The Color Coded Life

Looking for the optimum combination of hiliters & sticky tabs

4 notes

kissi-ssippi:

One time when I was little I woke up from a nightmare and I don’t know why but I went to tell my mom, because that’s what I always had done before. So I went into my parents’ room. I told my mom (an elementary school teacher) that I had a nightmare. And she sat up in bed and still asleep said “Briana can’t you see I’m teaching a class?!” and I looked around her bedroom and I just said, “No I don’t” and she went on to yell at me for interrupting her class and she told me to sit on the floor by the desk until the class was over and she would walk me back to my class. So I went over by her computer desk and sat for like an hour. Then I went back to bed. My mom still has no memory of this. 

this is hilarious

10,829 notes

Anonymous asked: Shouldn't Steve be sterile too, really? Otherwise, what's the reason for why there's not an army of US government created Captain America kids running around? You'd think that'd be the next logical step when they realized they couldn't recreate the serum...

handwritingofgod:

misspryss:

actualmenacebuckybarnes:

Well, since the serum is an enhancement, it’s unlikely to be passed through genetics (the doctors probably tested this, somehow, haha). Steve’s kids are more likely to inherit his asthma and weak stature. 

OH MY GOD THO

A SINISTER GOVT EXPERIMENT TO CREATE AN ARMY OF TINY CAPTAIN AMERICAS

STEVE FINDS OUT ABOUT IT AT SOME POINT

AND IT’S BASICALLY ELEVEN TOW-HEADED, ASTHMATIC, ALLERGIC, IMMUNO-COMPROMISED LITTLE BEANPOLES WITH BAD ATTITUDES

AGES 8-12

SOCKED AWAY SOMEWHERE

LIKE IN A WAREHOUSE OR WHATEVER

WITH A COUPLE OF OVERWHELMED INTERNS BABYSITTING THEM

BECAUSE THE RESEARCHERS HAD ALL THEIR FUNDING TAKEN AWAY WHEN CAPTAIN AMERICA’S SECRET UBERMENCH CLONES TURNED OUT TO BE A BUNCH OF WEAKLINGS

AND NOBODY KNOWS WHAT TO DO WITH THIS GAGGLE OF KIDS (WHO ARE SHRILL AND UNMANAGEABLE AND WHEEZE A LOT)

EXCEPT MAKE SURE THEY GET ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE AND REGULAR MEALS

AND REGRET THEIR IN RETROSPECT VERY OBVIOUS ERRORS

AND HOPE STEVE DOESN’T FIND OUT

WHICH OF COURSE HE DOES

BACK AT THE TOWER

EVERYONE’S INHALERS KEEP GETTING MIXED UP

THERE ARE COLORED PENCILS EVERYWHERE

A FISTFIGHT ABOUT THE NATURE OF JUSTICE ENSUES BETWEEN THE 9 YEAR OLD ONE AND ONE OF THE 11 YEAR OLDS

AND BUCKY

IS

ON

CLOUD

9

Bucky’s all

image

15,344 notes

Masculinity in the MCU is coded like, well, like Nick Fury. Being a masculine guy means that you have the power to stop the bad guys, whether with a gun like Coulson or with your smarts like Tony or by way of gamma radiation like Bruce Banner. It’s rare in most any media to have a male character like Fitz, who’s unapologetic about his love for Simmons, his apparent fear of guns, his lack of field knowledge. A character like Fitz would normally be the butt of a joke, not the acclaimed hero, and yet S.H.I.E.L.D. goes out of its way to prove that the Wards of the world don’t always have to be the ideal when it comes to masculinity. With Ward and Fitz, S.H.I.E.L.D. asks us to consider what a weak man truly acts like, and concludes that physical strength and mental stoicism are not always the mark of a strong man. Strength is compassion, and compassion is badass.

Sexualized Saturdays: Ward, Fitz, and S.H.I.E.L.D.’s Ideal of Masculinity (source)

Fitz isn’t the only subversive take on masculinity in the MCU, either.  Think about it:  almost all the male heroes have some sort of vulnerability, some moment of “weakness”, that goes against the stereotype of what it is to be a tough, strong man, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t heroes.  Think about it:

- Tony Stark has a drinking problem and PTSD severe enough that it nearly wrecks his relationship with Pepper.

