LeeAnn DiCicco

I think it would be very droll if we all sat down and looked at etchings.
socimages:

How to lie with statistics: The relationship between Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and gun deaths.
At Junk Charts, Kaiser Fung drew my attention to a graph released by Reuters.  It is so deeply misleading that I loathe to expose your eyeballs to it.  So, I offer you the mishmash above.
The original figure is on the left.  It counts the number of gun deaths in Florida.  A line rises, bounces a little, reaches a 2nd highest peak labeled “2005, Florida enacted its ‘Stand Your Ground’ law,” and falls precipitously.
What do you see?
Most people see a huge fall-off in the number of gun deaths after Stand Your Ground was passed.  But that’s not what the graph shows.  A quick look at the vertical axis reveals that the gun deaths are counted from top (0) to bottom (800).  The highest peaks are the fewest gun deaths and the lowest ones are the most.  A rise in the line, in other words, reveals a reduction in gun deaths.  The graph on the right — flipped both horizontally and vertically — is more intuitive to most: a rising line reflects a rise in the number of gun deaths and a dropping a drop.
The proper conclusion, then, is that gun deaths skyrocketed after Stand Your Ground was enacted.
This example is a great reminder that we bring our own assumptions to our reading of any illustration of data.  The original graph may have broken convention, making the intuitive read of the image incorrect, but the data is, presumably, sound.  It’s our responsibility, then, to always do our due diligence in absorbing information.  The alternative is to be duped.
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, with Myra Marx Ferree. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

socimages:

How to lie with statistics: The relationship between Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and gun deaths.

At Junk Charts, Kaiser Fung drew my attention to a graph released by Reuters.  It is so deeply misleading that I loathe to expose your eyeballs to it.  So, I offer you the mishmash above.

The original figure is on the left.  It counts the number of gun deaths in Florida.  A line rises, bounces a little, reaches a 2nd highest peak labeled “2005, Florida enacted its ‘Stand Your Ground’ law,” and falls precipitously.

What do you see?

Most people see a huge fall-off in the number of gun deaths after Stand Your Ground was passed.  But that’s not what the graph shows.  A quick look at the vertical axis reveals that the gun deaths are counted from top (0) to bottom (800).  The highest peaks are the fewest gun deaths and the lowest ones are the most.  A rise in the line, in other words, reveals a reduction in gun deaths.  The graph on the right — flipped both horizontally and vertically — is more intuitive to most: a rising line reflects a rise in the number of gun deaths and a dropping a drop.

The proper conclusion, then, is that gun deaths skyrocketed after Stand Your Ground was enacted.

This example is a great reminder that we bring our own assumptions to our reading of any illustration of data.  The original graph may have broken convention, making the intuitive read of the image incorrect, but the data is, presumably, sound.  It’s our responsibility, then, to always do our due diligence in absorbing information.  The alternative is to be duped.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College and the author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, with Myra Marx Ferree. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Here’s the thing. Men in our culture have been socialized to believe that their opinions on women’s appearance matter a lot. Not all men buy into this, of course, but many do. Some seem incapable of entertaining the notion that not everything women do with their appearance is for men to look at. This is why men’s response to women discussing stifling beauty norms is so often something like “But I actually like small boobs!” and “But I actually like my women on the heavier side, if you know what I mean!” They don’t realize that their individual opinion on women’s appearance doesn’t matter in this context, and that while it might be reassuring for some women to know that there are indeed men who find them fuckable, that’s not the point of the discussion.

Women, too, have been socialized to believe that the ultimate arbiters of their appearance are men, that anything they do with their appearance is or should be “for men.” That’s why women’s magazines trip over themselves to offer up advice on “what he wants to see you wearing” and “what men think of these current fashion trends” and “wow him with these new hairstyles.” While women can and do judge each other’s appearance harshly, many of us grew up being told by mothers, sisters, and female strangers that we’ll never “get a man” or “keep a man” unless we do X or lose some fat from Y, unless we moisturize//trim/shave/pushup/hide/show/”flatter”/paint/dye/exfoliate/pierce/surgically alter this or that.

That’s also why when a woman wears revealing clothes, it’s okay, in our society, to assume that she’s “looking for attention” or that she’s a slut and wants to sleep with a bunch of guys. Because why else would a woman wear revealing clothes if not for the benefit of men and to communicate her sexual availability to them, right? It can’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that it’s hot out or it’s more comfortable or she likes how she looks in it or everything else is in the laundry or she wants to get a tan or maybe she likes women and wants attention from them, not from men?

The result of all this is that many men, even kind and well-meaning men, believe, however subconsciously, that women’s bodies are for them. They are for them to look at, for them to pass judgment on, for them to bless with a compliment if they deign to do so. They are not for women to enjoy, take pride in, love, accept, explore, show off, or hide as they please. They are for men and their pleasure.

annavonsyfert:

drama and snake-friendship.

