Portrait, by Andy Izenson

thisis24cc:

First of all her hands.

It would be lazy to call the power in them cruelty

or force. They are soft like the velvet sand of the ocean

floor is soft

and their grasp is strong not with rough will

but with a fierce joy.

These are hands that demand creation,

that dance in the air and glow with…

CAN’T REBLOG WITHOUT FURIOUSLY BLUSHING.

hitchdied:

mapsbynik:

Nobody lives here: The nearly 5 million Census Blocks with zero population
A Block is the smallest area unit used by the U.S. Census Bureau for tabulating statistics. As of the 2010 census, the United States consists of 11,078,300 Census Blocks. Of them, 4,871,270 blocks totaling 4.61 million square kilometers were reported to have no population living inside them. Despite having a population of more than 310 million people, 47 percent of the USA remains unoccupied.
Green shading indicates unoccupied Census Blocks. A single inhabitant is enough to omit a block from shading
Quick update: If you’re the kind of map lover who cares about cartographic accuracy, check out the new version which fixes the Gulf of California. If you save this map for your own projects, please use this one instead.
Map observations
The map tends to highlight two types of areas:
places where human habitation is physically restrictive or impossible, and
places where human habitation is prohibited by social or legal convention.
Water features such lakes, rivers, swamps and floodplains are revealed as places where it is hard for people to live. In addition, the mountains and deserts of the West, with their hostility to human survival, remain largely void of permanent population.
Of the places where settlement is prohibited, the most apparent are wilderness protection and recreational areas (such as national and state parks) and military bases. At the national and regional scales, these places appear as large green tracts surrounded by otherwise populated countryside.
At the local level, city and county parks emerge in contrast to their developed urban and suburban surroundings. At this scale, even major roads such as highways and interstates stretch like ribbons across the landscape.
Commercial and industrial areas are also likely to be green on this map. The local shopping mall, an office park, a warehouse district or a factory may have their own Census Blocks. But if people don’t live there, they will be considered “uninhabited”. So it should be noted that just because a block is unoccupied, that does not mean it is undeveloped.
Perhaps the two most notable anomalies on the map occur in Maine and the Dakotas. Northern Maine is conspicuously uninhabited. Despite being one of the earliest regions in North America to be settled by Europeans, the population there remains so low that large portions of the state’s interior have yet to be politically organized.
In the Dakotas, the border between North and South appears to be unexpectedly stark. Geographic phenomena typically do not respect artificial human boundaries. Throughout the rest of the map, state lines are often difficult to distinguish. But in the Dakotas, northern South Dakota is quite distinct from southern North Dakota. This is especially surprising considering that the county-level population density on both sides of the border is about the same at less than 10 people per square mile.
Update: On a more detailed examination of those two states, I’m convinced the contrast here is due to differences in the sizes of the blocks. North Dakota’s blocks are more consistently small (StDev of 3.3) while South Dakota’s are more varied (StDev of 9.28). West of the Missouri River, South Dakota’s blocks are substantially larger than those in ND, so a single inhabitant can appear to take up more space. Between the states, this provides a good lesson in how changing the size and shape of a geographic unit can alter perceptions of the landscape.
Finally, the differences between the eastern and western halves of the contiguous 48 states are particularly stark to me. In the east, with its larger population, unpopulated places are more likely to stand out on the map. In the west, the opposite is true. There, population centers stand out against the wilderness.
::
Ultimately, I made this map to show a different side of the United States. Human geographers spend so much time thinking about where people are. I thought I might bring some new insight by showing where they are not, adding contrast and context to the typical displays of the country’s population geography.
I’m sure I’ve all but scratched the surface of insight available from examining this map. There’s a lot of data here. What trends and patterns do you see?
Errata
The Gulf of California is missing from this version. I guess it got filled in while doing touch ups. Oops. There’s a link to a corrected map at the top of the post.
Some islands may be missing if they were not a part of the waterbody data sets I used.
::
©mapsbynik 2014 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Block geography and population data from U.S. Census Bureau Water body geography from National Hydrology Dataset and Natural Earth Made with Tilemill USGS National Atlas Equal Area Projection

wow so geeky much respect very America how empty

hitchdied:

mapsbynik:

Nobody lives here: The nearly 5 million Census Blocks with zero population

A Block is the smallest area unit used by the U.S. Census Bureau for tabulating statistics. As of the 2010 census, the United States consists of 11,078,300 Census Blocks. Of them, 4,871,270 blocks totaling 4.61 million square kilometers were reported to have no population living inside them. Despite having a population of more than 310 million people, 47 percent of the USA remains unoccupied.