- Steve Rogers is chosen as Captain America for his compassion and intelligence. 

- Phil Coulson is a dweeby little bureaucrat in a tailored gray suit.

- Thor loves his brother so dearly that he pleads with him to come home even after Loki invades Earth.

- Bruce Banner despises the violence in his heart that allows him to become the Hulk, and becomes a freelance healer to compensate.

- Sam Wilson is a mental health counselor whose military service was in the pararescue corps, motto:  ”So others may live.”

- Nick Fury’s three chief lieutenants are two women (Natasha Romanoff, whom he treats almost as a daughter, and Maria Hill, whom he depends on to fake his death) and one man (Phil Coulson, whom he tasks with rebuilding SHIELD from the ground up).  

Almost all of these characters are seen crying or close to tears (especially Cap, who is on the verge of tears during the final combat in CA:TWS), all fight in ways that don’t have buckets of blood thrown at the screen, and all value and respect the women they love and fight beside.  The most notable exception is James Rhodes, an Air Force officer, but even he is shown taking care of Tony Stark, his best friend, more often than he’s shown firing a weapon.

I think this may be why the MCU is so popular among women: the men AREN’T the stereotypical strong, silent American hero.  They bleed, they cry, they let their guards down, and they treat their friends, regardless of gender, color, race, or religion, as equals.  This could not be more different from the blood-soaked ideals of masculinity that have dominated the screen over the last few decades (remember Rambo?), and it’s very, very good to see.

 (via ellidfics)

Basically, these characters behave like actual human men; maybe the best of men, but still much more like the regular decent guys you may know in real life than fictional “Alpha Males”.

Which is probably why a certain section of men prefers gritty, grimdark anti-heroes: if Fitz and that SHIELD guy who refuses to launch Project Insight can stand up and do the right thing even when they’re terrified to the point of shaking and crying, if Antoine Triplett (in many ways, Ward’s counterpart) can be both a more “traditional” aggressive operative and quietly geeky, if Nick Fury - the ultimate pragmatist - can draw a line he’s not willing to cross, these men have no excuses left for their behaviour.

Because if these flawed characters can be decent human beings and heroes, then all men have the potential for being decent human beings and heroes. Even if not all men choose to follow that example.

(Additionally: their masculinity doesn’t depend on their ability to get a date, and the relationships are depicted as… complex. It’s almost as if these heroes saw their potential romantic partners as actual human beings with lives of their own - shocking, I know.)

(via iokheaira)

(Source: leopoldfitz, via warningstandbygo)

14 notes

Stage manager being demoted

promptlyyours:

collageaddict:

So I start freshman year an a few days and I was pretty excited to stage manage, since I’d been head stage manager at my previous school for two years, and then I met the head of the drama department. There’s a slight possibility that I could assistant stage manager at the end of this year, but…

It’s up to you, but I think it’s important to recognised that being an ASM is a very important role in itself. It’s not just being an “assistant”, there are a long list of responsibilities (which can vary show to show, and team to team) but SMs need to know that when they are dealing with a thousand other things that they can rely on you to cover these jobs. You also get to be more ‘hands on’ backstage and depending on how many crew there are could possibly be very busy. I understand if you prefer SMing or DSMing, but if you’ve only ASMed half a show, I’d give it another go. 
But don’t think of it as a demotion. Remember there are plenty of adults that just ASM because it’s what they love to do. 

I hope that helps

I actually prefer ASMing! I love being hands-on backstage and, scheduling is my least favorite part- I leave that up to the PSM and get to run the deck like a well-oiled machine.

I didn’t realize how important a good ASM is to the success of the production until after I had graduated from college- once I was in my internship at a big regional theater, I discovered how vital a role it is and how much more I prefer it to PSMing. 

As the ASM you’re in charge of the rest of the crew, you’re the face the actors see when they come offstage, and you’re the one on-the-ground problem solving when something goes wrong and the PSM is still calling cues. 

