my fall look today is winged eyeliner, plum lipstick, and a look on my face like i’m fucking your boyfriend and can’t wait for you to find out.
my fall look today is a product of the patriarchy, a product of the patriarchy, and a desire for other women to view me as their competition for male attention
I feel the same way when I see people dismissing the harmful things Logan has done harping on how awful Piz was. Usually there’s some kooky theory about how he’s a secret plant of the Castle and was out to hurt Veronica. Which is laughable because while that far-fetched theory is given credence, if you even touch on the very obvious reality that Logan was the driving force in the way Neptune High’s students treated Veronica you get a rambling half-baked meta on how Logan is too good a person to participate in spreading rumors he knows aren’t true because he prefers to be the one directly causing the damage, or something equally as flimsy.
Sometimes I think people purposefully making things up about Piz so they can avoid criticizing the real douchebags from the show.
Forever puzzled by viewers who feel the need to turn one of the nicest, blandest, most normal characters from the entire show into a moustache-twirling villain just because he’s not their favorite dude to ship with Veronica.
Especially when said character was clearly never intended to be a serious romantic contender for Veronica in the long run anyway. Heads up guys: you can say you don’t like Piz without having to prove why. There are no legions of fans who will demand an explanation as to why; you don’t have to make shit up out of nowhere or pretend that he’s somehow doucher than Dick Casablancas/Duncan Kane/Logan Echolls, because let’s be real. He’s not.
He’s nice. He’s a normal, ordinary guy with ordinary guy flaws and no deep seated issues or dark tendencies. He’s not perfect, but if the most that you have is “he was into Veronica while she was with Logan [Which is different than Veronica having feelings for Duncan when he was dating Meg, or Logan when Veronica was dating Duncan, somehow!] He tried to make a move on Veronica [when she wasn’t dating Logan! The nerve!]! He had emotions and was upset with Veronica [when she stood him up to meet his parents! It’s like he’s a human being with emotions and certain expectations toward his girlfriend! Where the fuck does he get off?!]!” you can’t keep going around and insisting he’s actually the incognito-douche you want him to be and expect it to open anyone’s eyes.
I CAN’T ACCOUNT FOR SEVERAL OF MY KNITTING MAGAZINES I DON’T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE BUT I KNOW I HAVE THEM AND THEY SHOULD BE HERE WITH ME AND I CAN’T FIND THEM AND IT’S DRIVING ME I N S A N E
In a study of children aged 2-5, parents interrupted their daughters more than their sons, and fathers were more likely to talk simultaneously with their children than mothers were. Jennifer Coates says: “It seems that fathers try to control conversation more than mothers… and both parents try to control conversation more with daughters than with sons. The implicit message to girls is that they are more interruptible and that their right to speak is less than that of boys.”
Girls and boys’ differing understanding of when to talk, when to be quiet, what is polite and so on, has a visible impact on the dynamics of the classroom. Just as men dominate the floor in business meetings, academic conferences and so on, so little boys dominate in the classroom - and little girls let them.
Working with children for over a decade, this is something I’ve noticed, actually. And for the majority, the little girls in my class and my co-worker’s classes all sit quietly and listen MUCH better than the boys do. Most boys don’t care to be quiet and sit still. And I don’t think this is an attribute of boys being “rowdier” or more “hyper” - believe me, the girls are JUST as off the wall as the boys if you aren’t telling them not to. It must be a learned behavior, and it must be enforced more with the girls so they know they can’t get away with it. You have no idea how many times in my career I’ve heard “boys will be boys,” and smiling parents as they tell me with a laugh, sorry, their son is “wild” and a “handful” as they introduce him to the class.
And that’s how you do sexism. That’s how it’s so effectively trained into every single citizen and indoctrinated as normal and right.
And this is why I relish having ‘wild girls’ in my class so so much. I never had many in my ten years as a preschool teacher because yes, even girls as young as two years old are already so indoctrinated that they all ‘fit the role’ they are to play in this society.
But just as the other commenter said, I’ve had a whole lot of boys who were introduced as ‘wild and difficult’. Normally about two or three boys in every group that don’t listen at all, and all of them, every single one, far less interested in listening and being quiet and doing ‘lessons’.
