transcosette:

if u reblog anything about how being trans or not straight is becoming a fashion trend and try to discourage individuals from exploring their gender, sexual, and romantic orientations, im automatically unfollowing u

there’s no if ands or buts for this, if ur creating an environment where individuals aren’t going to feel safe or valid while exploring their identity, then ur creating an unsafe and harmful space thats only going to hurt and invalidate people

tonidorsay:

This particular example of the ignorance, incompetence, dishonesty, deceit, and assorted general rather anti-feminist aspects of a TERF is not, in fact, going to involve trans stuff, but I personally am rather tired of seeing this same old boring bullshit from the children, so we are going to explore an aspect of feminism in general.
Now, I am taking this out of context, so it is important that I point out that I think, based on the tags and an earlier post, that the above is a commentary on this post, which I have not read.
Now, moving on…
First off, the predicate a false comparison.  This particular comparison is one of their favorites — the “choosey-choice” argument that they hurl at people they label “libfems” despite it being based in a very specific concept of radical feminism. They do this because they do not know the history of feminism, they do not understand the nature of radical feminism, and they generally just prefer to police other women’s behavior while remaining blissfully aware of how they are actually trying to set up something worse than the existing system.
Not to mention how their actions reinforce the existing system.
The whole concept of choice is predicated on the fact that women do not get to make choices.  Now, one could argue that women do get to make choices today, though they didn’t used to do so, and while that’s a decent argument, it ignores the kinds of choices that are being referenced here.
Women who choose to do something like wear makeup and heels and the assorted other social expectations that are thrust on women in order for them to achieve the goals laid out for them in soceity may or may not be doing so as a feminist statement.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it as such,.  IF they have critically analyzed the basis for those expectations, it is entirely possible for them to subvert those ideas, and embrace it as an assertion of the power that women are usually denied and as an aspect of their subversion of the power that men have over them.
The argument of choosing to make a cup of tea, then, is a false comparison, intended to deride and defame women who engage in such by making a comparison to a particular act in the US that is not gendered to an act in the US that is gendered.  Apply that same rule in a different culture — I’m sure you can think of a culture where the act of making tea is highly ritualized and that women have very proscribed roles regarding — and suddenly making a cup of tea can be an incredibly subversive act, dependent on the context and place and how one does it.
The act of a stripper putting on makeup may not be a feminist act, but the act of a black woman putting on makeup that accents her blackness and that meets the particulars of her skin color can, in fact be both a feminist act and an anti—racist act, because women are expected to meet very specific appearance standards, and those appearance standards are even more restrictive for black women because of both their womanhood and their blackness and the way that the standards are structured around a white idealization in the US culture.
They also say all of this with only the barest understanding of the role that make up plays or why make up even exists.  IN the division of labor within the Western culture, the role of attraction has fallen to women.  That is, women are supposed to be objects of desire, and sought out, since they are commodified. Men are the ones who are supposed to be seeking them.  In order to highlight aspects of desirability, women engage in actions and such that draw attention. Like makeup, which serves to highlight and improve, etc. Like dressing in a manner that draws attention to parts.
This basis is part of why there is rape culture arguments and all the rest of the crap and they know that part.
What they don’t realize is that a woman doing when not seeking to attract, and in order to improve her own situation, is not inherently doing so for the benefit of others, and may, in fact, be a way for her to subvert the expectations, and, through wielding the power of that expectation against those who enforce it, enable her to claim some sense of power in a situation that otherwise would be blocked to her (because a woman without makeup isn’t going to be have nearly as much social power and cache as a woman who does, since *that* is the problem here, not the decision to wear it, and she is, then, engaging in victim blaming).
Which is the subtext of all this kind of policing — you are at fault for not doing enough to make my life (and the lives of all women) better.
This is why this kind of policing is also misogyny.
In any case, they fail to understand the concept of the Patriarchal bargain, and it is not a concept one sees in the juvenile discourse often practiced by these tumblr based feminists (such as evilfeminist).
Nearly all of this stems from the sex-negative approach, and it looks at sex positivism as being somehow silly and reinforcing the patriarchy, without realizing that women have been told they are not allowed to have control over their sexuality (and, more often, that they are not even allowed to have one) which makes asserting your own sense of style and especially your own ideas about sex and sexuality in relation to your womanhood so important (as much as I loather her, Mary Daly, who’s teachings they have corrupted) was one of the major proponents of sex positive outlooks, and when the split came in the mid 80’s, she was tossed out because she was too nuanced).
SO now you can see how it is that the way she hurls “libem” is really just an excuse to pretend that she understands feminist discourse, and to seem, in a space like tumblr, like she does, when, in fact and truth, she has little idea about the broadness of and history around feminism, and why the approach used isn’t bad.Instead, she chooses to buy into the idea that women are without Agency, which is, still and always, the central failure of TERFs and similar types in their uninformed approach to feminism.

