Source: loadingreadyrun.com
I want to state that I feel Jesse Mason did a poor job of covering the issue on the art of Triumph of Ferocity.
His article was not carefully written, and his subsequent reactions on Twitter were inflammatory without value; all he managed to do was create a huge blow-up, on an issue that could’ve been handled many other ways.
Yes, I feel Wizards made a mistake in that piece of artwork (from a marketing / branding perspective—I’m sure it is fine otherwise). I’m glad Elaine Chase stepped up to the plate and owned it. After all, she is head of Branding, and that’s what this was about—poor branding.
I am not interested in that debate at all, however. Let’s move on.
My point is that I feel Jesse’s article was irresponsibly done. This was a delicate issue, one with a lot of angles, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. So why do I get the sense he just decided to go for the sledgehammer instead of the scalpel? Why do I get the sense he didn’t take the issue seriously and just made statements to try to inflame? And not inflame in a way that made people question themselves / their beliefs or make them feel a level of social responsibility—he just riled people by making jokes in poor taste and assuming his readers would react a certain way (in the dumbest way possible).
A lot of his equivalencies / metaphors are outrageously out of scope.
“Serial killers don’t get to point out all the people they didn’t decapitate.” What is the point of saying things like this? How does that help the argument at all? It’s like he’s derailing himself.
It’s not that I can’t appreciate his points, several of which are valid. It’s that he seems to not appreciate what an incredibly complex, nuanced, and controversial issue it is. And yet he is attempting to speak with some kind of authority on the subject. Meanwhile, he’s also shedding responsibility, by making jokes about his validity: “I’m a Fairly Serious Player”; “I conducted an extremely rigorous experimental process”; “I play Magic every now and then.” This isn’t funny! This just subverts what he’s trying to accomplish.
If you can’t take yourself seriously as a writer and you can’t take the subject seriously, I wouldn’t expect your readers to either.
There are other, better ways to be funny. I thought Jackie’s article on women in Magic was quite amusing. (“Most feminist writers don’t make many jokes?” I’m sure they just feel their efforts would be inadequate, next to: “Angels about to cleave some zombies in half with cleavage.” All right, maybe that was a low blow.
I’m not too good at this humor thing…
Anyway.)
Normally, I’d just talk to Jesse about this privately and let it all rest. This instance, I feel a strong need to say something publically, as I’m being mistaken as a strong advocate of Jesse’s stance / article. And I’m not. I don’t agree with all his points. I don’t like the way he approached the issue. Jesse’s opinion, as strong and forceful as it is, is affecting people’s ideas of what my opinions are. I’m less than enthusiastic about this.
Jesse is his own person. I’m my own damn person. Stop lumping us all* together, like we’re “all the same.”
* I.e. people who try to discuss sexism
Last major point: Stop attacking people for expressing a different opinion. It’s fucked up and shitty. Yeah, I went there.
For asexuals, sex is like… a donut. When we see a donut, we do not have the urge to eat the donut. This does not necessarily mean we hate the donut, or think the donut is disgusting— many of us even like donuts. But we never have any urge to walk over there and eat it. Demisexuals will have the urge to eat the donut only if it their absolute favorite kind of donut in the whole world, and greysexuals sometimes will have the urge to get the donut, and sometimes not. Celibates are on diets.
Source: asexualeducation
Tales from the Pit: A Letter About Female Representation
I got an interesting letter in my email and I thought I would try something new. I do a lot of question answering here on Tumblr but I thought it would be neat from time to time to allow you to see some of the mail I get. I am choosing the letters because I think they will start good discussions.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the contents of this letter, however I do think Wizards could try harder.
Being able to create a nice array of female characters doesn’t seem that hard when you have to design a ton of new characters with every block / set. Contrast with movies or video games where you’re trying to get people to care specifically about just one or a handful of characters.
Magic will win on numbers alone — because they have way more characters they can work with / create. It would honestly seem very bizarre if there weren’t a decent array of female characters in Magic.
The challenge I’d present to Wizards is not on the number of women they can insert into the storylines or put on the cards or feature on sets / boxes / products. The challenge is to create a woman character other women can connect to. A character you can just look at and say, “I want to be like that” or “I wonder what it’d be like to be her.”
And they should do this for men, too. Honestly I just want more relatable characters all around.
Source: markrosewater
http://
ok lets see if that thing with glasses chicks suddenly becoming super weird feminine when they whip off their glasses works
woop
well that was anticlimatic wait
wait
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON
What that is dumb and does not happen.
Look, check it out.
See, not much diff-
Wait, what-
the fuck.
You guys are being dumbs
That does not happen in real life watch
See I told you
Wait a
who am i
you guys this is straight up bullshit
i’ll prove it to you all right now ok
you see, like i said, it’s total bull—
…oh what the hell…
the FUCK kind of GYPSY MAGIC SHIT is THIS?!?!?!?!?!
…….
hey boys~*~*~*~ wonk~*~*~*~*~
Huh. You women and your woman problems.
Good thing I’m a dude and don’t have to worry about that kinda crapola
dear god this is fantastic
Source: sassylesbianluka
I don’t care how much sex anyone has, how often they do it, or who they do it with. I’m much more interested in the consent, pleasure, and well-being of the participants and the people affected by it. I respect women who are asexual, celibate, monogamous, multi-partnered, or have had more partners than they can recall. I respect women who only have sex after a commitment to monogamy and those who have sex with someone within minutes of meeting them. I respect women who have transactional sex, women who have sex for love, or for any other reason. I know that all of these categories are permeable and that many women move from one to another. And I know that any of these decisions can be made from a place of personal power, choice, and authenticity, as well as from a place of coercion, shame, and disempowerment.
(via fuckyeahwomenprotesting2)
Source: charlieglickman.com
Batch two of photos from the StarCityGames.com Invitational in Baltimore from this past weekend.
Check out my sweet laptop tech :)
Source: affinityforislands






