Not because girls love lessons where they have to sit still for more than a very small amount of time - no child likes that and they shouldn’t, they don’t have the attention span or the capacity to understand things you just lecture them without them physically doing things - but because boys can actually be children, they can act their age, girls can’t, so they will sit and listen and understand nothing but still be quiet and try their best.
And then, when they are actually capable of understanding, boys are literally discouraged from doing so (‘oh, he never cares about learning’, ‘he’s just more a hands on kind of guy you know’, ‘he doesn’t really want to sit still, and why would he, he has so much energy and that is such a good quality in a boy’, ‘yes, I know he’s very aggressive, and lots of his awesome ideas are about hurting others, but that just means he’s inventive and will grow up to be a strong man, right?’).
All of these are things I’ve heard in this or other forms throughout the years. And it makes me sick. Because this is never the case for girls. If, miraculously, a girl’s ‘wildness’ survived to this phase (which it doesn’t in about 95% I’d say, based on the fact that I taught hundreds of children in my life and only a handful of the girls were not ‘typical girls’ after a certain age (very young)), it has to be trained out of her immediately, the parents practically beg you to tell them how to make a ‘good girl’ out of her.
Don’t even try telling me that these differences are inherent. It’s not even in the realm of possibilities. If you would treat both boys and girls exactly the same way from birth, there would be no differences whatsoever (except for the obvious difference of their genitals). Their behaviour would be exactly the same.
The problem is that right now, it’s not possible to do that without the parent’s, the society’s and school’s support and without very carefully selecting all the media the child sees ever. Which means it’s entirely impossible. At the point when girls enter preschool, they’re already indoctrinated so much that it is extraordinarily hard to break through that.
And just for those who need a practical example to understand what I’m saying: in our preschool we have nap time for those children who are very small or just still need to nap – normally the ones who are under or barely over three years old. Some of the older kids also sleep if they are pretty tired and if the circumstances are right, but most of them just lie or sit on their little cots and get bored out of their skull, because since we don’t have another room they need to be fairly quiet so that the smaller kids can sleep.
Now, you can imagine that this is not the best situation ever (well, at least if you have a basic understanding of children). And this is where we come to the territory of gender and the differences. All of the boys will always be loud and go for toys and get up and run around the room after a very short time. Even the ones who do sleep sometimes, only do so after making a huge fuss about being bored.
But only one of the girls always does that (the one girl who I am very happy about, who is ‘one of the boys’ still, despite already being over three). Some of the others, especially the younger ones (there are currently no girls under three, so none of them technically have to sleep) do that too, but always to a lesser extent than the boys and always only after being prompted by the boys or the exceptional girl.
One of the girls will mostly fall asleep after some time when the room is quiet enough and she does need her sleep despite being over three years old, but all the others don’t. But since the room does need to be quiet, we reprimand both the boys and the girls for being loud. Only the girls react to it differently. They will stop much quicker and will stay silent for much longer than the boys.
But here’s the thing: when you do allow the bigger kids to play quietly in one corner of the room, the girls will get even louder than the boys even quicker.
What I am trying to say with this is basically that I fully agree with the statement OP made, girls know much earlier and much better to be quiet when they are told to than boys because they are told to much more often and get rewarded for that and punished for being loud much more often than boys.
But when you actually allow girls to be as loud and ‘wild’ as they want to be, they are so just as much as the boys, if not more (because they have to keep so much in, they relish in being able to let it out). There is however, much less destructive force in their ‘wildness’ and in their loudness. Which obviously also proofs that the whole ‘boys will be boys’ is learned, not inherent. Boys don’t ‘have’ to be destructive, they just get rewarded for it. Boys don’t ‘have’ to hurt others, they just don’t get punished for it.
All of this sums up to a perfect culture of one oppressed class that is not allowed to be themselves or even defend themselves, and an oppressor class that is allowed everything and rewarded for hurting others, especially members of the oppressed class.
And about 99% of people want to keep it that way, some because they are the oppressors and enjoy hurting others and want to keep doing it, most because they literally don’t know better. They literally have no idea that they are contributing to this by not openly opposing it and they are convinced that this is ‘just the way it is’ and how it always has to be.
And don’t even get me started on gendering colors. No, seriously, don’t. :P
*STANDARD DISCLAIMER* I’m not handing down life lessons or trying to assert that there’s a ‘correct way’ to draw. I’m just trying to make perspective more approachable for thems that want to tackle it.
Okay. Let’s do this.
