@pameluke / pameluke.tumblr.com
The Shape of Water (2017) dir. Guillermo del Toro
The literally silent women protagonist leaves a super bad taste in my mouth.
She’s deaf and speaks with sign language, she’s not a silent woman. Like, can we agree that deaf representation in media is important? Can we agree that ASL representation in media is important? This is an adult-oriented romance/sci-fi movie where the female lead is a deaf woman. How can you act like this isn’t significant? The last gif has a deaf woman in the 60s standing up to an aggressive man and telling him to go fuck himself.
This movie is doing something that has probably never been done before. But hey, she can’t talk “normally” like a hearing woman and that’s bad, so go off I guess.
reblogging this as an example of ableist feminists that me and @onewordtest have discussed in the past.
oh man, not this shit again. can abled feminists just stop?
um, but, also she’s not deaf. she’s hearing and mute. (personally, I think she’s gonna read as autistic from everything I’ve seen). which is still a disabled female romantic lead character, which is still great representation and important.
men are amazing
this is funny but also true because ime men actually are incapable or being respectful funny or charming
Whyyyy
I didn’t know that being respectful was a talent that many men are born without but it does make a lot of sense lol.
drag this movie to HELL
disney: delete yr company
Pure aesthetic purposes tbh
luke being protective of his family ( ◕ ᴗ ◕ ✿)
JK Rowling really needs to stop appropriating from Native American culture when she’s not giving them meaningful roles within the backstory of American wizarding history.
All of the Houses of Ilvermorny are associated with Native American mythology or folklore. And yet Ilvermorny was founded by two (presumably white) European settlers? Okay. Seems legit 😒
This is really troubling, especially when you consider how Natives are used as mascots for schools and sports teams to this very day in America. It’s dehumanizing. Their culture can be appropriated and misrepresented and used as symbols by white people like JK Rowling but they themselves can’t be represented positively in media at all??
Why aren’t there any Native American wizards involved in JK Rowling’s backstory on American wizarding history? Yes, she includes a section on Native American wizards (that misrepresents and reinforces negative stereotypes of Native Americans I might add), but why aren’t there any named Native American wizards? She can create Isolt Sayre and James Steward and Chadwick and Webster Boot, but there are no Native American figures who play a prominent role in American wizarding history?
Frankly, it’s disappointing and disgusting.
*Hamilton voice* One more thing!
One of the white European founders of Ilvermorny is a Muggle (excuse me, No-Maj)!!! Are you freaking kidding me???? A non-magical white man gets to be one of the founders of the North American wizarding school but Native American witches/wizards couldn’t?????? How??????
90% of people killed in recent drone strikes weren’t the target this is beyond enough justification to ban using drones for assassination/bombing.
The CDC can suck my ass
For friends not in the spoonie community, this is about the CDC’s recent guidelines that attempt to combat drug addiction in America by severely restricting access to opioid medications for ALL patients except for terminal cancer patients.
Without opioid pain medications, I would have had to quit working and go on disability nine years before I did.
Without opioid pain medications I would have been housebound and dependent on caregivers for another 10 years after that.
Without opioid pain medications I will be less active, more sedentary, and more sick.
The CDC says opioids don’t work for chronic pain; they’re wrong. They don’t work for some chronic pain. They don’t cure chronic pain. But they make life liveable for millions of chronic pain patients. Estimates of chronic pain sufferers in America range from a low of 39 million to a high of 110 million. That low-water mark excluded people with intermittent chronic pain, like endometriosis or migraine, as well as omitting people with neurogenic pain. Most reasonable guesses put the number at 70–80 million.
The cure for drug abuse and addiction has nothing to do with restricting pain patients’ access to medication, or forcing them to give up what quality of life they have managed to attain through having their pain managed with medication.
It’s not about labeling pain patients as addicts for taking medication to which they can build a physical dependence. (By that definition, every time I go on prednisone and have to taper off it, I’m a prednisone addict!)
It’s not about calling a patient in chronic pain asking their doctor for relief a drug-seeker.
The cure lies in combating the issues that lead to drug abuse, like poverty and an economy that sees the rich getting richer while the poor and middle class fall further and further behind. It lies in giving hope to people in hopeless situations. Not taking hope away from several million more.
Reblog to educate the normals. We need a cultural perception shift, and it needs to start now.
I make a hobby of watching documentaries about heroin (don’t ask) and all of them in recent years have a terrifying but obvious agenda: opioid pain reliever restriction.
They harp on the fact that a high percentage of heroin addicts began by taking prescription painkillers, but they never bring up how many prescription painkiller users become heroin users. Every time I watch one, they get to the part where addicts (current and recovering) talk about how they started on oxy/vic/perc after an injury and eventually moved to heroin, almost universally it’s because the pills got too hard to get, and I get irritated. Usually the pills are blamed for the transition to heroin, despite the fact that earlier in the documentaries the same individuals often speak about prior addictive behavior with pot and alcohol. (Very rarely is Purdue Pharma’s incredibly troubling insistence on misprescription addressed – and when it is, it too includes the “pain pills to heroin” narrative.)
Quick Google stats: there were 259 million painkiller prescriptions written in 2012. That same year heroin use was estimated at 2 people per 1000, meaning with a population of 314 million and given a likelihood of under-reporting, we had roughly 6-700 thousand heroin addicts in the US. At most, a million.
So even if many of those prescriptions were for the same people, and even if every single heroin addict was the direct result of a pain pill prescription (not super duper likely), the vast majority of people who got prescription painkillers somehow, magically, didn’t become addicted to heroin.
It’s almost like addiction involves multiple emotional, physical, genetic, and environmental factors that have nothing to do with prescription pain relief but opioids are an easy scapegoat for grieving families to pin their pain to.
don’t whitewash the fucking clones
how
#they’re literally#clones of a white guy#they wear white armor#they can’t even be whitewashed (via @duncanwatosn)
Jango Fett is not white
“they’re literally clones of a white guy” oh my god
At the Conservative Party Conference this week, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans to get rid of the Human Rights Act.
To describe this goal as “controversial” would be an enormous understatement. It’s difficult to imagine a compelling and sane argument against a set of laws that are explicitly designed to protect human rights. However, British tabloids are doing their level best to put a positive spin on this new policy.
The Human Rights Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, but the Conservatives argue that the U.K. should have full control over its own laws. If they win next year’s general election, they want to replace the Human Rights Act with a new “British Bill of Rights.”
Many politicians, legal experts and human rights campaigners are seriously concerned that this could lead to breaches of civil liberties for people in the U.K.
In June 2014, polling company YouGov asked a sample of 2,078 U.K. adults for their opinions on human rights. Only 58 percent believed in the basic existence of human rights (“rights afforded to people simply by virtue of their humanity”), and 26 percent didn’t believe in the concept of human rights at all.
[READ MORE]
