peoplepowermovement:

Here is some recent news coverage on the beginnings of gentrification coming to the northwest Bronx:

Mom-and-pop stores across from the Kingsbridge Armory are getting iced out of biz (NY Daily News)

“That type of letter is not a renewed-lease-letter; it’s a put-people-out letter,” said Christian Ramos, the vice president of the Kingsbridge Road Merchants Association.

EXCLUSIVE: Amid Re-development of Kingsbridge Armory, Rents To Double For Some In August (Norwood News)

“It’s frustrating. You don’t know if you’re coming or going,” said Bass, who feels as though it’s a type of legal eviction. “That’s just giving us three weeks to increase our rent, make a decision, get out, stay. This is really horrible. And these are families trying to stay.”

BREAKING: Rent hikes near Kingsbridge Armory threaten local businesses (BX Times)

The world’s largest ice rink complex is coming — but many local businesses likely won’t be there to see it.

WATCH: Kingsbridge Road shops face increased rent, possible closure amid building of ice skating center (News 12 The Bronx)

Tenants say a new landlord is starting to double their rents because the Kingsbridge Armory is reopening as a huge ice skating center in a few years, and property values are already starting to skyrocket.

This is what we’re doing to stop it: People Power Movement Fighting Gentrification in the Bronx

(via gigglesandanixi)

WHY HAVENT I HEARD ABOUT MY FINANCIAL AID PACKAGE YET WHEN I JUST GOT SERVED WITH AN 11K BILL WHY HASNT MY SCHOOL APPROVED MY APPLICATION FOR THE SMALLEST LOAN AMOUNT POSSIBLE FOR A BILL DUE 2 MONTHS AGO

I ONLY WABT TO BE BACK IN THE US TO SORT OUT THIS MONEY SHIT I HATE UNIVERSITIES SI MUCH I DONT WANT A FUCJING DEGREE

gigglesandanixi:

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:

poppypicklesticks:

halftheskymovement:

In an article for Take Part, writers Holly Eagleson and Lauren Wade retouched controversial advertisements by replacing women models with men. In doing so, Eagleson and Wade hoped to highlight the pervasiveness of sexual objectification of women. For example, they decided to remake American Apparel advertisements to draw attention to former CEO Dov Charney’s abuse and mistreatment of female employees, as well as to photographer Terry Richardson’s record of harassing and assaulting women.
“Charney and Richardson are really representative of a specific form of sexism and objectification in media today,” Wade told Huffington Post in an email. “Their collaborations, in particular for American Apparel, depict women in sexually vulnerable, pornographic positions where a lot of the model’s facial expressions look like they’ve been drugged or they’re drunk. These images are predatory. They depict women being taken advantage of and it’s supposed to look “sexy” and sell sweatshirts?”



*these images are predatory and objectify women*
Lol ok






But Wait!  I hear you cry!  
Those are all adverts for mens underwear!  That doesn’t count! Ok, let’s have a look for some of American Apparel’s non-underwear adverts! 


hmmm…. the shorts were the last thing I noticed here

American Apparel Socks used in a photoshoot
Feel free to check out the rest here, if you wanna see this adorable hunkster’s pubes
http://models.com/mdx/tag/francisco-lachowski/
You are equating scantily clad female models as “objectification of women” yet failing to notice that most fashion industries treat male models the exact same way.
It is intellectually dishonest to equate the use of scantily clad models to rape and sexual assault.   How can you argue against “she was wearing a short skirt so she must have wanted it” yet create a link between rape and scantily clad female models in the fashion industry?  There’s also images of their lead photogropher cavorting with male models with his boxers around his ankles… notice there is nothing about that in your puff piece.
What does that say about all the female designers and gay male fashion designers who use scantily clad models of both sexes, including the sexes they are attracted to in their shoots? 
At the end of the day, you act like you are being somehow revolutionary in swapping female models in AA shoots with males, when most of their work selling menswear looks like softcore gay porn. 