Green shading indicates unoccupied Census Blocks. A single inhabitant is enough to omit a block from shading

Quick update: If you’re the kind of map lover who cares about cartographic accuracy, check out the new version which fixes the Gulf of California. If you save this map for your own projects, please use this one instead.

Map observations

The map tends to highlight two types of areas:

  • places where human habitation is physically restrictive or impossible, and
  • places where human habitation is prohibited by social or legal convention.

Water features such lakes, rivers, swamps and floodplains are revealed as places where it is hard for people to live. In addition, the mountains and deserts of the West, with their hostility to human survival, remain largely void of permanent population.

Of the places where settlement is prohibited, the most apparent are wilderness protection and recreational areas (such as national and state parks) and military bases. At the national and regional scales, these places appear as large green tracts surrounded by otherwise populated countryside.

At the local level, city and county parks emerge in contrast to their developed urban and suburban surroundings. At this scale, even major roads such as highways and interstates stretch like ribbons across the landscape.

Commercial and industrial areas are also likely to be green on this map. The local shopping mall, an office park, a warehouse district or a factory may have their own Census Blocks. But if people don’t live there, they will be considered “uninhabited”. So it should be noted that just because a block is unoccupied, that does not mean it is undeveloped.

Perhaps the two most notable anomalies on the map occur in Maine and the Dakotas. Northern Maine is conspicuously uninhabited. Despite being one of the earliest regions in North America to be settled by Europeans, the population there remains so low that large portions of the state’s interior have yet to be politically organized.

In the Dakotas, the border between North and South appears to be unexpectedly stark. Geographic phenomena typically do not respect artificial human boundaries. Throughout the rest of the map, state lines are often difficult to distinguish. But in the Dakotas, northern South Dakota is quite distinct from southern North Dakota. This is especially surprising considering that the county-level population density on both sides of the border is about the same at less than 10 people per square mile.

Update: On a more detailed examination of those two states, I’m convinced the contrast here is due to differences in the sizes of the blocks. North Dakota’s blocks are more consistently small (StDev of 3.3) while South Dakota’s are more varied (StDev of 9.28). West of the Missouri River, South Dakota’s blocks are substantially larger than those in ND, so a single inhabitant can appear to take up more space. Between the states, this provides a good lesson in how changing the size and shape of a geographic unit can alter perceptions of the landscape.

Finally, the differences between the eastern and western halves of the contiguous 48 states are particularly stark to me. In the east, with its larger population, unpopulated places are more likely to stand out on the map. In the west, the opposite is true. There, population centers stand out against the wilderness.

::

Ultimately, I made this map to show a different side of the United States. Human geographers spend so much time thinking about where people are. I thought I might bring some new insight by showing where they are not, adding contrast and context to the typical displays of the country’s population geography.

I’m sure I’ve all but scratched the surface of insight available from examining this map. There’s a lot of data here. What trends and patterns do you see?

Errata

  • The Gulf of California is missing from this version. I guess it got filled in while doing touch ups. Oops. There’s a link to a corrected map at the top of the post.
  • Some islands may be missing if they were not a part of the waterbody data sets I used.

::

©mapsbynik 2014
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Block geography and population data from U.S. Census Bureau
Water body geography from National Hydrology Dataset and Natural Earth
Made with Tilemill
USGS National Atlas Equal Area Projection

wow so geeky much respect very America how empty

(Source: ketsunsugakaii)

grownupslie asked: How do you think white feminists should go about sexism in other cultures? Should we say something? Encourage the women of that culture to speak up? Ignore it? Obviously we should support the women no matter what, but what if no one belonging to that culture protests the sexist behaviors? Does that mean it's not a problem? Hope you can give me some answers, I've been very conflicted about this lately.

misandry-mermaid:

The first and main and most important thing is that our whiteness doesn’t make us the authorities on sexism in ALL cultures.  We know and can critique OUR culture.  But those that don’t belong to us aren’t ours to dissect or critique or attempt to dismantle. 
Second step is making and giving space to WOC to speak.  Not speaking over them.  Not speaking “for” them.  Making space for them to share their thoughts and feelings, and calling out any racism we hear within feminist spaces, so those spaces remain as safe for WOC as possible.
And when a discussion on race is happening in which POC are sharing, keep your mouth shut.  Listen and learn.  Don’t attempt to teach anyone anything.  White people aren’t used to being told this, but again, you are not the authority and your voice isn’t important. 
Thirdly is, if we are in a space with only white people, we need to be calling out racism that we recognize.  For example, if I go out to a movie with white friends, I’ll point out later how I though a certain scene was racist, or make note about how the casting was white washed and the original characters were meant to be POC.  Things like that that remind myself and my white friends that just because we don’t see racism happening in front of us doesn’t mean we aren’t constantly seeing the effects of it.  We don’t necessarily need to get into detail, especially because being white means we are NOT experts on racism.  But if we see something we know to be racist, we can simply say “Hey, that’s racist.” and make it known to everyone present that we will point that kinda shit out and not defend or ignore it.