tonidorsay:

This particular example of the ignorance, incompetence, dishonesty, deceit, and assorted general rather anti-feminist aspects of a TERF is not, in fact, going to involve trans stuff, but I personally am rather tired of seeing this same old boring bullshit from the children, so we are going to explore an aspect of feminism in general.

Now, I am taking this out of context, so it is important that I point out that I think, based on the tags and an earlier post, that the above is a commentary on this post, which I have not read.

Now, moving on…

First off, the predicate a false comparison.  This particular comparison is one of their favorites — the “choosey-choice” argument that they hurl at people they label “libfems” despite it being based in a very specific concept of radical feminism. They do this because they do not know the history of feminism, they do not understand the nature of radical feminism, and they generally just prefer to police other women’s behavior while remaining blissfully aware of how they are actually trying to set up something worse than the existing system.

Not to mention how their actions reinforce the existing system.

The whole concept of choice is predicated on the fact that women do not get to make choices.  Now, one could argue that women do get to make choices today, though they didn’t used to do so, and while that’s a decent argument, it ignores the kinds of choices that are being referenced here.

Women who choose to do something like wear makeup and heels and the assorted other social expectations that are thrust on women in order for them to achieve the goals laid out for them in soceity may or may not be doing so as a feminist statement.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it as such,.  IF they have critically analyzed the basis for those expectations, it is entirely possible for them to subvert those ideas, and embrace it as an assertion of the power that women are usually denied and as an aspect of their subversion of the power that men have over them.

The argument of choosing to make a cup of tea, then, is a false comparison, intended to deride and defame women who engage in such by making a comparison to a particular act in the US that is not gendered to an act in the US that is gendered.  Apply that same rule in a different culture — I’m sure you can think of a culture where the act of making tea is highly ritualized and that women have very proscribed roles regarding — and suddenly making a cup of tea can be an incredibly subversive act, dependent on the context and place and how one does it.

The act of a stripper putting on makeup may not be a feminist act, but the act of a black woman putting on makeup that accents her blackness and that meets the particulars of her skin color can, in fact be both a feminist act and an anti—racist act, because women are expected to meet very specific appearance standards, and those appearance standards are even more restrictive for black women because of both their womanhood and their blackness and the way that the standards are structured around a white idealization in the US culture.

They also say all of this with only the barest understanding of the role that make up plays or why make up even exists.  IN the division of labor within the Western culture, the role of attraction has fallen to women.  That is, women are supposed to be objects of desire, and sought out, since they are commodified. Men are the ones who are supposed to be seeking them.  In order to highlight aspects of desirability, women engage in actions and such that draw attention. Like makeup, which serves to highlight and improve, etc. Like dressing in a manner that draws attention to parts.

This basis is part of why there is rape culture arguments and all the rest of the crap and they know that part.

