winglessraven:

zaynspersonalbodyinspector:

In our society today girls feel that they need to be skinny in order to find love.  Fact is, your true love is gonna love you no matter what.  If he cares about the size of your thighs more then the size of your heart…drop him my darlings as no man should make you feel bad about your size if he truly loves you <3

Reblog. Every. Single. Time.

This is so perfect and beautiful and wonderful

(Source: chasind)

sparkamovement:

Olympics struggle with ‘policing femininity’: 

There are female athletes who will be competing at the Olympic Games this summer after undergoing treatment to make them less masculine.
Still others are being secretly investigated for displaying overly manly characteristics, as sport’s highest medical officials attempt to quantify — and regulate — the hormonal difference between male and female athletes.
Caster Semenya, the South African runner who was so fast and muscular that many suspected she was a man, exploded onto the front pages three years ago. She was considered an outlier, a one-time anomaly.
But similar cases are emerging all over the world, and Semenya, who was banned from competition for 11 months while authorities investigated her sex, is back, vying for gold.
Semenya and other women like her face a complex question: Does a female athlete whose body naturally produces unusually high levels of male hormones, allowing them to put on more muscle mass and recover faster, have an “unfair” advantage?
In a move critics call “policing femininity,” recent rule changes by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body of track and field, state that for a woman to compete, her testosterone must not exceed the male threshold.
If it does, she must have surgery or receive hormone therapy prescribed by an expert IAAF medical panel and submit to regular monitoring. So far, at least a handful of athletes — the figure is confidential — have been prescribed treatment, but their numbers could increase. Last month, the International Olympic Committee began the approval process to adopt similar rules for the Games.

There’s a lot going on here, but here’s what jumped out at us immediately: Women, particularly women athletes, are constantly told they’re not as strong or fast as men—and now that they’re proving otherwise, they’re being forced to undergo hormone treatments. We don’t think it’s a coincidence that women of color are coming under fire for this more than white women. From the article: “Lindsay Perry, another scientist, says sometimes whole teams of African women are dead ringers for men.” This is a clear example of how we’ve constructed a very particular, very narrow ideal of femininity and womanhood that devalues and casts aside black women in particular. 

sparkamovement:

Olympics struggle with ‘policing femininity’: 

There are female athletes who will be competing at the Olympic Games this summer after undergoing treatment to make them less masculine.

Still others are being secretly investigated for displaying overly manly characteristics, as sport’s highest medical officials attempt to quantify — and regulate — the hormonal difference between male and female athletes.

Caster Semenya, the South African runner who was so fast and muscular that many suspected she was a man, exploded onto the front pages three years ago. She was considered an outlier, a one-time anomaly.

But similar cases are emerging all over the world, and Semenya, who was banned from competition for 11 months while authorities investigated her sex, is back, vying for gold.

Semenya and other women like her face a complex question: Does a female athlete whose body naturally produces unusually high levels of male hormones, allowing them to put on more muscle mass and recover faster, have an “unfair” advantage?

In a move critics call “policing femininity,” recent rule changes by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body of track and field, state that for a woman to compete, her testosterone must not exceed the male threshold.

If it does, she must have surgery or receive hormone therapy prescribed by an expert IAAF medical panel and submit to regular monitoring. So far, at least a handful of athletes — the figure is confidential — have been prescribed treatment, but their numbers could increase. Last month, the International Olympic Committee began the approval process to adopt similar rules for the Games.

There’s a lot going on here, but here’s what jumped out at us immediately: Women, particularly women athletes, are constantly told they’re not as strong or fast as men—and now that they’re proving otherwise, they’re being forced to undergo hormone treatments. We don’t think it’s a coincidence that women of color are coming under fire for this more than white women. From the article: “Lindsay Perry, another scientist, says sometimes whole teams of African women are dead ringers for men.” This is a clear example of how we’ve constructed a very particular, very narrow ideal of femininity and womanhood that devalues and casts aside black women in particular. 

Q: Girls are discouraged? That sounds so 1970s.

A: There was a 2001 study that showed in fourth grade, 68% of boys and 66% of girls like science. Starting in sixth, seventh and eighth grade, we lose girls and boys, but we lose more girls and for different reasons: lingering stereotypes, societal pressures. It’s well known that many girls have a tendency to dumb down when they’re in middle school. Just last week, I was talking to senior executives, and a woman told me that she was the best biology student in high school and had the highest exam scores. At the end of the semester, a teacher told her: “I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to give the award in biology to a boy, because it’s more important to him.” Almost every time that I give a speech or meet with a group of women, I’ll hear such stories.

Q: Boys earn 70% of the D’s and F’s in school and account for 80% of dropouts. Shouldn’t we fear more for their future?

A: It’s a big problem. Women earn the majority of undergraduate degrees in the U.S. and last year earned more Ph.D.s than men. But keeping girls in the science and math pipeline is a separate problem with different causes. It’s important we address both. You don’t stop research on breast cancer just because heart disease is also deadly. You work on both.

Q: Suppose you were an executive of a corporation that needs engineers. You meet a girl in high school. She scored in the 99th percentile in math on her SATs, yet says she wants to major in psychology or go to law school, because those careers sound more interesting. What do you tell her?

A: I’d introduce her to the coolest female engineer in the company. Girls tend to have a stereotype of engineers being 65-year-old guys who wear lab coats and pocket protectors and look like Einstein. Try to make it personal to them and show them some of the cool things that they can do in engineering.

Q: Let’s talk Lawrence Summers. The Harvard president recently resigned after giving a controversial speech a year ago suggesting that men might simply be predisposed to be better at math and science. Is there at least a grain of truth in what he said?

