivative fiction all the time and it’s a HOMAGE, but girls can’t do either. People decide girls’ stuff is derivative and lousy all the time, whereas boys’ stuff is part of a literary tradition and an important conversation. This is sexist and terrible.

Neil Gaiman referenced Asimov in Neverwhere: 

http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/66578815533/my-father-claims-the-line-violence-was-the-last-refuge

And G.K. Chesterton in Coraline:

http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/42909304300/my-moms-a-librarian-and-planning-to-put-literary

And William Gibson in Neverwhere:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2004/12/some-days-bears-on-top.asp

Yet I do not see Neil Gaiman getting chased around and called a plagiarist like I was this summer when I wrote three words which also appear in the Hunger Games! (And before that, as it turns out, in The Emperor’s New Groove. Llamas, sue the Hunger Games!)

I am very tired of seeing women insulted for things every dude in the world is allowed to do. It is not literary critique. It is violent misogyny.

image

b) I used to write fanfiction. (These two issues—sexism and fanfiction—are actually very closely intertwined, because writing fanfiction is something that mostly girls do, and thus like all things Associated With Ladies, such as sewing and pink, is treated as dumb and worthless. And fanfiction, as I’m going to discuss, provides people with a narrative that go ‘why this lady actually sucks’ and people love narratives which say that.)

For those who didn’t know I used to write fanfiction, it’s obviously irrelevant to your opinion of me, and honestly, you can cut out here. Definitely if the person who asked me about Supernatural this time around wants to cut out here… they should. I am about to get mad. It is not your fault. I have just got this too many times, and I have had it up to here.

When someone is traditionally published after writing fanfiction, they get treated like trash, both by people who think fanfiction is weird rubbish and by people who themselves like to write and read fanfiction.

Read More

""White feminism" does not mean every white woman, everywhere, who happens to identify as feminist. It also doesn’t mean that every "white feminist" identifies as white. I see "white feminism" as a specific set of single-issue, non-intersectional, superficial feminist practices. It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. "White feminism" is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context. It is the feminism that doesn’t consider race as a factor in the struggle for equality.

White feminism is a set of beliefs that allows for the exclusion of issues that specifically affect women of colour. It is “one size-fits all” feminism, where middle class white women are the mould that others must fit. It is a method of practicing feminism, not an indictment of every individual white feminist, everywhere, always."

This Is What I Mean When I Say “White Feminism” (via becauseiamawoman)

-

One of the most helpful things I’ve heard as advice for people with privilege when it comes to discussions like these is: “If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.”

In other words, if you try to be an ally and you’re a white feminist, or male, or a straight person, et al, and you see people complaining about oppressive practices of white feminists or men or straight people et al., and you feel the urge to say “Hey, we’re not all like that, I don’t do those things, what about us allies, what about me” …don’t. If you hear ‘White feminists don’t care about women of color,” and you’re white and a feminist and you care about women of color— then you’re not who they’re talking about when they say “white feminists.” If it’s not about you, don’t make it about you.

If someone is talking about people who behave differently from you, then they’re not talking about you, so you don’t need to get defensive. If that shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. Don’t take it personally when it’s pointed out that lots of people similar to you wear that shoe. Don’t seek praise for not wearing the shoe, or start whining that hey, don’t generalize, not all XYZ people wear oppressive shoes. Or like Dorothy’s ruby slippers in the Wizard of Oz, they might magically appear on your feet.

(via feministsupernatural)

This is makes sense.

(via brownpuffball)

(via lifeofkj)

kecrambles:

lexyeevee:

thatsalamenceguy:

beaky-peartree:

feminismisahatemovement:

Mmmm… I can almost taste that equality….You know. Almost .