What they don’t realize is that a woman doing when not seeking to attract, and in order to improve her own situation, is not inherently doing so for the benefit of others, and may, in fact, be a way for her to subvert the expectations, and, through wielding the power of that expectation against those who enforce it, enable her to claim some sense of power in a situation that otherwise would be blocked to her (because a woman without makeup isn’t going to be have nearly as much social power and cache as a woman who does, since *that* is the problem here, not the decision to wear it, and she is, then, engaging in victim blaming).

Which is the subtext of all this kind of policing — you are at fault for not doing enough to make my life (and the lives of all women) better.

This is why this kind of policing is also misogyny.

In any case, they fail to understand the concept of the Patriarchal bargain, and it is not a concept one sees in the juvenile discourse often practiced by these tumblr based feminists (such as evilfeminist).

Nearly all of this stems from the sex-negative approach, and it looks at sex positivism as being somehow silly and reinforcing the patriarchy, without realizing that women have been told they are not allowed to have control over their sexuality (and, more often, that they are not even allowed to have one) which makes asserting your own sense of style and especially your own ideas about sex and sexuality in relation to your womanhood so important (as much as I loather her, Mary Daly, who’s teachings they have corrupted) was one of the major proponents of sex positive outlooks, and when the split came in the mid 80’s, she was tossed out because she was too nuanced).

SO now you can see how it is that the way she hurls “libem” is really just an excuse to pretend that she understands feminist discourse, and to seem, in a space like tumblr, like she does, when, in fact and truth, she has little idea about the broadness of and history around feminism, and why the approach used isn’t bad.

Instead, she chooses to buy into the idea that women are without Agency, which is, still and always, the central failure of TERFs and similar types in their uninformed approach to feminism.

brilliantfantasticgeronimo:

Martha and Ten at a ~book seven~ signing. Suuuper quick thing I sketched for martha’s appreciation day (sadly it got ruinned a bit bc of the paper, lesson learned: glossy paper+wrinkles=disaster).
I imagine Martha would go all out on the cosplay while the doctor would like only strap on a house tie and call it a day.
thanks to both burntlikethesun and oodlyenough for the prompt.

brilliantfantasticgeronimo:

Martha and Ten at a ~book seven~ signing. Suuuper quick thing I sketched for martha’s appreciation day (sadly it got ruinned a bit bc of the paper, lesson learned: glossy paper+wrinkles=disaster).

I imagine Martha would go all out on the cosplay while the doctor would like only strap on a house tie and call it a day.

thanks to both burntlikethesun and oodlyenough for the prompt.

upslapmeal:

linnealurks:

pinchtheprincess:

dont-u-think-he-looks-tired:

convito:

becausemagichappens:

dont-u-think-he-looks-tired:

becausemagichappens:

theamazingcat:

becausemagichappens:

becks28nz:

The Doctor and River Song

Is it just me, or did that not feel like Twelve said it, but Eleven? It’s already a major eye-roll moment for me. :/

Moments like these remind me how much of this show is about Moffat inserting himself into it.

Why can’t River just go away, why does she ever need to be mentioned again

Because Moffat has a hard on for her and for the Eleventh Doctor, and for them being together. That is they only explanation for why she exists, and why they got “married.”

Because the explanation in the show is utter shit.

They fought on screen,and now look now we learned they fought off screen too. To the point that the Doctor had to leave his own home, his oldest and faithful companion the Tardis to live with otters because he got in a fight with River.

Yup totally romantic, and totally healthy relationship guys.

Like I said: He’s acting childish. That “relationship” reduced him to a whiny child. In this scene, he’s acting like Eleven.

I enjoy how people hate River Song for being pushy, unhealthy for The Doctor, and always trying to steal the spotlight.

And yet all these people have no problem whatsoever with Donna. Just saying.

Here’s the thing

Donna, told the Doctor she didn’t want a romantic relationship at all. she called him out on his bull shit and comfort him when he needed, but never at the expense / covering her own emotions.

she never got in screaming matches about who was right and who was wrong, at least not where they were yelling at each others face, (time lord, Tardis no/ Human, Donna, yes).