1. Understand what perspective is and what it’s for. Stay away from rulers while you get comfortable.
Everyone struggles with perspective because 1. it’s not well or widely taught and 2. artists tend to see linear perspective as a set of rules rather than a set of tools.
Linear perspective is a TOOL we use to create and depict SPACE. That’s it. That’s all it is. Your goal is not to draw in ‘accurate linear perspective.’ Stay away from the ruler and precision for as long as you can. Your goal is to create the illusion of three-dimensional space on a two-dimensional surface. Perspective is just a tool to help you construct and correct that space.
2. Know in your bones that you can ONLY learn to draw in perspective through physical practice. There is no other way.
Grab some paper and draw with me. If you match me drawing for drawing you will be more fluent in linear perspective and spatial drawing by the end of this post. Unfortunately if you don’t, you won’t be.
3. Sketch around in rough perspective. NO RULERS.
So let’s make some simple space. let’s start with a two dimensional surface…
K. We have a flat, 2D surface. Let’s create some depth by putting a vanishing point in the middle, and having parallel lines converge towards it. Make a gridded plane inside that space.
Good. Let’s make that space meaningful by adding a dude and a road or something. (Again, parallel ‘depth lines’ will converge into the vanishing point along the horizon)
And now we have the rough illusion of some space. I didn’t use any rulers, and it’s not perfectly accurate, but we got our depth from that vanishing point right in the middle of the page. And since we have a little dude in there, we’ve got human scale, which allows us to gauge the size of the space we’ve created. Gives it meaning.
You need people or cars or some recognizable, human-scale THING in there as a frame of reference or your space won’t mean much to your viewer. Watch. We can make that same basic space a whole lot bigger like this:
Same vanishing point in the same place, completely different scale, and a totally different feeling of space. Cool, right?
3. Sketch around in rough perspective MORE. STAY LOOSE.
See what sort of spaces and feelings you can create with vanishing points and gridded planes on a post-it or something. Super small, super rough. Feel it out. Pick a vanishing point or lay out a grid in perspective, and MAKE SOME SPACE. Do it. Draw, I don’t know, a lady and her dog in a desert. I’ll do it, too.
Good job. LOOK AT YOU creating the illusion of space! This is how you’ll thumbnail and plan anything you want to draw in space. All of my drawings start this way. I think about how I want the viewer to feel and then play around with space and composition until I find something that works.
Once you have a sketch you like, and space that you feel, THEN you can take out the ruler and make it more accurate and convincing.
4. Draw environments from life.
I cannot stress this enough. Draw the world around you, try to draw the shapes and angles as you see them, and you will ‘get’ how and why perspective is used. Use something permanent so that you’ll move fast and commit. I usually use black prismacolor pencil.
You’ll learn or reinforce something with every drawing. I learned a lot about multiple vanishing points from this drawing:
Learned from the receding, winding space I tired to draw here:
Layered, interior spaces:
You get the idea.
Life drawing will also help you develop your own shorthand and language for depicting textures, materials, details, natural and architectural features, etc. Do it. Do it all the time. Go to pretty or interesting places just to draw them.
Take a second and just draw a quick sketch of whatever room you’re in.
5. Perspective in formal Illustration: apply what you’ve learned.
1. I always start with research. For this particular location I looked at Angkor Wat.
2. Once I had enough reference, I did a bunch of little thumbnail sketches with a very loose sense of space and picked the one I liked best.
3. Scanned the thumbnail and drew a little more clearly over it. Worked out the rough space before using formal perspective.
4. Reinforced the space with formal perspective. I dropped in pre-made vanishing points over my drawing. If I were drawing in real media here’s where I’d get out the ruler to sketch in some accurate space.
5. Drew the damn thing. Because I do my research, draw from life, and am comfortable drawing in perspective, I can wing it. I just sort of ‘build’ the ruins freehand in the space I’ve established, keeping it more or less accurate, experimenting and playing with details along the way. I erase a lot, too, both in PS and when drawing in pencil. Keeps it fun for me.
And that’s what I know about composition and perspective. If you want more formal instruction on perspective and it’s uses, you can use John Buscema’s How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way. Or If you want to get really intense about it, Andrew Loomis can help you.
Perspective! A bit of a different way of teaching it than I do but still very pertinent, well described and illustrated, focusing on composition, scale, and the ever important concept of drawing from life.