OH MY JESUS CHRIST ALRMIGHT Y IN THE SKY IT IS TO SHOW HOW IT IS UNFAIR THAT WOMEN GET PAID AOBUT 75 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR A MAN EARNS THATS WHY JFUCKING FUCK

Except that wage gap is a myth that has been debunked ages ago.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/02/01/the_gender_wage_gap_is_a_myth_324880.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

all of these links confirm that yes, in fact, women do make less than men—but we’ve decided that the reasons are unimportant as long as we can write them off as pure personal choice instead of problems of culture and opportunity
look at that daily beast one: most of the most lucrative majors are engineering, and utterly male-dominated. i have hear no end of anecdotes about women being driven away from science and engineering majors (or even classes, earlier) for one reason or another. everything from being uncomfortable as the only woman in a classroom to having a teacher outright say “give up now, women aren’t suited for this”. i can’t imagine how bad it is in an industry like truck driving.
hell, that same article says at the very bottom that white house staff alone have a 12% pay gap, so i don’t know where it gets off claiming the pay gap doesn’t exist
your cbs article links to [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192](another one) that outright says: “women with a bachelor’s degree had median earnings of $39,571, compared with $59,079 for men … At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.”
let alone that women are often seen as less desirable employees because they might have children (even if they don’t have any now), women are less likely to be promoted to management (so they actually cannot do the same job), female-dominated careers are less likely to have bonuses and other retirement incentives (so women have less saving power), etc.
the gap may not be 23% for any given particular job when controlling for every other factor, but only a massive fucking jackass would look at all those other factors, see the 23% still exists, and shrug and say “well i guess it’s their problem then”

bravo

kecrambles:

lexyeevee:

thatsalamenceguy:

beaky-peartree:

feminismisahatemovement:

Mmmm… I can almost taste that equality….
You know. Almost .

OH MY JESUS CHRIST ALRMIGHT Y IN THE SKY IT IS TO SHOW HOW IT IS UNFAIR THAT WOMEN GET PAID AOBUT 75 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR A MAN EARNS THATS WHY JFUCKING FUCK

Except that wage gap is a myth that has been debunked ages ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/02/01/the_gender_wage_gap_is_a_myth_324880.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/the-biggest-myth-about-the-gender-wage-gap/276367/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

all of these links confirm that yes, in fact, women do make less than men—but we’ve decided that the reasons are unimportant as long as we can write them off as pure personal choice instead of problems of culture and opportunity

look at that daily beast one: most of the most lucrative majors are engineering, and utterly male-dominated. i have hear no end of anecdotes about women being driven away from science and engineering majors (or even classes, earlier) for one reason or another. everything from being uncomfortable as the only woman in a classroom to having a teacher outright say “give up now, women aren’t suited for this”. i can’t imagine how bad it is in an industry like truck driving.

hell, that same article says at the very bottom that white house staff alone have a 12% pay gap, so i don’t know where it gets off claiming the pay gap doesn’t exist

your cbs article links to [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192](another one) that outright says: “women with a bachelor’s degree had median earnings of $39,571, compared with $59,079 for men … At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.”

let alone that women are often seen as less desirable employees because they might have children (even if they don’t have any now), women are less likely to be promoted to management (so they actually cannot do the same job), female-dominated careers are less likely to have bonuses and other retirement incentives (so women have less saving power), etc.

the gap may not be 23% for any given particular job when controlling for every other factor, but only a massive fucking jackass would look at all those other factors, see the 23% still exists, and shrug and say “well i guess it’s their problem then”

bravo

(Source: whenthingsgoterriblywrong, via dapperwings)

61,582 notes

"Polite reminder for straight people who say “who cares” when someone comes out: such gestures are addressed to lonely queer kids. not you."

Tweet by Danny Bowes (@moviesbybowes).

I want to retweet and reblog that a million times. (via alliahart)

(via gallifreybebe)

18,456 notes

Anonymous asked: Hi Froggy! As usual, the internet does not give a very good example of a social movement. The men's rights movement is actually mostly concerned with addressing the lack of justice for male victims of rape & domestic violence, more prominent mental illness & suicide in men, family court bias & selective military service, as well as social attitudes towards male disposability and incompetence. Not shorts in the workplace. And it certainly isn't about perpetuating misogyny. Have a good one!

thefrogman:

I’ve been to the forums. I’ve interacted with the people. I’ve tried to give the men’s rights movement a chance. Unfortunately the people involved are much more concerned about derailing and dismantling feminism than actually solving any of those issues. As if they can’t make any progress until feminism is destroyed. 