Look at this as an opportunity, not a demotion! And if you  ever want any advice on how to be a kick-ass ASM, my ask box is always open. :-)

Filed under bex is a stage manager Stage Management stage crew asm

744 notes

Without us, actors would be late, naked, and in the dark.

One of my favorite quotes in regards to tech theatre (via jamzm)

This is actually my least favorite quote in regards to tech theater- I have heard many variations of it, seen it on tshirts, etc and it always pisses me off.

The superiority complex that so many technicians/designers have over actors is frankly just stupid. Obviously we high and mighty technicians deign to bestow our marketable skills upon you pitiful, helpless actors in our bountiful free time.

My job has no purpose without actors. I depend on them for my livelihood. My job title is “stage manager-” a stage with nothing on it does not need a manager. We coexist, a symbiotic relationship, like sharks and those little sucker fish that follow the sharks around.

The respect that I have for actors is enormous. It takes skill, hard work, passion, and training, and a level of determination and self-sacrifice that few professions require. I have no illusions about my skill (or lack thereof) as an actor. 

It is true that there are sometimes actors who don’t understand what goes into the technical aspect of a production- take, for example the tech process of a musical I recently worked on. We were having sound issues, namely the orchestra was overpowering the cast due to their placement in the house. The cast couldn’t hear themselves in the monitors, no one in the audience could hear them, etc. Instead of working through it, they were angry with our sound designer- Why can’t he just turn down the volume? It’s too loud! They had no concept of how difficult it is to mix a live orchestra, and no trust in the designer to fix the problem as best he could until we could find a more permanent solution (ie, moving the orchestra into another part of the building entirely & just using the monitors).

However, this goes both ways. I recently worked on a production that had a large, moving scenic element that rotated without a fixed point. The actors were moving this unit themselves without a run crew of any kind, and unanimously told me that it was very difficult to move and control- they needed handles. When I relayed this information to the scenic designer, he replied “They don’t need handles. They’re actors. You can’t expect them to figure out how to rotate it correctly on their own.” When we showed him that the way the actors were moving the unit was exactly the way they had been instructed to and it was still unnecessarily difficult, he agreed to the addition of handles.

Basically what this all boils down to is respect. Respect for other artists. Respect for another person’s work. Having enough respect for someone else as a person to view their work as art. Respect for the creative process. Eliminating the sense of “the other” or “the inferior” so that all members of a company are viewed as equals.

Theatre is a collaborative art, y’all. Truly the most collaborative art form in existence, and without respecting your co-collaborators, where are you?

(via thestagehand)

Filed under bex is a stage manager Stage Management Theater tech theatre stage crew smproblems rant over

10,439 notes

Oldest depiction of female form shows that modern archaeologists are pornsick misogynists : Reclusive Leftist

thescienceofjohnlock:

cannelledusoleil:

female-only:

plansfornigel:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Female figurine from the Hohle Fels cave near Stuttgart, about 35,000 years old. Interpreted as a pornographic pin-up.

“The Earliest Pornography” says Science Now, describing the 35,000 year old ivory figurine that’s been dug up in a cave near Stuttgart. The tiny statuette is of a female with exaggerated breasts and vulva. According to Paul Mellars, one of the archaeologist twits who commented on the find for Nature, this makes the figurine “pornographic.” Nature is even titling its article, “Prehistoric Pin Up.” It’s the Venus of Willendorf double standard all over again. Ancient figures of naked pregnant women are interpreted by smirking male archaeologists as pornography, while equally sexualized images of men are assumed to depict gods or shamans. Or even hunters or warriors. Funny, huh?

Consider: phallic images from the Paleolithic are at least 28,000 years old. Neolithic cultures all over the world seemed to have a thing for sculptures with enormous erect phalluses. Ancient civilizations were awash in images of male genitalia, from the Indian lingam to the Egyptian benben to the Greek herm. The Romans even painted phalluses on their doors and wore phallic charms around their necks.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicIthyphallic figure from Lascaux, about 17,000 years old. Interpreted as a shaman.

