🔥 | Latest

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:

This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not...

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:
This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not ...

Amazon, Bad, and Be Like: krista (030) y@cherryblushed i used to read 3-4 full sized novels in middle school. now i see anything longer than a paragraph and bounce. i'll miss u brain cells, can't believe u peaked at age 12 15/9/18, 1:04 pm 68 Retweets 238 Likes takingbackmyfirstamendmentrights: dewdrop156: memecage: It do be like that. I was having a surprisingly good conversation with my sister recently and I was talking about how one of the reasons I don’t read as much as I used to is because I don’t have the same resources I did when I was a 4th grader. When I was a kid, I could sit and read all I wanted, all I had to to was exist and go where people took me. I didn’t have to feed myself or pay bills or keep track of things, which of course now I have to deal with all of those things so I can’t read as much and tend to read pretty easy to read books. My sister brought up the really good point that, of course I want to read easy books, I’m a young adult, in a very tumultuous phase of life, constantly being thrown new information, my brain doesnt want a classical novel, my brain wants something readable and immersive. tl;dr don’t feel bad for not reading as much as you used to, it’s okay. Read what you can when you can and don’t stress about the rest But nowadays, there are so many more resources for reading that you can gain access to. Even though you’re busy and stressed out my life, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t continue to strive to read whenever possible. I’ve compiled this basic list of super accessible ways to read in the modern age.1. LibbyLibby is a library app, and it free to use. If you have a library card (which you can either pick up at a branch or online, depending on where you live), you put in your information, and you have access to your library’s ebooks and audiobooks. Generally, you can check ebooks out for two to three weeks, and it gives you the option to renew (if someone isn’t waiting in line for that book) or return early. It’s super user- friendly. If you want to scam the system a little bit, a lot of libraries give you 30 to 60 days after making a card online to come in and actually get a physical card and show your ID. If you are looking for a specific book that your library may not have, make library cards at other locations with fake addresses and check out their supply. I personally have about eight library cards, so I always can find what I’m looking for unless it’s super rare. 2. KindleWhile you can buy the actual Amazon e-reader, you can also just use the free app. There are a bunch of ebooks you can read for free, or for a low price. If you have Kindle Unlimited ($10/month), you can borrow up to ten KU books at a time for as long as you want. A lot of authors have KU books, so it’s a good way to go. 3. NookBarnes and Noble’s Nook is similar to the Kindle—comes in a physical e-reader, but is also usable as a free app. I will say I find that their selection generally costs more than Amazon’s selection, but it’s an option if you prefer to stay away from Amazon products. One thing they do sometime around the end of the year is send you out a refund check for all the books that you purchased through them that were at a higher market price then they would’ve been elsewhere. I’ve gotten like three of these, so I figure it’s a regular thing. 4. AudibleFor people who are sight-impaired or have difficulty sitting down and reading a book, audiobooks are SO the way to go. When you sign up, you can receive up to two free audiobooks, and whatever plan you decide to go with gives you two free audiobooks a month (from a specific selection) in addition to your credits! If you have Kindle ebooks, there is sometimes an option to purchase the accompanying Audible audiobook for a super discounted rate. If you don’t like an audiobook, you can call in to return it at any time. I have something like forty or fifty audiobooks from them, and I’ve exchanged another twenty. These options are all in addition to physical books from your local library, and discount bookstores. The nice thing about ebooks is that generally they have the option to highlight and bookmark pages, change the font size and type, and even change the color of the page if you prefer.I always thought audiobooks were for old people until a few years ago when I was commuting about three hours a day for work. I wasn’t reading nearly as much, and as an avid reader, that distressed me greatly.Finally, I looked into audiobooks and it was a huge life changer. Instead of wasting three hours a day in traffic, I was reading for three hours a day that I would’ve otherwise not been able to. Not only does it make a trip go faster, but it makes it much more enjoyable.And even if you don’t want it for the commute or for the gym, audiobooks are a really good option for people who have vision problems. I have migraines when I stare at screens too much, so I pop on an audiobook and just crochet or do the dishes. I have a friend who has very bad eyesight, and he has not been able to read in something close to a year. I set him up with a library card and a Libby account, and all of a sudden, he was able to catch up on all the books he had been wanting to read!I’m just saying, I promote reading because no matter what you read, you’re learning something. Even though life is stressful and crazy and distracting, there are still ways you can find to sit down and curl up with a good book. “My brother has his sword, I have my books. And a mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone.” -Tyrion Lannister
Amazon, Bad, and Be Like: krista (030)
 y@cherryblushed
 i used to read 3-4 full sized
 novels in middle school. now i see
 anything longer than a paragraph
 and bounce. i'll miss u brain cells,
 can't believe u peaked at age 12
 15/9/18, 1:04 pm
 68 Retweets 238 Likes
takingbackmyfirstamendmentrights:

dewdrop156:
memecage:
It do be like that.