"Family court is unfair and biased towards women. Those darn feminists!" Except that the majority of lawmakers are old white men. From federal to state legislature… they created all the rules, regulations, and laws that govern the courts. They think they are doing men a favor. "Raising children is a woman’s job. Just send a check every month and let them take care of the ankle biters." And the whole family court system is pretty dysfunctional. It isn’t a utopia for mothers that grants their every wish. Mothers and fathers both have the same enemy. They have to influence the same lawmakers to improve the system. 

Male rape victims don’t get taken seriously. Again, most detectives are men. Most of the police leadership are men. The lawmakers are mostly men. So let’s blame feminism for not getting justice.

You really don’t think women care about male victims of abuse? Many feminists are mothers of sons. Sons who they love to no end. Of course they care. Of course they want the justice system to care about their sons. Which is why feminists want to dismantle the system that says that men are strong and women are weak. The system that says men cannot really be raped. 

The problem lies in how MRAs react to feminism. They see people talking about women’s issues and their reaction is not one of empathy. It is always, “What about us? Bad stuff happens to us too.” Just like that fellow who saw women trying to talk about their hardships in a work environment. He pipes in and complains about not being able to wear shorts. And worse, he equates his issue with theirs even though they aren’t even close in magnitude. Yes, it was a ridiculous example, but it perfectly demonstrated this common reaction men seem to have. When someone is talking about their problems, the proper response is not to reply with a list of your problems. No one is saying that your problems don’t matter, just that this isn’t the proper time to talk about them. 

If the MRAs continue to derail every conversation by making it about them, they are not going to be taken seriously. There is plenty of space to talk about men’s issues. They don’t need to invade the space of feminism to be heard. And if they keep thinking women are the enemy, even though women are actually trying to make progress with some of the very issues you mentioned, they aren’t going to have much luck actually solving anything they care about.

8,314 notes

non-westernhistoricalfashion:

redamancer:

the worst part about shitty tumblr activism are people from the west who automatically assume that the way oppression functions in the west is the same way it functions in the rest of the world

which is terrible for a couple of reasons

1) white people don’t own everything

2) no seriously they don’t white people oppressing people is not an issue in places where white people are neither majority nor the ruling power and to assume so makes you incredibly ignorant and a little bit arrogant.

3) the complete and utter ignorance when it comes to intersectionality, as if being a person of color makes it impossible to oppress other people of color, or that somehow any place devoid of a white power structure is somehow perfect. it’s not like the indian or malay populations in singapore are oppressed by the chinese-singaporean majority. it’s not like india still functions on a fucking caste system. it stinks of ignorance and exotification.

4) the idea that no one had problems in any country ever until white people came along. while i am not disputing the fact colonialism fucked certain parts of the world, there are problems in countries that actually have nothing to do with white people

also thinking that countries with problems that have plagued them for years and years can somehow be fixed by western intervention because it is somehow ‘better’ without actually understanding how these countries work culturally, politically and socially betrays an eagerness not to actually help solve problems but to be seen as a fucking saviour as well as a really fucked up kind of arrogance that the west has solved all it’s problems and that other countries should take example (hint, they have not, and all countries have issues in some way shape or form)

So, reblogging this, because relevant to a prior discussion.

2,556 notes

gmbeowulf:

sporadic-tiger:

veteranfangirl:

Conceal, don’t feel. Don’t let them know.

"[With Elsa, it] definitely was intentional to show anxiety and depression." - JENNIFER LEE (x)

THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS THIS MOVIE IS SO IMPORTANT. 

Like yes, I agree with the major criticisms going around tumblr re: racism and heteronormativity and not enough major female characters YES, they’re all valid points.  I just don’t understand the bloodlust towards Frozen more than, say, Tangled.  These issues aren’t unique to this movie; they’re widespread societal problems and that leaks into our media.  It can still be a good/enjoyable movie.  I see you SJWers enjoying Aladdin at the same time and that shit’s racist as hell.  Just because something has problematic elements doesn’t make it bad.

