You know I wish fatphobia was less pervasive. Even among people who consider themself as progressive, it's rampant. So quick reminder. No it's actually not easy to stop being fat, and it sucks that we are treated differently for something we really can't control. Shaming a fat person for being fat, and shaming them for not having the "willpower" to become skinny- is bigotry. And if all you talk to fat people about is weight loss and dieting- congratulations! You're being a dick! Stop.

the white suit tho
Great thought, but for those unaware, Kate Mulgrew’s gorgeous tux from The Killing Game was 100% a reference to Dietrich’s suit in Blonde Venus (1932) with Cary Grant, a pre-Code film directed by Josef von Sternberg. It’s hard to tell in Killing Game, but Mulgrew’s lapels are also sequined. So is the stripe in the trousers. It is basically a replica of Dietrich’s suit, no question.
Okay, so I have a PhD in queer fashion and media. So this is something I happen to know a lot about. So let me explain a few things.
For starters, You cannot get a more explicitly queer-coded woman than Marlene Dietrich.
Cary Grant (another closeted Queer in Hollywood) is also in Blonde Venus, and although their chemistry is great, their romance is unbelievable because it’s very clear that they are both absolutely queer. Hattie McDaniel appears in this film, another Queer in Hollywood (and the first Black person ever to win an Oscar). In both Blonde Venus and Morocco (1930), Dietrich flirts with both men and women. Dietrich was considered a Drag King in her day. She famously proclaimed, ‘I am a gentleman at heart.’
Dietrich often refused to wear trousers, and openly declared that she had plenty of women lovers. She is an iconic staple for queer sexuality even today. She famously kissed a woman in Morocco whilst wearing a tuxedo- with an audience watching and cheering. She then kisses a man, the audience applauds, and she exits. This scene (below) was added at Dietrich’s own behest. The scene was extremely controversial, and they had to defend it against the censors for months.
This very scene is one of the many reasons The Hays Code was enacted (rules from a super-Catholic man who bribed his way into Hollywood and forced the religious ideologies onto the screen), and this scene was one that The Hays Code often pointed to as ‘immoral’ and ‘perverted’ and ‘sexually explicit.’ You can thank the Hays Code for the split beds Lucy and Ricky had, for rules that a kiss must not last longer than a certain amount of time, that, absolutely, NO queer ANYTHING could be acknowledged to exist. Everything had to be subtext, and that’s why so many old black and white films feel really queer.
But Dietrich openly proclaimed herself queer, dressed in men’s clothing, kissed women on screen- and became a Queer icon not just in fashion, but in sexuality, decadence, and identity. The so-called famous ’Dietrich’s Sewing Circle’ (of which Hattie McDaniel was a member) was essentially every Queer woman in Hollywood who all had affairs with each other. Books have been written on this. Here’s a brief article about one of those books that goes through some of the basics.
Okay, Queer Fashion Film Academic, what’s your point?
The point is that by wearing a duplicate of a Dietrich suit- one where she openly flirted with women, no less–Janeway is 100% coded as queer in The Killing Game.
Especially with that tuxedo scene and the way she’s talking to Seven. In fact, most of the scenes in those episodes where she is talking to Seven, you will notice that Mulgrew plays Janeway with a bite- her eyes linger on Seven just a bit longer, her body language is just a bit more open and fierce than usual.
Even in Paris, for a woman to wear what Mulgrew/Janeway is clearly coding herself as a Queer person through that specific outfit. She is wearing a giant billboard that says I AM QUEER.
By putting Kate Mulgrew in a replica of a Dietrich 1940s tuxedo, Janeway is visually coded as queer through replication and imitation of one of the most Queer icons in cinematic history. That suit is too famous, too iconic, too specifically loaded with subtext and text of queerness through Dietrich.
I am convinced that the costume department 100% knew what they were doing, and part of me wonders if Kate Mulgrew herself had pushed for that suit. Why? Because Kate Mulgrew herself was the one who pushed for Janeway to have a same-sex relationship.