I was having a surprisingly good conversation with my sister recently and I was talking about how one of the reasons I don’t read as much as I used to is because I don’t have the same resources I did when I was a 4th grader. When I was a kid, I could sit and read all I wanted, all I had to to was exist and go where people took me. I didn’t have to feed myself or pay bills or keep track of things, which of course now I have to deal with all of those things so I can’t read as much and tend to read pretty easy to read books. My sister brought up the really good point that, of course I want to read easy books, I’m a young adult, in a very tumultuous phase of life, constantly being thrown new information, my brain doesnt want a classical novel, my brain wants something readable and immersive. 
tl;dr don’t feel bad for not reading as much as you used to, it’s okay. Read what you can when you can and don’t stress about the rest


But nowadays, there are so many more resources for reading that you can gain access to. Even though you’re busy and stressed out my life, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t continue to strive to read whenever possible. I’ve compiled this basic list of super accessible ways to read in the modern age.1. LibbyLibby is a library app, and it free to use. If you have a library card (which you can either pick up at a branch or online, depending on where you live), you put in your information, and you have access to your library’s ebooks and audiobooks. Generally, you can check ebooks out for two to three weeks, and it gives you the option to renew (if someone isn’t waiting in line for that book) or return early. It’s super user- friendly. If you want to scam the system a little bit, a lot of libraries give you 30 to 60 days after making a card online to come in and actually get a physical card and show your ID. If you are looking for a specific book that your library may not have, make library cards at other locations with fake addresses and check out their supply. I personally have about eight library cards, so I always can find what I’m looking for unless it’s super rare. 2. KindleWhile you can buy the actual Amazon e-reader, you can also just use the free app. There are a bunch of ebooks you can read for free, or for a low price. If you have Kindle Unlimited ($10/month), you can borrow up to ten KU books at a time for as long as you want. A lot of authors have KU books, so it’s a good way to go. 3. NookBarnes and Noble’s Nook is similar to the Kindle—comes in a physical e-reader, but is also usable as a free app. I will say I find that their selection generally costs more than Amazon’s selection, but it’s an option if you prefer to stay away from Amazon products. One thing they do sometime around the end of the year is send you out a refund check for all the books that you purchased through them that were at a higher market price then they would’ve been elsewhere. I’ve gotten like three of these, so I figure it’s a regular thing. 4. AudibleFor people who are sight-impaired or have difficulty sitting down and reading a book, audiobooks are SO the way to go. When you sign up, you can receive up to two free audiobooks, and whatever plan you decide to go with gives you two free audiobooks a month (from a specific selection) in addition to your credits! If you have Kindle ebooks, there is sometimes an option to purchase the accompanying Audible audiobook for a super discounted rate. If you don’t like an audiobook, you can call in to return it at any time. I have something like forty or fifty audiobooks from them, and I’ve exchanged another twenty. These options are all in addition to physical books from your local library, and discount bookstores. The nice thing about ebooks is that generally they have the option to highlight and bookmark pages, change the font size and type, and even change the color of the page if you prefer.I always thought audiobooks were for old people until a few years ago when I was commuting about three hours a day for work. I wasn’t reading nearly as much, and as an avid reader, that distressed me greatly.Finally, I looked into audiobooks and it was a huge life changer. Instead of wasting three hours a day in traffic, I was reading for three hours a day that I would’ve otherwise not been able to. Not only does it make a trip go faster, but it makes it much more enjoyable.And even if you don’t want it for the commute or for the gym, audiobooks are a really good option for people who have vision problems. I have migraines when I stare at screens too much, so I pop on an audiobook and just crochet or do the dishes. I have a friend who has very bad eyesight, and he has not been able to read in something close to a year. I set him up with a library card and a Libby account, and all of a sudden, he was able to catch up on all the books he had been wanting to read!I’m just saying, I promote reading because no matter what you read, you’re learning something. Even though life is stressful and crazy and distracting, there are still ways you can find to sit down and curl up with a good book.

“My brother has his sword, I have my books. And a mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone.” -Tyrion Lannister

takingbackmyfirstamendmentrights: dewdrop156: memecage: It do be like that. I was having a surprisingly good conversation with my sister r...