SHE NEVER DROVE THE DOCTOR AWAY FROM HIS HOME FOR A MONTH.

HE NEVER FORCED HER TO DAMAGE HER BODY, HE DIDN’T ORDER/YELL AT HER TO SAVE HER OWN SELF.

It was established that Donna suffered from low self esteem thanks to her mother always putting her down, so yes i think she would gloat having one over the Doctor, the mighty and smart time lord with his technological advances, being trumped by a Normal Human Donna.

I’m not going to hate on the character of River Song. I just don’t want to (and partly because it annoys me when River-shippers turn around and pounce on other companions [usually Rose], and it becomes this big ship war). But you know what DOES occur to me, reading all of this? It’s just Moffat. He is UNABLE to write any other sort of relationship with a woman. Purely unable. Women are all scheming, manipulative, bossy, argumentative harpies, to him. When they’re not being flirtatious and coming on to a man—but I suppose he would tuck that into the ‘manipulative’ category. I don’t know anything of Moffat’s personal life, but I feel sorry for whomever might be experiencing it. It makes me damned glad I’m an ocean away. The U.S. has enough misogyny, TYVL. 

I feel like I know way too much about Moffat’s psyche, from the way he writes (or writes about) interactions between couples.  It’s not pretty.

Now, I haven’t seen this episode yet, but I’m guessing that the reference to River is completely gratuitous, and he tosses it in because he thinks it’s cute, or clever, or funny, or interesting.  Or something.

Something else that gets me about this is how it will affect children. I mean they are the show’s target audience after all. The thing is, if young children see these two characters that are supposedly in love and have a very ‘romantic’ relationship behaving like this, they’re probably going to thing that it’s normal, that it’s OK. They have it imprinted on them subconsciously that people who are in love fight, drive each other out of their homes, and in the case of River’s wrist, may get injured. Now suppose one of these children has parents who frequently fight and leave home, perhaps they have an abusive relationship and are sometimes injured. They see something similar reflected in heroic characters they are supposed to respect and they think nothing of it, growing up to think that it’s normal, it’s love. Imagine how that could affect their perceptions of relationships at an older age. I know this is a rather extreme example and I know it’s not the case for all young children but I just don’t think Moffat is thinking enough about who the show is essentially aimed at and the message he wants to convey.

upslapmeal:

linnealurks:

pinchtheprincess:

dont-u-think-he-looks-tired:

convito:

becausemagichappens:

dont-u-think-he-looks-tired:

becausemagichappens:

theamazingcat:

becausemagichappens:

becks28nz:

The Doctor and River Song

Is it just me, or did that not feel like Twelve said it, but Eleven? It’s already a major eye-roll moment for me. :/

Moments like these remind me how much of this show is about Moffat inserting himself into it.

Why can’t River just go away, why does she ever need to be mentioned again

Because Moffat has a hard on for her and for the Eleventh Doctor, and for them being together. That is they only explanation for why she exists, and why they got “married.”

Because the explanation in the show is utter shit.

They fought on screen,and now look now we learned they fought off screen too. To the point that the Doctor had to leave his own home, his oldest and faithful companion the Tardis to live with otters because he got in a fight with River.

Yup totally romantic, and totally healthy relationship guys.

Like I said: He’s acting childish. That “relationship” reduced him to a whiny child. In this scene, he’s acting like Eleven.

I enjoy how people hate River Song for being pushy, unhealthy for The Doctor, and always trying to steal the spotlight.

And yet all these people have no problem whatsoever with Donna. Just saying.

Here’s the thing

Donna, told the Doctor she didn’t want a romantic relationship at all. she called him out on his bull shit and comfort him when he needed, but never at the expense / covering her own emotions.

she never got in screaming matches about who was right and who was wrong, at least not where they were yelling at each others face, (time lord, Tardis no/ Human, Donna, yes).

SHE NEVER DROVE THE DOCTOR AWAY FROM HIS HOME FOR A MONTH.