ur wrong
those men adverts are power fantasies therefore not sexual objectification#wrekt:o)

@poppypicklesticks - I actually don’t think that those are the right ads to use at all. Like dwshp’s mentioned, those are about a power fantasy. I’m a professional retoucher myself and in my line of work we see this sort of thing all the time. First of all with women in advertisements its about making the woman look like she’s ready to submit to sex. You cast a model and you photograph her in positions that encourage that thought process. That’s why you dominantly see advertisements of women that are parallel to food. Burger king ads where a woman’s mouth is ripped as a doubleentendre for her not being able to take a big dick. Carls Jr. ads of a hot woman eating an enormous burger and it representing sex - ‘if it doesn’t get all over the place it doesn’t belong in your face.’ You don’t typically see ads of men that are equated with objects. It’s tried but it isn’t common. You see ads of men that are SEXUALIZED and in some cases they’re just as sexualized as women are - but that’s on the surface. Every so often you find some companies that try to flip it sideways to objectify men in order to appeal to women, yes. But generally speaking, you do not see men that are sexualized in advertisements that put them in powerless positions. I think that AA was trying to make a statement with some of these and I see why you’d use these as an example, but these flipped AA ads do not represent the norm. You normally don’t see ads of men where they’re bending over or where they look like they’re meant to be on the bottom as a metaphor unless its a subversive ad campaign or a specific photoshoot that’s meant to play on gender roles from a feminist perspective. That’s why I said that it’s tried but its not something that’s common where you can walk onto a major busy street ripe with ads and see it all over the place like a commonality. When we retouch men our process is entirely different from the way we retouch women. First of all, we airbrush women to perfection but the technique with retouching men is that you make them look more natural than you do with women because an advertisement of a man isn’t meant to be an illusion whereas a retouch of a woman is meant to be an illusion that you can’t ever aspire to. There are some instances where men are fat shamed and there’s a lot of diet culture and harmful masculine stereotypes that hinder men’s confidence, yes. But advertisements like these and most of them in GENERAL are about putting a man in a place of power whether he’s naked or not. It’s about the message you’re supposed to send as a company. When you see an ad of a naked woman she’s meant to look approachable and easy to dominate but an ad of a naked man is meant to make men WANT to be him because he displays a sense of confidence. That’s why the colors that they use for ads for men (google male ads for cologne, clothing, etc) use darker and colder color palettes. They have more contrast and it’s meant to inspire power opposed to submission. That’s why product lines for men have harsher shapes, harsher and darker colors, and their ad campaigns are generally darker or they’re more simplistic and straight to the point opposed to pretty. For men in advertising its about power and dominance. Therefore in most cases them being naked or close to naked actually isn’t objectification from a marketing standpoint.

gigglesandanixi:

diarrheaworldstarhiphop:

poppypicklesticks:

halftheskymovement:

In an article for Take Part, writers Holly Eagleson and Lauren Wade retouched controversial advertisements by replacing women models with men. In doing so, Eagleson and Wade hoped to highlight the pervasiveness of sexual objectification of women. For example, they decided to remake American Apparel advertisements to draw attention to former CEO Dov Charney’s abuse and mistreatment of female employees, as well as to photographer Terry Richardson’s record of harassing and assaulting women.

Charney and Richardson are really representative of a specific form of sexism and objectification in media today,” Wade told Huffington Post in an email. “Their collaborations, in particular for American Apparel, depict women in sexually vulnerable, pornographic positions where a lot of the model’s facial expressions look like they’ve been drugged or they’re drunk. These images are predatory. They depict women being taken advantage of and it’s supposed to look “sexy” and sell sweatshirts?”

*these images are predatory and objectify women*

Lol ok

But Wait!  I hear you cry!  