A: (Laughs). Suppose you came across a woman lying on the street with an elephant sitting on her chest. You notice she is short of breath. Shortness of breath can be a symptom of heart problems. In her case, the much more likely cause is the elephant on her chest.

For a long time, society put obstacles in the way of women who wanted to enter the sciences. That is the elephant. Until the playing field has been leveled and lingering stereotypes are gone, you can’t even ask the question.

Q: I will anyway. There are many obvious biological differences between men and women. This can’t be one?

A: There are obvious differences, but until you eliminate the more obvious cause, it’s difficult to get at the question scientifically. Look at law, medicine and business. In 1970 — that’s not ancient history — law school was 5% female, med school was 8% and business school was 4%. You could have taken a look at those numbers and concluded that women don’t make good lawyers or doctors. The statistics might have supported you. But today, all of those fields are about 50-50.

punc:

awkwardsituationist:

from girl rising …to consider on international women’s day (and every day thereafter)

equality needs to be a goal that everybody actively works towards.

(Source: piratequaintrelle)


Women’s Forestry Corps, UK 1918.

Women’s Forestry Corps, UK 1918.

(Source: the-seed-of-europe)

medievalpoc:

steppauseturnpausepivotstepstep:

allerasphinx:

asupernaturalshadeofblue:

"Mommy, Guinevere looks like me!"
Uhh, yeah a bit.

#this is so cute i’m going to die

this is why all sorts of representation is important. i dont know this little girl, but i want this little girl to be psyched to jump into entertainment as escapism.

Imagine a world of inclusive escapism.

medievalpoc:

steppauseturnpausepivotstepstep:

allerasphinx:

asupernaturalshadeofblue:

"Mommy, Guinevere looks like me!"

Uhh, yeah a bit.

#this is so cute i’m going to die

this is why all sorts of representation is important. i dont know this little girl, but i want this little girl to be psyched to jump into entertainment as escapism.

Imagine a world of inclusive escapism.

My, what beautiful blossoms we have this year. But look, this one’s late. But I’ll bet that when it blooms, it will be the most beautiful of all.

(Source: ddraco)

thepluralisphoenixii:

wilderskin:

htmlwings:

wilderskin:

Supermodel Karlie Kloss was photoshopped to look less thin for a Numero campaign. There are so many things wrong with this.  Models are forced to be incredibly thin to fit a certain aesthetic, but when they do, they’re so emaciated that they have to be photoshopped to not look sick.

Robin Hardy, a former creative director at Vogue, has commented on the practice of photoshopping to cover up the aesthetic and health costs of extreme thinness:
“At the time, when we pored over the raw images, creating the appearance of smooth flesh over protruding ribs, softening the look of collarbones that stuck out like coat hangers, adding curves to flat bottoms and cleavage to pigeon chests, we felt we were doing the right thing…
But now, I wonder. Because for all our retouching, it was still clear to the reader that these women were very, very thin. But, hey, they still looked great!
They had 22-inch waists (those were never made bigger), but they also had breasts and great skin. They had teeny tiny ankles and thin thighs, but they still had luscious hair and full cheeks.
Thanks to retouching, our readers… never saw the horrible, hungry downside of skinny. That these underweight girls didn’t look glamorous in the flesh. Their skeletal bodies, dull, thinning hair, spots and dark circles under their eyes were magicked away by technology, leaving only the allure of coltish limbs and Bambi eyes.”

Ahh I never new this got so much attention! Yay! This kind of thing getting awareness makes me so much happier than that other picture…

I’ve never heard of this before, but this is SO INCREDIBLY telling. We all know of models being photoshopped to look thinner, but in reality some of these people are so thin to the point of unhealthiness that people in power, not wanting to show the public what has been done to these models, purposely reverse-photoshop them to look healthier, because God forbid we be forced to come to terms with the overwhelming pressure we put on women to be thin.
Just….wow. Can’t even handle this right now. 

thepluralisphoenixii:

wilderskin:

htmlwings:

wilderskin:

Supermodel Karlie Kloss was photoshopped to look less thin for a Numero campaign. There are so many things wrong with this.  Models are forced to be incredibly thin to fit a certain aesthetic, but when they do, they’re so emaciated that they have to be photoshopped to not look sick.

Robin Hardy, a former creative director at Vogue, has commented on the practice of photoshopping to cover up the aesthetic and health costs of extreme thinness:

At the time, when we pored over the raw images, creating the appearance of smooth flesh over protruding ribs, softening the look of collarbones that stuck out like coat hangers, adding curves to flat bottoms and cleavage to pigeon chests, we felt we were doing the right thing…

But now, I wonder. Because for all our retouching, it was still clear to the reader that these women were very, very thin. But, hey, they still looked great!

They had 22-inch waists (those were never made bigger), but they also had breasts and great skin. They had teeny tiny ankles and thin thighs, but they still had luscious hair and full cheeks.

Thanks to retouching, our readers… never saw the horrible, hungry downside of skinny. That these underweight girls didn’t look glamorous in the flesh. Their skeletal bodies, dull, thinning hair, spots and dark circles under their eyes were magicked away by technology, leaving only the allure of coltish limbs and Bambi eyes.”

Ahh I never new this got so much attention! Yay! This kind of thing getting awareness makes me so much happier than that other picture…

I’ve never heard of this before, but this is SO INCREDIBLY telling. We all know of models being photoshopped to look thinner, but in reality some of these people are so thin to the point of unhealthiness that people in power, not wanting to show the public what has been done to these models, purposely reverse-photoshop them to look healthier, because God forbid we be forced to come to terms with the overwhelming pressure we put on women to be thin.

Just….wow. Can’t even handle this right now. 

(Source: sealip)

Pencil art by DASHA PLISKA

 


(Source: f-l-e-u-r-d-e-l-y-s)