BUT THIS CHARACTER IS SO FUCKING IMPORTANT.  Because little girls are obsessed with her, they’re latching on to her.  Little girls love Elsa.  And she’s a Disney Princess with major neuroses.  (I know this is Anna’s story but Elsa’s more popular.)  And it shows a main female character with major anxiety and depression issues, and it shows her as a powerful, strong, loving person around those issues, and it shows her as an incredibly positive character. 

A lot of people are saying that the story would’ve been better if Elsa’d been the antagonist, and she was originally intended to be until that changed in development.  And you know what, it’s for the best because she’s a protagonist with mental issues.  It’s easy and common to give those to a villain.  Villains are twisted and they hurt people because they’re not Good People.  Disney Princesses might not be perfect but they’re damn close to it and their faults are charming and cute and not crippling.  Elsa’s issues and her failure to deal with them are crippling.

So many teens and adults have identified with her issues, and seeing them portrayed in a positive and beloved character is so fucking important, because children see that not just scary weirdos have mental issues.  Elsa hurts people because of her issues.  She doesn’t mean to but she hurts her parents and sister and kingdom and strangers, emotionally and physically.  And she’s a Good Guy.  Not only is she a Good Guy, she’s a Disney Princess.  They’re not supposed to hurt people — except oh maybe hurt feelings because they were following their dreams or something saccharine like that.

And she makes a series of bad choices, selfish choices, because she can’t deal with her issues.  Just like real people.  She’s not a bad person because she makes bad choices stemming from her neuroses.  Little kids see someone who’s awesome! with anxiety and depression and they see that she’s more than just her issues, and she’s deserving of love

This needs to be reblogged by everyone in existence. 

Something can be imperfect but still good.

Which applies to both the movie and the character.

(Source: olivesaverin)

eschergirls:

theysayimpsychodiaries:

Chimamanda Adichie - The Danger of a Single Story (TED Talks 2009)

Tell me again, what did you say about representation not being important?

Reblogging this because I think this is a good example of the power of the narratives we grow up absorbing (& still absorb now as adults) and how that affects the way we see the world, how we place people (and ourselves) in the world, and who we expect to see (and thus write into our own stories) in certain roles.  This is similar to another post I’ve reblogged about how people write certain tropes and narratives because “that’s just what you do”.  And it extends to other creative expressions too, like how you portray characters in illustrated or interactive media (comics, video games).

To put it in the context of what’s discussed on this blog, if you grow up on women being portrayed in a certain way, you’re going to not think twice when you write your own story about portraying them that way because that’s just “what you do”, that’s just what seems “natural” and “right” to you.  It’s why there’s so much midriff-baring armor for women out there, or high heeled boots on female warriors, or boobs and butt battle poses.  It’s also why the “average” woman portrayed in fiction is so far from average that it’s skewing our own internal idea of what “thin” and “thick” women look like.  Sometimes it’s a conscious effort (by the illustrator or their editor) to sexualize them, and sometimes it’s just what we’re used to, so we do it.  It’s just how we’re used to seeing women fighters, so when we draw them we do what we’re used to seeing.

And it’s the same with the representation of other groups (and remember, these groups overlap). The way we write and draw trans people is influenced by how we’re taught to think of trans people, and those narratives are usually informed by the media.  The same as how “western” nations think of Asia, or Africa.  What we imagine those places are like in our mind’s eye.  We “know” what these places are like, what queer people are like,  what heroes are like, who fights dragons, who gets rescued, etc, because of how the media portrays these things.  It’s all around us, and we don’t have to subconsciously want to do these things to do them, because it’s just what seems “right” and “natural” and “automatic”.

That’s why it’s also important to challenge ourselves in our growth as consumers of product, and as creators of future product.  Why do we “know” what we know?  Is this actually the only way to do things, or just the way we’re used to seeing it done?  And it’s important for us to actively seek out for ourselves, different ideas, different narratives, and different perspectives, and to consider what kinds of messages we want to send with our own work.  Because, just like we grew up with the narratives that taught us “how things are” in a certain way, future children will grow up with the narratives we contribute to, and it will affect what they “know” about their place in the world, what roles they get to be and don’t get to be, whose stories are being told, and who only matters as an object or gimmick within that story.

(Source: firstenchanters)