Stan, Stan Lee, and Twitter: Marvel Studios uses the late Stan Lees Twitter account to promote Captain Marvel (2019)
Stan, Stan Lee, and Twitter: Marvel Studios uses the late Stan Lees Twitter account to promote Captain Marvel (2019)

Marvel Studios uses the late Stan Lees Twitter account to promote Captain Marvel (2019)

Alive, Animals, and Children: (Ja)ded @thefathippy 20h maooo000 Judy Harris Yesterday at 5:04 PM. 0+ Why the zoo charge us to look at animals they stole? this ain't even yall shit Sharon @MySharona1987 Replying to @thefathippy To be fair, they are doing a lot to help pandas screw. 4:56 AM- 11 Jul 2018 mysharona1987: little-butch-crouton: severelynerdysheep: somehavegonemissing: spookyboyfelix: princess-nakamoto: mysharona1987: No, seriously: I do think zoos do a *lot* of good. Much of the time. It’s not necessarily a Seaworld situation. Yeah a lot of animals don’t even have habitats anymore anyway. So zoos are just giving them a home. Even if people come to see them nearly everyday, its better then being kicked out of their habitat eventually by man. The funds from zoos are often used to feed the animals anyway (most zoos are non profit they cant use that money for people) if you pay to go to the zoo you are paying to keep those animals alive Zoos also educate people about animals, allowing for people to fall in love with the weird and wonderful. They help promote habitat preservation and putting a stop to poaching. Please don’t dismiss zoos, they’re not the same places as they used to be in the 1800s, or even the mid 1900s. So while Zoos are absolutely miles better than they were historical, there are still many serious issues. In terms of education, while I totally get why most people believe that zoos teach people (children especially) about how to protect animals and their habitats and are great places of education, this is not actually the case. In reality viewing captive animals in zoos only teaches people how animals react to boredom, depression, and stress in captive situations. The most effective methods of education in zoos come via presenting videos, documentaries, interactive modules, graphic displays, and computer simulations. which all show animals in their natural environments and do not require any animals to actually be kept in zoos. In terms of the work Zoos to in regards to species conservation and habitat preservation, zoos really are not effective, especially compared to other conservation and preservation work. While there are zoos that do good conservation work, most of the significant conservation work is not from zoos but other organizations that work with wildlife and natural habitats. Most animals in captivity are not even classified as endangered, with the priority of Zoos being in getting hold of animals popular with visitors, rather than those who face extinction. When it comes to breeding programs (and breeding animals in captivity aren’t the best way to help in conservation)   zoos do spend plenty of money on these programs however half of the animals being bred by Zoos are not classed as endangered in the wild and 25% are not threatened species but ones popular with visitors. It’s also actually massively more expensive to keep animals captive in zoos than to protect equivalent numbers of them in the wild! When it comes to the research, few Zoos actually support meaningful scientific research (with fewer employing scientists with full-time research jobs) and of those that do employ scientists its common for these scientists to study free-living animals rather than those within the zoo. Due to the nature of any research that does take place in zoos, the results of this research also generates little information about how to best conserve species in the wild as studies of captive animals have limited benefits to animals in the wild and animals brought up in captivity are less likely to survive in the wild if reintroduced as they often don’t have the natural behaviors needed for survival in the wild. More effective methods of habitat preservation and species conservations would be a multipronged approach tackling habitat loss and climate change, investing in conservation programs in the wild, education, working with local communities, seriously addressing poaching etc. and also to move away from the Zoo model towards more ethical and effective models of species conservation.  Just a few of the other ethical issues with Zoos include surplus animals, who, when grow older, and are less attractive to patrons, will often be sold or killed. Animals who breed frequently also are sometimes sold to game farms and ranches where hunters pay to kill them and other surplus animals are sometimes sold to roadside zoos,, private individuals, animal dealers, or to laboratories for experimentation purposes. The animals not sold often end up being fed to other zoo animals. In terms of the health of these captive animals, many develop health conditions and mental health problems such as Zoochosis. Of course, a major problem with zoos as well is that the animals who live there are kept in enclosures that don’t allow them to live their lives in a natural way and don’t compare with the natural habitat the animals were meant to be in. Zoo animals have to spend day after day, week after week, year after year in the exact same enclosure. This makes their lives very monotonous. Take elephants, for example, elephants in the wild, are used to traveling many miles a day in herds of about ten related adults and their offspring but in zoos are usually kept in pairs or even isolated in incredibly small enclosures compared to what they are used to in the wild. Elephants kept in zoos often show many signs of being mental distress and the average lifespan of elephants in zoos is around 16-18 years, instead of the 50-70 years they can live in the wild. I’m just going to copy paste your response when people ask me what I’m going to school for. I’m very pro zoo and I want animals in their natural habitat just as much. This is genuinely quite an interesting discussion.
Alive, Animals, and Children: (Ja)ded @thefathippy 20h
 maooo000
 Judy Harris
 Yesterday at 5:04 PM.
 0+
 Why the zoo charge us to
 look at animals they stole?
 this ain't even yall shit
 Sharon
 @MySharona1987
 Replying to @thefathippy
 To be fair, they are doing a lot to help pandas
 screw.
 4:56 AM- 11 Jul 2018
mysharona1987:

little-butch-crouton:
severelynerdysheep:

somehavegonemissing:

spookyboyfelix:

princess-nakamoto:


mysharona1987:


No, seriously: I do think zoos do a *lot* of good. Much of the time.
It’s not necessarily a Seaworld situation.