(POC please let me know if I missed anything or messed anything up in this, or if you have other suggestions/requests.)

seandhames:

Ronan’s First Easter

seandhames:

Ronan’s First Easter

thisis24cc:

I spent the first #24CC jam on watercolor portraits. (Thanks to my models for being patient while I stared at their faces.) I was glad to spend time within the process of carving out spaces in increasingly intense layers of color.

-Sara

I made things!

eatsleepdraw:

By Olga Andreyeva
Art Tumblr
Website

eatsleepdraw:

By Olga Andreyeva

Art Tumblr

Website

seandhames:

Self Portrait

seandhames:

Self Portrait

Forget stardust—you are iron. Your blood is nothing but ferrous liquid. When you bleed, you reek of rust. It is iron that fills your heart and sits in your veins. And what is iron, really, unless it’s forged? You are iron. And you are strong.
thisis24cc:

DOCUMENTATION!
David Dyte demonstrates the value of UV filters - taking a tumble on the concrete and landing on his camera, David broke a $30 filter instead of a $1300 lens.

thisis24cc:

DOCUMENTATION!

David Dyte demonstrates the value of UV filters - taking a tumble on the concrete and landing on his camera, David broke a $30 filter instead of a $1300 lens.

veganweedsoup:

skylark11:

beverlystokes:

policymic:

"Masculinity is a trait, not a gender"

In an effort to both allocate space for and document the existence of masculine women, photographer Meg Allen created a powerful series of portraits for an exhibit at Cafe Gabriela in Oakland, Calif.

Entitled BUTCH, Allen’s series not only represents genderqueer women for a broader, heteronormative audience, but reaffirms butch identity within the queer community at a time when “butch flight,” or gender transitioning, is arguably becoming more and more commonplace. It is, as Allen says on her website, “an homage to the bull-daggers and female husbands before me, and to the young studs, gender queers and bois who continue to bloom into the present.”

Read moreFollow policymic

These are some good looking folks

This is all I have ever wanted to see. My butch friends may sometimes get “Why don’t you just become a man?” in the same way folks would tell me “Why don’t you just be a butch lesbian?” Because masculinity and gender identity are two totally separate bubbles, that for some become a venn diagram, and for others, coexist peacefully inside of us.

Two things can exist independently, and coexist peacefully. Gender identity and masculinity/femininity/androgyny.

a lot of these babes are my friends and this project is really important to my city, it makes me so happy whenever i see it.

Before John Green, his general category of realistic (non-fantasy) YA was rife with teen angst and “issues” fiction that you might have associated with the legendary Judy Blume, or with newer writers like Sarah Dessen or Laurie Halse Anderson. Anderson’s classic 1999 novel Speak, about a high schooler struggling to deal with the aftermath of sexual assault, was so influential that three years later Penguin launched an entire imprint named after it. One of the books launched under the behest of Speak was Green’s Looking for Alaska. But it’s Green whose name you’re more likely to know today, not Anderson’s, although Anderson has won more awards and written more books.



On Twitter, Green has 2 million followers. Compared to the rest of the leaders in Young Adult fiction, that number is staggering. To approach even half the Twitter influence of John Green all by himself, you need an entire army of YA women. Anderson, Blume, Dessen, Veronica Roth, Cassandra Clare, Richelle Mead, Margaret Stohl, Kami Garcia, Rainbow Rowell, Maureen Johnson, Malinda Lo, Holly Black, LJ Smith, Ellen Hopkins, Shannon Hale, Lauren Myracle, Libba Bray, Melissa Marr, and Leigh Bardugo: As a group these women only have about 1.2 million followers on Twitter.

That’s the voice of one man outweighing several decades of women who have had major successes, critical acclaim, and cultural influence.

rockemsockemrocket:

Nothing That Looks Like Creation Or Destruction Is Actually Anything Other Than Things Changing Shape
text by Andy Izenson
photo by David Dyte
for #24CC

rockemsockemrocket:

Nothing That Looks Like Creation Or Destruction Is Actually Anything Other Than Things Changing Shape

text by Andy Izenson

photo by David Dyte

for #24CC

cinderellas-stilettos:

Vintage Dior

cinderellas-stilettos:

Vintage Dior