But nobody ever interprets this ancient phallic imagery as pornography. Instead, it’s understood to indicate reverence for male sexual potency. No one, for example, has ever suggested that the Lascaux cave dude was a pin-up; he’s assumed to be a shaman. The ithyphallic figurines from the Neolithic — and there are many — are interpreted as gods. And everyone knows that the phalluses of ancient India and Egypt and Greece and Rome represented awesome divine powers of fertility and protection. Yet an ancient figurine of a nude woman — a life-giving woman, with her vulva ready to bring forth a new human being, and her milk-filled breasts ready to nourish that being — is interpreted as pornography. Just something for a man to whack off to. It’s not as if there’s no other context in which to interpret the figure. After all, the European Paleolithic is chock full of pregnant-looking female statuettes that are quite similar to this one. By the time we get to the Neolithic, the naked pregnant female is enthroned with lions at her feet, and it’s clear that people are worshipping some kind of female god.

Yet in the Science Now article, the archaeologist who found the figurine is talking about pornographic pin-ups: “I showed it to a male colleague, and his response was, ‘Nothing’s changed in 40,000 years.’” That sentence needs to be bronzed and hung up on a plaque somewhere, because you couldn’t ask for a better demonstration of the classic fallacy of reading the present into the past. The archaeologist assumes the artist who created the figurine was male; why? He assumes the motive was lust; why? Because that’s all he knows. To his mind, the image of a naked woman with big breasts and exposed vulva can only mean one thing: porn! Porn made by men, for men! And so he assumes, without questioning his assumptions, that the image must have meant the same thing 35,000 years ago. No other mental categories for “naked woman” are available to him. His mind is a closed box. This has been the central flaw of anthropology for as long there’s been anthropology. And even before: the English invaders of North America thought the Iroquois chiefs had concubines who accompanied them everywhere, because they had no other mental categories to account for well-dressed, important-looking women sitting in a council house. It’s the same fallacy that bedevils archaeologists who dig up male skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that the society was male dominant (because powerful people wear jewelry!), and at another site dig up female skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that this society, too, was male dominant (because women have to dress up as sex objects and trophy wives!). Male dominance is all they can imagine. And so no matter what they dig up, they interpret it to fit their mental model. It’s the fallacy that also drives evolutionary psychology, the central premise of which is that human beings in the African Pleistocene had exactly the same values, beliefs, prejudices, power struggles, goals, and needs as the middle-class white professors and students in a graduate psychology lab in modern-day Santa Barbara, California. And that these same factors are universal and unchanged and true for all time.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicHohle Fels phallus, about 28,000 years old. Interpreted as a symbolic object and …flint knapper. Yes.

That’s not science; it’s circular, self-serving propaganda. This little figurine from Hohle Fels, for example, is going to be used as “proof” that pornography is ancient and natural. I guarantee it. Having been interpreted by pornsick male archaeologists as pornography because that’s all they know, the statuette will now be trotted out by every ev psycho and male supremacist on the planet as “proof” that pornography is eternal, that male dominance is how it’s supposed to be, and that feminists are crazy so shut the fuck up. Look for it in Steven Pinker’s next book. ***

P.S. My own completely speculative guess on the figurine is that it might be connected to childbirth rituals. Notice the engraved marks and slashes; that’s a motif that continues for thousands of years on these little female figurines. No one knows what they mean, but they meant something. They’re not just random cut marks. Someone put a great deal of work into this sculpture. Given that childbirth was incredibly risky for Paleolithic women, they must have prayed their hearts out for help and protection in that time. I can imagine an elder female shaman or artist carving this potent little figure, and propping it up somewhere as a focus for those prayers.

On the other hand, it is possible that it has nothing to do with childbearing or sexual behavior at all. The breasts and vulva may simply indicate who the figure is: the female god. Think of how Christ is always depicted with a beard, which is a male sexual characteristic, even though Christ isn’t about male sexuality. The beard is just a marker. Or, given the figurine’s exaggerated breasts, it may have something to do with sustenance: milk, food, nourishment.

The notion that some dude carved this thing to whack off to — when he was surrounded by women who probably weren’t wearing much in the way of clothes anyway — is laughable.

Good lord I am so glad I took ancient art from a female professor.

Just a little related note, I have learned over the years that when an archaeologist says something is ‘ritual’, it really means ‘I don’t know’. But of course males are programmed never to admit they don’t know something.

(via housetohalf)