Link

Somebody at HuffPo is not too impressed with “Equestria Girls.” Also: requisite soundbytes from Peggy Orenstein.

Photoset

mynameisgoblin:

Damn, right in my childhood. Great art by Dan Luvisi.

http://danluvisiart.deviantart.com/

(Source: pimplusius, via greatgrottu)

Video

My friend James sent me this video of his friends roleplaying as the Sweet Valley Twins themselves, Jessica and Elizabeth Wakefield!

Photo
But do her earrings light up? No? NO SALE.
The Mary Sue (via Edith Frost)

But do her earrings light up? No? NO SALE.

The Mary Sue (via Edith Frost)

Link

Your childhood is about to take a bruisin’:

this is worse than when George murdered Bess
God
remember that?
yeah I remember
that was horrible
it really was
no it was really horrible
it just came out of nowhere

Video

Departing from the usual: today, someone loves your childhood.

Quote
"Hold on to your childhoods, 20- and 30-somethings, because they’re in Diablo Cody’s hands now. In case you haven’t heard, the Juno and Young Adult screenwriter’s next foray into adolescence will be a big-screen adaptation of Francine Pascal’s middle school-staple Sweet Valley High novels. But that’s not all — last night at the Critics’ Choice Movie Awards, Cody told MTV News that the movie will be a musical. ‘There’s original songs being written for it right now, which is the most exciting development,’ she said. ‘They’re amazing. They’re being written by these Tony and Pulitzer Prize-winning songwriters from Broadway who are the best.’"

— Diablo Cody loves our collective childhood… but plans to wreck it anyway, just for funsies. Flavorpill: The ‘Sweet Valley High’ Movie Is Going to Be a Musical

Photo
rainbowfairyprincess:

dangertits:

skiptripfall:

rainbowfairyprincess:

I am incredibly grateful to my parents for giving me both kinds of toys. I preferred the dolls, but at least I know that was my own honest choice.

My mom wouldn’t let me have toys. 

I still find most commentary on the sexist division of girl toys and boy toys to be rather lacking. Of course if is terrible that girls and boys are given toys that encourage them to enact stereotypical gender roles ways so young; this type of socialization might prime them to fill specific roles later on in life. But people are still undervaluing “girls toys,” equating them with passive frivolousness. And how sexist is that? The sentiment is that “gender neutral” toys, always verging towards “boys toys,” are constructive, educational, and worthwhile. Dolls aren’t. This is the kind of sentiment that dismisses the value of “women’s work” of care-giving later on in life.
“Boys toys” tend to be physically complex. “Girls toys” tend to be socially complex.  The complexity of the imaginary play that children often engage in with dolls is intangible and made invisible early on—because you aren’t looking.  It is so much easier for a child to say “look what I made” and get a pat on the back than to say “watch me engage.”
I played with lot of different types of toys. Sure, I liked to build things with legos. But I much preferred my dolls. And guess what? All forty or so of my beanie babies had individual personalities. They had roles, romances, they interacted with each other in complex ways. There were smaller subgroups of birds or bears. I used them to create a complete micro-society. But an adult passerby would see that pile of critters as a rather useless and excessive collection.
Understanding social complexities, the kind of play which “girls toys” encourage, is undervalued from an early age.
Let’s please stop with the “dolls are dumb” rhetoric. It isn’t helpful. It’s still sexist. The problem of gendered children’s toys won’t be fixed by allowing free access to “boys toys” for all, but by seeing the value in diverse types of play, and encouraging all children to engage in them.

Re-reblogging for commentary.
And to add that dolls ought to be marketed/designed in a way that encourages that kind of creative play, rather than the way they seem to be done now, with pre-packaged personalities and an emphasis on how “sexy” they are.

Hello, I am thieving all of this

rainbowfairyprincess:

dangertits:

skiptripfall:

rainbowfairyprincess:

I am incredibly grateful to my parents for giving me both kinds of toys. I preferred the dolls, but at least I know that was my own honest choice.

My mom wouldn’t let me have toys. 

I still find most commentary on the sexist division of girl toys and boy toys to be rather lacking. Of course if is terrible that girls and boys are given toys that encourage them to enact stereotypical gender roles ways so young; this type of socialization might prime them to fill specific roles later on in life. But people are still undervaluing “girls toys,” equating them with passive frivolousness. And how sexist is that? The sentiment is that “gender neutral” toys, always verging towards “boys toys,” are constructive, educational, and worthwhile. Dolls aren’t. This is the kind of sentiment that dismisses the value of “women’s work” of care-giving later on in life.

“Boys toys” tend to be physically complex. “Girls toys” tend to be socially complex.  The complexity of the imaginary play that children often engage in with dolls is intangible and made invisible early on—because you aren’t looking.  It is so much easier for a child to say “look what I made” and get a pat on the back than to say “watch me engage.”

I played with lot of different types of toys. Sure, I liked to build things with legos. But I much preferred my dolls. And guess what? All forty or so of my beanie babies had individual personalities. They had roles, romances, they interacted with each other in complex ways. There were smaller subgroups of birds or bears. I used them to create a complete micro-society. But an adult passerby would see that pile of critters as a rather useless and excessive collection.

Understanding social complexities, the kind of play which “girls toys” encourage, is undervalued from an early age.

Let’s please stop with the “dolls are dumb” rhetoric. It isn’t helpful. It’s still sexist. The problem of gendered children’s toys won’t be fixed by allowing free access to “boys toys” for all, but by seeing the value in diverse types of play, and encouraging all children to engage in them.

Re-reblogging for commentary.

And to add that dolls ought to be marketed/designed in a way that encourages that kind of creative play, rather than the way they seem to be done now, with pre-packaged personalities and an emphasis on how “sexy” they are.

Hello, I am thieving all of this

(Source: hypnotiqone, via cabell)

Photo
laughingsquid:

Little Golden Book Style Movie Scene Illustrations by Josh Cooley
Link

Well, sometimes I embrace a good childhood-wrecking:

Logan’s favorite movie is Dan in Real Life.