Yeah a lot of animals don’t even have habitats anymore anyway. So zoos are just giving them a home. Even if people come to see them nearly everyday, its better then being kicked out of their habitat eventually by man.


The funds from zoos are often used to feed the animals anyway (most zoos are non profit they cant use that money for people) if you pay to go to the zoo you are paying to keep those animals alive

Zoos also educate people about animals, allowing for people to fall in love with the weird and wonderful.  They help promote habitat preservation and putting a stop to poaching. Please don’t dismiss zoos, they’re not the same places as they used to be in the 1800s, or even the mid 1900s. 

So while Zoos are absolutely miles better than they were historical, there are still many serious issues. In terms of education, while I totally get why most people believe that zoos teach people (children especially) about how to protect animals and their habitats and are great places of education, this is not actually the case. In reality viewing captive animals in zoos only teaches people how animals react to boredom, depression, and stress in captive situations. The most effective methods of education in zoos come via presenting videos, documentaries, interactive modules, graphic displays, and computer simulations. which all show animals in their natural environments and do not require any animals to actually be kept in zoos.
In terms of the work Zoos to in regards to species conservation and habitat preservation, zoos really are not effective, especially compared to other conservation and preservation work. While there are zoos that do good conservation work, most of the significant conservation work is not from zoos but other organizations that work with wildlife and natural habitats. Most animals in captivity are not even classified as endangered, with the priority of Zoos being in getting hold of animals popular with visitors, rather than those who face extinction. When it comes to breeding programs (and breeding animals in captivity aren’t the best way to help in conservation)   zoos do spend plenty of money on these programs however half of the animals being bred by Zoos are not classed as endangered in the wild and 25% are not threatened species but ones popular with visitors. It’s also actually massively more expensive to keep animals captive in zoos than to protect equivalent numbers of them in the wild! When it comes to the research, few Zoos actually support meaningful scientific research (with fewer employing scientists with full-time research jobs) and of those that do employ scientists its common for these scientists to study free-living animals rather than those within the zoo. Due to the nature of any research that does take place in zoos, the results of this research also generates little information about how to best conserve species in the wild as studies of captive animals have limited benefits to animals in the wild and animals brought up in captivity are less likely to survive in the wild if reintroduced as they often don’t have the natural behaviors needed for survival in the wild. More effective methods of habitat preservation and species conservations would be a multipronged approach tackling habitat loss and climate change, investing in conservation programs in the wild, education, working with local communities, seriously addressing poaching etc. and also to move away from the Zoo model towards more ethical and effective models of species conservation. 
Just a few of the other ethical issues with Zoos include surplus animals, who, when grow older, and are less attractive to patrons, will often be sold or killed. Animals who breed frequently also are sometimes sold to game farms and ranches where hunters pay to kill them and other surplus animals are sometimes sold to roadside zoos,, private individuals, animal dealers, or to laboratories for experimentation purposes. The animals not sold often end up being fed to other zoo animals. In terms of the health of these captive animals, many develop health conditions and mental health problems such as Zoochosis. Of course, a major problem with zoos as well is that the animals who live there are kept in enclosures that don’t allow them to live their lives in a natural way and don’t compare with the natural habitat the animals were meant to be in. Zoo animals have to spend day after day, week after week, year after year in the exact same enclosure. This makes their lives very monotonous. Take elephants, for example, elephants in the wild, are used to traveling many miles a day in herds of about ten related adults and their offspring but in zoos are usually kept in pairs or even isolated in incredibly small enclosures compared to what they are used to in the wild. Elephants kept in zoos often show many signs of being mental distress and the average lifespan of elephants in zoos is around 16-18 years, instead of the 50-70 years they can live in the wild.


I’m just going to copy paste your response when people ask me what I’m going to school for. I’m very pro zoo and I want animals in their natural habitat just as much.

This is genuinely quite an interesting discussion.

mysharona1987: little-butch-crouton: severelynerdysheep: somehavegonemissing: spookyboyfelix: princess-nakamoto: mysharona1987: No, ...