I like fashion/feminism
so basically, I love you all


(Image by Marc Johns)

lacollectionneuse:

マルジェラ1初期 ブルゾンMARTIN MARGIELAジャケット バッグ

bomber jacket with elongated neckline • martin margiela
25,000円 BIN

(Source: Yahoo! Japan, via arrowscanaryman)

"

In the 1930s, men’s nipples were just as provocative, shameful and taboo as women’s are now, and men were protesting in much the same way. In 1930, four men went topless to Coney Island and were arrested. In 1935, a flash mob of topless men descended upon Atlantic City, 42 of whom were arrested. Men fought and they were heard, changing not only laws but social consciousness. And by 1936, men’s bare chests were accepted as the norm.

So why is it that 80 years later women can’t seem to achieve the same for their chests? Why can’t a mother proudly breastfeed her child in public without feeling sexualized? why is a 17-year-old girl being asked to leave her own prom because a group of fathers find her too provocative?

[…] I am not trying to argue for mandatory toplessness, or even bralessness. What I am arguing for is a woman’s right to choose how she represents her body — and to make that choice based on personal desire and not a fear of how people will react to her or how society will judge her. No woman should be made to feel ashamed of her body.

"

- Scout Willis, in XOJane, on Instagram’s nudity policy and why she recently strolled the NYC streets topless. Solid essay all around. I found this piece particularly interesting because I’d never heard about the men’s nipples thing. (via batmansymbol)

(via fandomsandfeminism)

anagnori:

"Oh please, you’re only identifying as [thing] because you heard about it on Tumblr."

Well gee, maybe if there were proper resources out there, public visibility and community support for people like us, we wouldn’t have to wait until we randomly stumbled across a post on Tumblr to understand what we are.

(via buckysexual)

astrofemme:

lowbrasschikah:

I thought this was so nice

GIRLS BEING NICE TO OTHER GIRLS

astrofemme:

lowbrasschikah:

I thought this was so nice

GIRLS BEING NICE TO OTHER GIRLS

(via buckysexual)

thymoss:

railroadsoftware:

no one ever says that Rome needed help from aliens to build their empire

#l laughed for days when i found out that #ancient egyptians used water to reduce friction and move blocks for distances #and that this was literally DEPICTED ON THEIR HIEROGLYPHICS #but ~western archaeologists~ #thought that the pouring of water depicted ~superstitious rituals~ #jfc

(via buckysexual)

"Don’t take a nude pic if you’re a famous woman and don’t want it leaked."

mysharona1987:

"Don’t wear a hoodie if you don’t want to be mistaken for a criminal and shot."

"Don’t get drunk at a party if you don’t want to be sexually assaulted."

"Don’t argue with a cop if you don’t want to get killed."

"Don’t walk home by yourself if you don’t want to get raped."

Victim blaming 101: Everyone should live in fear from ever doing anything.

(via helyna)

drugdoer:

grassfire:

Imagine if Breaking Bad was set in Canada or the UK or Australia. Walt discovers he has lung cancer, is promptly treated at no cost and discharged with no financial burden apart from $20 in subsidised prescriptions. The end.

hmm. it’s almost as if Breaking Bad might have been trying to say something. Who knows, though

(via im-undercontrol)

krispsreblogs:

weareallmixedup:

r-o-t:

weareallmixedup:

arabellesicardi:

Lush’s new product catalog is very interesting.

This is a perfect example of how white left wing liberal culture is not actually that much more progressive than their right wing counterparts.
””“African Paradise”“”” bc Africa is one homogenous nation lmao
- Melody

African Paradise is made up of ingredients found all over Africa and in using those ingredients, LUSH can support the communities that harvest them. This is a GOOD thing for communities whose only source of revenue is the ingredients they harvest and sell. Don’t bash something you don’t understand or research. LUSH buys ingredients at fair prices and is one of the few cosmetics companies to have an entire buying team dedicated to buying ingredients ETHICALLY.

So are you just going to ignore the fact that they are homogenizing Africa and that this picture is the epitome of white saviourism or….
- Melody

