- 11 months ago
"Animating female characters are extremely difficult. They have to go through a range of emotions, and having a film with two female characters and building distinguishing aspects was hard."
Michael Lee on animating Frozen
So that’s their (blatantly misogynistic) excuse for scrapping all but two of the female characters; that they’re too hard to animate? Those emotional female characters, they’re all the same, right? Here’s a hint: their “femaleness” isn’t what’s making them indistinguishable.
I read this in the most whiny baby voice imaginable
An animator actually saying out loud that he thinks all women are the same.
Just like most storytellers who actually get their work funded in this patriarchal society of ours, he thinks women are just not worth getting to know for real. Men are easy to imagine all kinds of traits and differences for. Men are varied and rich with interesting thoughts and every kind of man is pleasing to see on the screen whether he’s big or small or dark or light or handsome or goofy or just interesting-looking. Women are only worth putting on the screen if they are young white blonde pretty things, and aren’t they all just the same??????
i dont even give a shit about this frozen stuff but this statement makes me so fucking angry
things that are really hard to animate but worth investing the time and energy and creativity and technological innovation and money in to make sure they’re portrayed as close to life as possible:
- all the fur on a bunch of monsters
- all the feathers in a flock of birds
- all the leaves in a forest
- all the corn in a field
- all the sand in a desert
- all the bricks in a city
- all the snowflakes in a blizzard
things that are not worth it:
I’m. I. I don’t.
Do a google image search for Charlotte La Bouff
Just. Like I know she’s a “sidekick” or whatever but hearing that ladies are hard to animate because you have to keep them “pretty” is. Well. I just don’t know.
- 11 months ago
THEY ARE ALL OKAY, and all those things could exist in THE SAME WOMAN. Women shouldn’t be valued because we are strong, or kick-ass, but because we are people. So don’t focus on writing characters who are strong. Write characters who are people. —madlori
Modeled on this post. This quote needed a gifset that featured a more diverse group of women. Because my takeaway from Lori’s marvelous answer (seriously, go read all of it) is that representation fucking matters and that great female characters do not—and should not—fit into the same cookie cutter mold. Because actual women are not one size fits all. And the irony of having that message cross my dash repeatedly with exclusively young, white, straight, cis women who match a prescriptive definition of beauty was getting to me.
(via bitchenwitch)Source: consultingpiskies
- 2 years ago
"[F]or the first several years the SAT was offered, males scored higher than females on the Math section but females achieved higher scores on the Verbal section. ETS policy-makers determined that the Verbal test needed to be “balanced” more in favor of males, and added questions pertaining to politics, business and sports to the Verbal portion. Since that time, males have outscored females on both the Math and Verbal sections. Dwyer notes that no similar effort has been made to “balance” the Math section, and concludes that, “It could be done, but it has not been, and I believe that probably an unconscious form of sexism underlies this pattern. When females show the superior performance, ‘balancing’ is required; when males show the superior performance, no adjustments are necessary.” "
“Gender Bias in College Admissions Tests”, FairTest.org. (via vaginawoolf)
We were told our English Lang GCSEs were often about sport or politics because boys often underperformed in that exam. I can’t even fathom the number of things wrong with this kind of thinking.
And there’s nothing unconscious about that kind of sexism.
- 2 years ago
- 2 years ago
I’m all for compelling female leads, but when you go for the cheap tropes, it undermines that. If you’re pitching sometging as origial and fresh, you have to follow through on all fronts, even the little details like this.
No really, the film looks beautiful, but come on now, Pixar! That dead horse was good and beaten by the time Titanic came out, no need to dredge up anachronistic narrative tropes.
(via albinwonderland)Source: shoomlah
- 2 years ago
- 2 years ago
You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.
If you speak, and she responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary man with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”
On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.
The fourth point: If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.
There’s a man with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed him back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does he still e-mail?
Yeah. He does. About every two weeks.
This man scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Cockroach Tattoos. (Who, after all, is guilty of nothing more than terrifying bad taste.) You see, Mr. E-mail has made it clear that he ignores what I say when he wants something from me. Now, I don’t know if he is an actual rapist, and I sincerely hope he’s not. But he is certainly Schrödinger’s Rapist, and this particular Schrödinger’s Rapist has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a man who ignores a woman’s NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.
For women, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data."