Those are all adverts for mens underwear!  That doesn’t count! Ok, let’s have a look for some of American Apparel’s non-underwear adverts! 

hmmm…. the shorts were the last thing I noticed here

American Apparel Socks used in a photoshoot

Feel free to check out the rest here, if you wanna see this adorable hunkster’s pubes

http://models.com/mdx/tag/francisco-lachowski/

You are equating scantily clad female models as “objectification of women” yet failing to notice that most fashion industries treat male models the exact same way.

It is intellectually dishonest to equate the use of scantily clad models to rape and sexual assault.   How can you argue against “she was wearing a short skirt so she must have wanted it” yet create a link between rape and scantily clad female models in the fashion industry?  There’s also images of their lead photogropher cavorting with male models with his boxers around his ankles… notice there is nothing about that in your puff piece.

What does that say about all the female designers and gay male fashion designers who use scantily clad models of both sexes, including the sexes they are attracted to in their shoots? 

At the end of the day, you act like you are being somehow revolutionary in swapping female models in AA shoots with males, when most of their work selling menswear looks like softcore gay porn. 

ur wrong

those men adverts are power fantasies therefore not sexual objectification

#wrekt
:o)

@
poppypicklesticks - I actually don’t think that those are the right ads to use at all. Like dwshp’s mentioned, those are about a power fantasy. I’m a professional retoucher myself and in my line of work we see this sort of thing all the time.

First of all with women in advertisements its about making the woman look like she’s ready to submit to sex. You cast a model and you photograph her in positions that encourage that thought process. That’s why you dominantly see advertisements of women that are parallel to food. Burger king ads where a woman’s mouth is ripped as a doubleentendre for her not being able to take a big dick. Carls Jr. ads of a hot woman eating an enormous burger and it representing sex - ‘if it doesn’t get all over the place it doesn’t belong in your face.’

You don’t typically see ads of men that are equated with objects. It’s tried but it isn’t common. You see ads of men that are SEXUALIZED and in some cases they’re just as sexualized as women are - but that’s on the surface. Every so often you find some companies that try to flip it sideways to objectify men in order to appeal to women, yes. But generally speaking, you do not see men that are sexualized in advertisements that put them in powerless positions. I think that AA was trying to make a statement with some of these and I see why you’d use these as an example, but these flipped AA ads do not represent the norm. You normally don’t see ads of men where they’re bending over or where they look like they’re meant to be on the bottom as a metaphor unless its a subversive ad campaign or a specific photoshoot that’s meant to play on gender roles from a feminist perspective. That’s why I said that it’s tried but its not something that’s common where you can walk onto a major busy street ripe with ads and see it all over the place like a commonality. 

When we retouch men our process is entirely different from the way we retouch women. First of all, we airbrush women to perfection but the technique with retouching men is that you make them look more natural than you do with women because an advertisement of a man isn’t meant to be an illusion whereas a retouch of a woman is meant to be an illusion that you can’t ever aspire to. There are some instances where men are fat shamed and there’s a lot of diet culture and harmful masculine stereotypes that hinder men’s confidence, yes.

But advertisements like these and most of them in GENERAL are about putting a man in a place of power whether he’s naked or not. It’s about the message you’re supposed to send as a company. When you see an ad of a naked woman she’s meant to look approachable and easy to dominate but an ad of a naked man is meant to make men WANT to be him because he displays a sense of confidence. That’s why the colors that they use for ads for men (google male ads for cologne, clothing, etc) use darker and colder color palettes. They have more contrast and it’s meant to inspire power opposed to submission. That’s why product lines for men have harsher shapes, harsher and darker colors, and their ad campaigns are generally darker or they’re more simplistic and straight to the point opposed to pretty.

For men in advertising its about power and dominance. Therefore in most cases them being naked or close to naked actually isn’t objectification from a marketing standpoint.

unsuccessfulmetalbenders:

honestly my dad is such a freak he never says goodnight like a normal person he just says “i’ll be back” and he goes upstairs and when you ask where he is or go looking for him hes asleep and the next morning when you see him he just says “good morning im back’ like what is wrong with him

(via morismako)