As an artist who goes to a school recognized for their design program the way this photo was taken was no small mistake and the design of this page was thoroughly planned and it is actually really disgusting.Let’s break it down, there’s only one child who’s face is visible which gives just enough personality to make readers understand the children are happy this woman is here, but not enough faces to individualize each child. Coupled with the fact we only see the rest of the children’s back heads, the viewer assumes all the children are happy without giving each of them an individual identity - blatant homogenizing in an extremely literal senseThe arms of the children all point to and frame the title of the piece and direct the viewer’s eyes to the name and face of the woman, not only are the children not identifiable by face, but also by lack of name (LUSH probably wouldn’t have wanted to go through the trouble of getting their consent for their names anyway, but but also don’t want them identified as anything other than ‘those children who need help’. And that’s if they’d even actually consent, or even fully consented to being in this photograph)Probably the most recognizable part is how she stands above the children as they raise their arms to her, palms open, like how much more blatantly “I’m a savior” could you get? - combined with the idea that the article is about a product, the open palms make it look like they’re basically begging for it (despite what they’re actually doing is wanting to play with the bubbles, see that one bubble you can barely notice to the left of the woman’s description?)Several children are even cut out of frame and reduced to arms whose only purpose is to frame the title and lead you to the woman’s face. The children are literally being used as props and that is SO OVERWHELMINGLY INTENTIONAL FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHERS/EDITORS SIDE IT INFURIATES MEALSO THERE’S ONE BUBBLE TO THE TOP RIGHT I CAN BET YOU DOLLARS MANY MANY DOLLARSThat there were other bubbles throughout the photo that were photoshopped out to increase the “children happily accepting help” schtick (One kid far left looks like they just caught one or missed one there should no doubt be more bubbles throughout the photo)AUGH LIKE this photo is SO HUGELY REFERENTIAL to SO MANY pieces I’ve learned about in Art History and guess which ones remind me of this painting include? Yeah you guessed it basically anything involving Jesus or Mary or one of the Saints or Angels. So add appropriating biblical or christian imagery as a means to uphold and justify racist white savior bullshit (HELLO 17th century european slave trade)This is so infuriating to me as an art student because I KNOW whoever made this page stared long and fucking hard at the same flipping text books as I did and understands the implications and impact that something like this has on the mind of a consumer and instead of just using another photo they promptly USED IT TO SELL A PRODUCTI hate advertising so much 80% of the industry is just a pool of scum a pool of sexist racist scum I tell youAlso here’s an ad that reminds me of this ad, trigger warning racist so racist, look particularly in the bottom right corner.

krispsreblogs:

weareallmixedup:

r-o-t:

weareallmixedup:

arabellesicardi:

Lush’s new product catalog is very interesting.

This is a perfect example of how white left wing liberal culture is not actually that much more progressive than their right wing counterparts.

””“African Paradise”“”” bc Africa is one homogenous nation lmao

- Melody

African Paradise is made up of ingredients found all over Africa and in using those ingredients, LUSH can support the communities that harvest them. This is a GOOD thing for communities whose only source of revenue is the ingredients they harvest and sell. Don’t bash something you don’t understand or research. LUSH buys ingredients at fair prices and is one of the few cosmetics companies to have an entire buying team dedicated to buying ingredients ETHICALLY.

So are you just going to ignore the fact that they are homogenizing Africa and that this picture is the epitome of white saviourism or….

- Melody

As an artist who goes to a school recognized for their design program the way this photo was taken was no small mistake and the design of this page was thoroughly planned and it is actually really disgusting.

Let’s break it down,

there’s only one child who’s face is visible which gives just enough personality to make readers understand the children are happy this woman is here, but not enough faces to individualize each child. Coupled with the fact we only see the rest of the children’s back heads, the viewer assumes all the children are happy without giving each of them an individual identity - blatant homogenizing in an extremely literal sense

The arms of the children all point to and frame the title of the piece and direct the viewer’s eyes to the name and face of the woman, not only are the children not identifiable by face, but also by lack of name (LUSH probably wouldn’t have wanted to go through the trouble of getting their consent for their names anyway, but but also don’t want them identified as anything other than ‘those children who need help’. And that’s if they’d even actually consent, or even fully consented to being in this photograph)

Probably the most recognizable part is how she stands above the children as they raise their arms to her, palms open, like how much more blatantly “I’m a savior” could you get? - combined with the idea that the article is about a product, the open palms make it look like they’re basically begging for it (despite what they’re actually doing is wanting to play with the bubbles, see that one bubble you can barely notice to the left of the woman’s description?)

Several children are even cut out of frame and reduced to arms whose only purpose is to frame the title and lead you to the woman’s face. The children are literally being used as props and that is SO OVERWHELMINGLY INTENTIONAL FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHERS/EDITORS SIDE IT INFURIATES ME

ALSO THERE’S ONE BUBBLE TO THE TOP RIGHT I CAN BET YOU DOLLARS MANY MANY DOLLARS

That there were other bubbles throughout the photo that were photoshopped out to increase the “children happily accepting help” schtick (One kid far left looks like they just caught one or missed one there should no doubt be more bubbles throughout the photo)

AUGH LIKE this photo is SO HUGELY REFERENTIAL to SO MANY pieces I’ve learned about in Art History and guess which ones remind me of this painting include? Yeah you guessed it basically anything involving Jesus or Mary or one of the Saints or Angels. So add appropriating biblical or christian imagery as a means to uphold and justify racist white savior bullshit (HELLO 17th century european slave trade)

This is so infuriating to me as an art student because I KNOW whoever made this page stared long and fucking hard at the same flipping text books as I did and understands the implications and impact that something like this has on the mind of a consumer and instead of just using another photo they promptly USED IT TO SELL A PRODUCT

I hate advertising so much 80% of the industry is just a pool of scum a pool of sexist racist scum I tell you

Also here’s an ad that reminds me of this ad, trigger warning racist so racist, look particularly in the bottom right corner.

(via powderdoom)

napred:

koi fish x yohji yamamoto 

(via thereisnotime)