I was gonna make like a 2 page comic just for fun and then it ended up with 6 pages, woops

(via kateordie)

justplainsomething:

batgirlrising:

moriarty:

saunterdown:

baruchsbalthamos:

littleblueartist:

never not reblog Scarlett calling idiots out on their bullshit

image

and the shitty part is that once scarlett called them out on their fucking bullshit, she automatically became coined a bitch. a bitch. for being brave enough to publicly tell them what was so annoying about a still continuing problem for women in media

"You work hard making independent films for fourteen years and you get voted best breasts.” - scarlett johansson

god i feel horrible for her. i feel horrible for every single woman in this world. and it was to the point where she decided to get breast reduction surgery for her to be taken more seriously as an actress. what the hell is wrong with everybody

and i never, ever understood the hate towards anne hathaway. new york times magazine stated “Anne Hathaway practically demands that we love her.” fucking wrong. anne never gave a shit about looking stuck up when she was out there on stage, preaching for gay rights and how wrong it is for men to constantly sexualize and put down women in the media in every single interview where a man asked the bullshit question “what diet plan did you use for your role in les mis, i bet every single girl wants to know”. she knew a backlash would come from for being so strong and forceful with her retortive statements, but they saved the people that mattered.

and another point. kristen stewart. why in the hell do people hate kristen stewart as a person. women today are expected to act pretty. nice. be respectful 24/7, never argue back, smile pretty, be a lady. don’t make rash, argumentative statements, because if you do, you are not a lady. this is a message our society tries to suffocate women with. kristen stewart will not smile for you, or act like a fuckin lady for you, because that is not her character

yet people hate her because she decides to be herself. “god kristen, you gotta smile some more, talk more ladylike”

what in the fuck for? absolutely nobody knows kristen stewart’s personality. she’s a private person. but just because she refuses to lie through her teeth to seem like a respectable, golden lady of hollywood, she’s considered a bitch. “do this or that because if you don’t you aint a lady” god fuckin damn all of you

its really early in the morning and i cant think straight so if my rant seems messy im sorry 

PS… douche in the first gif is the same interviewer who pulled the same stunt on Anne Hathaway during her TDKR press tour.

None for you, Jerry Penacoli, none for you.

The best thing about both of these moments is that in both cases (even though it’s hard to tell with how this particular gifset is cropped), Renner and Downey are both obviously reacting negatively to the comment but just sit back and let Scarlett rip into the douchebags. Cause they know she’s got the situation fucking covered.

(Source: alianovnataliasoldblog, via yippykiyay-mudafocker)

Wrapped up a design/print job today; some wedding invitations and RSVP cards. I’ve done letterpress printing before (mostly on a Vandercook V4), but today was my first experience printing on a Chandler & Price 10x15 press with a foot pedal.   It pretty much ruled. 

An awesome day of printing woodblocks onto t-shirts at the Fresno Mini Maker Faire with Print and Glory!

blackheartpress:

benjaminllevy:

Editioning a new 18 plate Julie Mehretu etching @ Gemini G.E.L.

Five printers pull about one print a day. What a sight to behold!  


Awesome drawdown sheet, and pretty pretty steelfaced plate(s). Happy gigantomania projects like this keep printers busy (=paid).

thesocietypages-blog:

How to Change the World One Shrug at a Time
This is, by far, the best response to inquiries about male -bodied cross-dressing that I have ever heard. If you don’t already love Eddie Izzard, you might now.  Asked why he wears “women’s dresses,” this non-cisgendered man responds, in a nutshell: “I’m not wearing women’s dresses. I’m wearing my dresses. I bought them. They are mine and I’m a man. They are very clearly a man’s dresses.”The phenomenon of being questioned about one’s performance of gender is called “gender policing.” Generally there are three ways to respond to gender policing: (1) apologize and follow the gender rules, (2) make an excuse for why you’re breaking the rules (which allows you to break them, but still affirms the rules), or (3) do something that suggests that the rules are stupid or wrong.  Only the last one is effective in changing or eradicating norms delimiting how men and women are expected to behave.

thesocietypages-blog:

How to Change the World One Shrug at a Time

This is, by far, the best response to inquiries about male -bodied cross-dressing that I have ever heard. If you don’t already love Eddie Izzard, you might now.  Asked why he wears “women’s dresses,” this non-cisgendered man responds, in a nutshell: “I’m not wearing women’s dresses. I’m wearing my dresses. I bought them. They are mine and I’m a man. They are very clearly a man’s dresses.”
The phenomenon of being questioned about one’s performance of gender is called “gender policing.” Generally there are three ways to respond to gender policing: (1) apologize and follow the gender rules, (2) make an excuse for why you’re breaking the rules (which allows you to break them, but still affirms the rules), or (3) do something that suggests that the rules are stupid or wrong.  Only the last one is effective in changing or eradicating norms delimiting how men and women are expected to behave.