HE NEVER FORCED HER TO DAMAGE HER BODY, HE DIDN’T ORDER/YELL AT HER TO SAVE HER OWN SELF.

It was established that Donna suffered from low self esteem thanks to her mother always putting her down, so yes i think she would gloat having one over the Doctor, the mighty and smart time lord with his technological advances, being trumped by a Normal Human Donna.

I’m not going to hate on the character of River Song. I just don’t want to (and partly because it annoys me when River-shippers turn around and pounce on other companions [usually Rose], and it becomes this big ship war). But you know what DOES occur to me, reading all of this? It’s just Moffat. He is UNABLE to write any other sort of relationship with a woman. Purely unable. Women are all scheming, manipulative, bossy, argumentative harpies, to him. When they’re not being flirtatious and coming on to a man—but I suppose he would tuck that into the ‘manipulative’ category. I don’t know anything of Moffat’s personal life, but I feel sorry for whomever might be experiencing it. It makes me damned glad I’m an ocean away. The U.S. has enough misogyny, TYVL. 

I feel like I know way too much about Moffat’s psyche, from the way he writes (or writes about) interactions between couples.  It’s not pretty.

Now, I haven’t seen this episode yet, but I’m guessing that the reference to River is completely gratuitous, and he tosses it in because he thinks it’s cute, or clever, or funny, or interesting.  Or something.

Something else that gets me about this is how it will affect children. I mean they are the show’s target audience after all. The thing is, if young children see these two characters that are supposedly in love and have a very ‘romantic’ relationship behaving like this, they’re probably going to thing that it’s normal, that it’s OK. They have it imprinted on them subconsciously that people who are in love fight, drive each other out of their homes, and in the case of River’s wrist, may get injured. Now suppose one of these children has parents who frequently fight and leave home, perhaps they have an abusive relationship and are sometimes injured. They see something similar reflected in heroic characters they are supposed to respect and they think nothing of it, growing up to think that it’s normal, it’s love. Imagine how that could affect their perceptions of relationships at an older age. I know this is a rather extreme example and I know it’s not the case for all young children but I just don’t think Moffat is thinking enough about who the show is essentially aimed at and the message he wants to convey.

Toxic masculinity hurts men, but there’s a big difference between women dealing with the constant threat of being raped, beaten, and killed by the men in their lives, and men not being able to cry.

Robert Jensen (via jezebeler)

Anonymous asked:

I understand the New Who headcanons, but you all can not degrade Classic Who with your ridiculous fad labels. Respect the era. Would you have headcanons about movies from the 60's-80's? No. By and large you would not.

bemusedlybespectacled:

kellerprocess:

yourfaveisqueer:

fad labels?

get the fuck out of here ya hangnail

What the actual fuck? 

Uh. Do you, like, actually realize that Guiuliano and Marco were written as a gay couple in “The Mask of Mandragora,” a Four-era serial? Or that the writer of “Survival” has gone on record saying that she deliberately put in lesbian subtext between Ace and Karra, which fans have noticed for ages? Or that there were legions of queer people working on the series, including John Nathan-Turner, the longest-serving producer, and Waris Hussein, who directed “An Unearthly Child”? Or that Eight is mentioned as being bisexual in at least one novel and had two canonically queer companions in the comics—a lesbian woman (Izzy) and a butch bi woman (Fey). In fact, Eight’s audios in general are pretty queer, particularly where C’riss is involved.

And I’m not even going to go into how the Doctor/Master side of the fandom is almost as old as Kirk/Spock and how articles about it appeared in Doctor Who Magazine way before RTD or Moffat got near the show. 

Sorry, buddy. Queers have always been in ur precious franchise queering it up; they’ve just been a little more obvious since 2005 and Jack Harkness.

Don’t even start with me and how Classic Who was zomg properly heterosexual until the dirty homos ruined it. You will lose.

Would you have headcanons about movies from the 60’s-80’s?”

has this person ever been part of a fandom older than new who ever