I get the point of Mother’s Day, but *raises glass* cheers to women who cannot or choose not to use their uteri.
I’m just gonna put these here, m’kay?
1) “The Pill” does not cause prostate cancer.
2) Abortions do not cause breast cancer.
3) Abortions are only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services - and it prevents ~220k abortions per year by providing contraception.
4) Women can get pregnant from rape.
5) Prenatal testing does not lead to abortion. The tests help women have safer deliveries and healthier babies.
6) HPV is safe, effective in preventing cervical cancer from certain strains of HPV, and does not damage the brain.
7) Plan B is contraception, not abortion.
8) Lying to a woman about the condition of her fetus is insane, disgusting, and - in the fairly unlikely case that there is a problem - does not allow her to properly prepare for her baby’s needs.
Today, May 2, 2013, is the National Day of Reason, a time to reflect and ponder our actions and beliefs in the light of evidence and reasoned thought. Emotions drive us but should be tempered by reason.
I was reading the latest installment of Kelly Thompson’s “She Has No Head!” column, featuring superheroine costume redesigns, and a phrase popped out at me: “impossible proportions”. This was in reference to the original ’90s design for Image Comics’ Glory.
I looked back at the hideously-drawn original version of the character. (I’m not usually masochistic.) Okay, aside from the fact that the figure work is absolutely incompetent, there WA and continues to be a tendency among comic artists to draw women with 10” waists and 58ZZZ boobs, bone structure… what bones? These are just plastic shells, like mannequins.
Saying these bodies are “impossible” seems to imply that they are in some way desirable.
There are way too many issues associated with women’s body image, and I don’t want this post to degenerate into a recitation of what is or isn’t “sexy”, but come on! “Where would her insides go?” Is an obvious question, and the sarcastic response is, “In her tits!” But seriously, is this ridiculous caricature of the human form, female edition, remotely attractive? I can’t even imagine how these bodies would move.
These bodies aren’t “impossible” as in “hard to obtain,” they are ugly and not even desirable in a real woman, for a woman to be or for someone to find attractive because they are deformed. Misshapen. Not idealized or just exaggerated for the medium/genre, these would be pitiable creatures, if they really existed.
I don’t get it.
I really don’t.
I don’t take issue with what or how Kelly said what she did in her column, it’s just… I don’t know, I just think there is a perception that these are idealized fantasy depictions, but all I see are distortions.
(Sorry, it’s late and maybe this isn’t quite coherent.)
It’s been a week since the successful #LoisLane75yrs Twitter trending campaign. Looking around the ‘net, there are some people who just didn’t get it (perhaps they just didn’t want to), but there are plenty of people who have gotten it and celebrated the anniversary of Lois right along with Superman/Clark Kent and Action Comics #1.
For 2-3 hours the hashtag was the #1 trender (ignoring the paid advertisement), seen here at about 5:00 PM PDT.
Last night, preparing for today’s 75th anniversary of the publication of Action Comics #1, I compiled a list of (most) of all the actresses to portray Lois Lane over the years. And yes, I used the internet to help me ferret out a few names to fill in some gaps.
This is no biggie, it’s just a minor (I swear!) pet peeve of mine.
In what way is a character more dead if they are “killed off” rather than simply “killed”?
Honestly, I don’t think I’ve read a comment, blog, news article or text message in years (other than my own) that didn’t have “off” trailing “kill(ed)”.
For the record, DC Comics is/was considering killing Green Lantern John Stewart. Not killing him off.