Above quote from this article.
Watch Blonde Venus. Watch Morocco. Then, watch Kate Mulgrew in The Killing Game. She imitates Dietrich’s body-language, her mannerisms, the smirk, in that opening scene. There is no question- Janeway has been possessed by Dietrich’s characters.
Funnily enough, for the rest of those two episodes, Kate Mulgrew is also very clearly imitating another Queer woman through her voice intonation and mannerisms, general fashion and hairstyles: Katharine Hepburn.

Because of her absurd visual and voice similarity to Katharine Hepburn (another Queer in Dietrich’s sewing circle), Mulgrew once played Hepburn in Tea at Five.
Like Dietrich (bisexual), Hepburn was very clearly Queer coded, as she was a lesbian. She was also famous in Hollywood for her male-coded attire, though she preferred regular suits to Dietrich’s tuxedos.

She, like Dietrich, had the same problem whenever they teamed up with Cary Grant- watch Philadelphia Story and tell me that the real ending of that movie is not Hepburn’s character, Grant’s character and Stewart’s character all ending up in a thruple together. The movie makes no sense if that’s not the real ending.
Hepburn wore trousers on film sets and this upset the studio so much they literally stole her trousers, trying to force her into a skirt. Hepburn just walked around in her knickers, refusing to wear the skirt. Eventually, the studio gave her back the trousers.
Okay, I’m going off tangent. Here’s your takeaway:
Kate Mulgrew, (because she’s an absurdly amazing talent), is very heavily is influenced in mannerism, voice, accent and appearance by two of the most Queer-Coded women in cinematic history in The Killing Game. Through fashion and performance, she embodies Dietrich’s Blonde Venus and Morocco characters, and through appearance, voice and body language, she gives that image an additional layer of of Hepburn’s fierce, Queer persona.
Conclusion: Arguably throughout all of Voyager, but specifically In The Killing Game, Kathryn Janeway is visibly Queer.
By the way, although she never got credit for it, the person who wrote Blonde Venus was Dietrich herself. Both she and von Sternberg were suspended for several months because the movie was considered too salacious by the Hays code, and it caused production problems for over a year.
The BFI has a great write-up on Dietrich’s queerness and fashion, you can read it here: https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/my-best-girlfriend-queer-dietrich-screen
That white suit means so much more than you thought.
You are Superman, aren’t you? Lois, look, we’ve been through these hallucinations of yours before. Can’t you see what you almost did? Throwing yourself off a building 30 stories high? Can’t you see what a tragic mistake you almost made? I made a mistake? I made a mistake because I risked my life instead of yours. Lois! Don’t be insane! And don’t fall down ‘cause you’re just going to have to get up again!
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)
This scene features one of the best things about Chris Reeve’s portrayal, which is that he physicalized his different choices between playing Clark and Superman. Like, look at the difference:


He could go from Rick Moranis to Chris Evans with just his posture. It’s like his glasses are weighing his entire body down. Here it is, in motion:
Acting.
This is a perfect example that proves that the Clark Kent disguise actually does work….and how it works….
Christopher Reeve was the best Superman and still is
Are we gonna discuss that Lois Lane rationalized that Superman wouldn’t even feel a bullet, thus wouldn’t even know he hadn’t been hit, causing Clark Kent to reveal himself for who he truly is without her having to risk anybodies life?
God I love Christopher Reeve’s Superman because some of Clark’s clumsiness can be seen in Superman too. The fact that this man didn’t realize it was a blank even though he can see things move in slow motion is really funny to me
Like he grew up thinking he had to hide his powers and I just assume that sometimes he forgets he has them because Clark is Clark. He might be superhuman but he’s still a clumsy dumbass and that’s his biggest flaw.
You don’t need kryptonite when you’re dealing with a good honest clumsy man and Lois knows that because she knows Clark!
It’s why I don’t like pretty much any other Superman movie as much. They make him too perfect, that’s not what makes this Kansas man so charming!
Reblogging specifically for the shot with the glasses (so fabulous a transformation) and also for the emotional context of the scene, which his face continues to do extraordinary things—including signaling a kind of vulnerability that has nothing to do with being proof against bullets.
The 2023 Barbie film is a commercial. I’m sure it will be fun, funny, delightful, and engaging. I will watch it, and I’ll probably even dress up to go to the theater. Barbie is also a film made by Mattel using their intellectual property to promote their brand. Not only is there no large public criticism of this reality, there seems to be no spoken awareness of it at all. I’m sure most people know that Barbie is a brand, and most people are smart enough to know this and enjoy the film without immediately driving to Target to buy a new Barbie doll. After all, advertising is everywhere, and in our media landscape of dubiously disclosed User Generated Content and advertorials, at least Barbie is transparently related to its creator. But to passively accept this reality is to celebrate not women or icons or auteurs, but corporations and the idea of advertising itself. Public discourse around Barbie does not re-contextualize the toy or the brand, but in fact serves the actual, higher purpose of Barbie™: to teach us to love branding, marketing, and being consumers.
[...] The casting of Gerwig’s Barbie film shows that anyone can be a Barbie regardless of size, race, age, sexuality. Barbie is framed as universal, as accessible; after all, a Barbie doll is an inexpensive purchase and Barbiehood is a mindset. Gerwig’s Barbie is a film for adults, not children (as evidenced by its PG-13 rating, Kubrick references, and soundtrack), and yet it manages to achieve the same goals as its source material: developing brand loyalty to Barbie™ and reinforcing consumerism-as-identity as a modern and necessarily empowering phenomenon. Take, for example, “Barbiecore,” an 80s-inspired trend whose aesthetic includes not only hot pink but the idea of shopping itself. This is not Marx’s theory on spending money for enjoyment, nor can it even be critically described as commodity fetishism, because the objects themselves bear less semiotic value compared to the act of consumption and the identity of “consumer.”
[...] Part of the brilliance of the Barbie brand is its emphasis on having fun; critiquing Barbie’s feminism is seen as a dated, 90s position and the critic as deserving of a dated, 90s epithet: feminist killjoy. It’s just a movie! It’s just a toy! Life is so exhausting, can’t we just have fun? I’ve written extensively about how “feeling good” is not an apolitical experience and how the most mundane pop culture deserves the most scrutiny, so I won’t reiterate it here. But it is genuinely concerning to see not only the celebration of objects and consumer goods, but the friendly embrace of corporations themselves and the concept of intellectual property, marketing, and advertising. Are we so culturally starved that insurance commercials are the things that satiate our artistic needs?
— Charlie Squire, “Mattel, Malibu Stacy, and the Dialectics of the Barbie Polemic.” evil female (Substack), 2023.
when i was a kid I was really bad (or really good depending on your definition) at hidden object games. which is to say that I would not specifically search for the objects the book asked me to look for. no. that would make no sense. what i instead did was open a spreadsheet
i then proceeded to list every single object in the image in my excel spreadsheet, highlighting the objects the book asked me to find in red as i went. Then, by the end, not only had i found the objects, I had also found and categorized all of the other objects as well. This way, if anyone asked me to find any other objects in that image, i was fully prepared
on an unrelated note i was diagnosed as autistic before third grade
You used the letter a 46 times!!
And 555 letters, so the letter a is about 8.29%
The letter a is on average used about 8.2% of the time, which means you used it more than average!! :)
a-counter you are my best friend and greatest ally
twitter is broken today 😭 are there any other ways that people search for anthologies to apply to?
might not be broken actually! Might be working as intended!

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1675187969420828672?t=Vz-o-KCqBCFe4Yn5InM-YQ&s=19
OH FUCK! okay twitter is dead, that’s amazing. this is a death blow. does he not understand that the platform relies on addictive doom scrolling, and that people actively want to quit but can’t because it activates all the right brain chemicals? this is wonderful for me at least, with Elon’s help I can finally kick this particular addiction.
I know its fun to be like omg twitter is dying lets goooo
but its really sad that we're losing yet another form of human communication and years of information because of another ceo baby manchild. I'm going to lose contact with a bunch of friends i've made because of this and it sucks
^_^ <- obsessed with her. she's so fun and playful and a little whimsical.















