I cry a million tears at how beautiful they are in this episode.
Or maybe you are just mad because the new Doctor isn't pretty anymore.
dude, what are you talking about, have you even seen the new doctor?
Apparently we’ve got a troll wandering around sending this message to people on Tumblr who have been critical of Moffat’s writing. Normally I’d hesitate to highlight the profiles of trolls and inflate their already over-inflated egos, but if this type of thinking is gaining traction again then I feel we need to sit the Doctor Who fandom down and have another chat.
First, girls are not just here for the pretty men and saying that we are is sexist bullshit.There’s a false panic about young heterosexual women fleeing Doctor Who based on the sexist assumption that women are only interested in speculative fiction when there is romance and hot men. Conversely, whenever women do express an appreciation for the men in a show, they are written off as inconsequential fangirls incapable of intellectually appreciating a show. Men, meanwhile, can express sexual interest in the female actors while also being considered intellectually serious fans. This “Squee Fan/Smart Fan” dichotomy a sexist double standard that we really need to shut down.
(Side note: There’s a lot of psuedo-scientific “proof” supposedly backing up the idea that young women flocked to Doctor Who for hot men, particularly because the show became increasingly popular while David Tennant and Matt Smith portrayed the Doctor. Everybody say it with me now: “Correlation does not imply causation!” The show also became increasingly popular during that time because of aggressive promotion in the UK and internationally. And, thanks to the increasing availability of high speed internet and services like Netflix, the show became increasingly accessible to new fans. So yeah, assuming the recent flood of young women watching the show is due to hot guys is also sexist bullshit.)
Second, assuming women are skeptical about the upcoming series of Doctor Who because they aren’t sexually attracted to Peter Capaldi is also sexist bullshit. Like, seriously? Do I even need to explain this? How misogynistic can you be if you looked through the latest critiques and reviews of Series 7, the 50th Anniversary Special, and the Christmas special, and decided, “Nah, these women are just upset because the Doctor isn’t a hot young guy anymore.”
That is a rather superficial attempt to dismiss legitimate criticism by women. It’s another version of the “Squee Fan/Smart Fan” dichotomy female fans face. This version of the dichotomy just assumes that the “smart” female fans only say positive things about the show. Female fans who are critical of the show can be dismissed, without engaging with their criticisms, by simply saying that their interest in the show is superficial and invalid because women only like the show because they’re attracted to the actors. Rather than engaging with their critiques, misogynistic trolls like this one can simply put women on the defensive and force them to justify their status as serious fans of the show.
So, to summarize: 1) Assuming young women are only interested in Doctor Who because of hot men is sexist bullshit. 2) Shaming young women for appreciating the hot men and assuming they are less serious or less important fans is sexist bullshit. 3) Assuming women are increasingly critical of Doctor Who because the Doctor is no longer portrayed by a young man is sexist bullshit.
possible reasons why a post you think is important only has a few notes:
-the OP isn’t massively popular
-the post was made literally five minutes ago (or at least has only been around a short amount of time)
-the post hasn’t been reblogged by anyone massively popular
things you can do about it:
-reblog the post (especially if you yourself are massively popular)
-ask your friends to reblog the post
things you can maybe refrain from doing:
-make one of those passive aggressive notes about how see how no on cares about this or why doesn’t this have more notes or if you don’t reblog this WE ARE DONE/YOU ARE TERRIBLE
reasons to refrain from doing this:
-guilt tripping is bad
-some people don’t reblog things because they’re triggering or they’re not on tumblr at the moment or they don’t want to trigger followers or it just doesn’t fit their blogs
-frankly it’s none of your fucking business why someone has refrained from reblogging a post because that’s not your blog
-seriously lots of people will refuse to reblog posts with those notes specifically because the notes are upsetting and manipulative
- Don’t be angry at yourself when anxiety/depression flares up. It isn’t your fault and no one blames you and if they do they’re pieces of shit.
- Don’t orbit around your perceived value so much. You’re not the sum total of what you produce.
- Don’t let yourself wonder why people love you. That’s not how it works. There are not stark, individual reasons that a person can enumerate about why they love you. It’s the entire, unique combination of what and who you are.
Not being rude or anything, but It was Karen's idea to wear skirts. She wanted to wear skirts. Moffat didn't have any input. It's not right to slut-shame her or put her down for wanting to wear a skirt. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to state the facts. I am a feminist but I see no problem in a girl wearing a skirt if she wants to. She likes her legs, there's nothing wrong with that.
I assume you’re talking about this post? If you read my tags on the post I linked to in that post, about “Amy’s little jump”, you’d realize that I know it was Karen’s idea to wear mini-skirts.
Not being rude or anything, but I have to laugh when you say “Moffat didn’t have any input.” Of course he had input. He’s the ultimate deciding vote in anything that happens on the show (unless perhaps someone above him at the BBC has an objection). His input was that he went along with Karen’s idea instead of vetoing it.
Moffat himself says that Karen’s appearance was a major reason for hiring her. Her acting skills would not have been enough if she had actually been, as he first thought, “wee and dumpy”. And in dialog and camera angles, he calls repeated attention to Amy’s legs and body, and faults her for distracting Rory instead of faulting Rory being distracted.
I’m pretty sure Karen knows which side her bread is buttered on, and that she gets rewarded for catering to the male gaze. More power to her for using that to her own advantage. But as we see with “Amy’s little jump”, sometimes Amy Pond the character can’t be fully part of the action because of her costume.
It’s not slut-shaming to point out that women are judged for their appearance far more than men are, and that women are expected to wear things that are uncomfortable and limit their freedom of movement in order to be attractive, while men are not.
tl,dr: Women’s choices about their appearance are made within the framework of a sexist society. Moffat is ultimately responsible for what’s on the show, even if he doesn’t do every last little task himself.
Rose wears a miniskirt in Boom Town. No one cares, because she isn’t hypersexualized in it. It’s just something she’s wearing. No close up leg shots, no panning up her body. It’s just…there, and no one makes a big deal of it.
Also, we’ve already gotten to know Rose for ten episodes as someone who generally wears loose, comfortable clothing. Literally our first glimpse of grownup Amy Pond is a slow pan up her legs.
And Rose’s skirt doesn’t change the way she walks/runs; she can still do this:
I would also like to point out that Amy Pond is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. You can critique the clothing she wears in ways that would be utterly judgemental and unfounded were she a real person - but she isn’t real. Amy Pond’s outfits were not picked out by Amy Pond, they were carefully chosen by a production team and a costume department; and yes, Moffat would have overseen those decisions. As a show runner that would be his job.
Actors generally don’t get free reign on their costumes. At Karen’s level - ie, one of the main characters - you may get offered a choice of outfits, but they’ve still been carefully preselected. (That was how David Tennant came to have a his pinstripe suit - he liked the striped trousers, which had been picked out for him, but felt they needed a matching jacket. The jacket didn’t exist, so they made it out of other trousers. But the cut, pattern, and tailoring choices would have been made by the costume department.) Karen is an actor, not a member of the production team; she wouldn’t have just been able to roll up and say “I want to wear short skirts” unless the frock tarts and showrunner were in agreement.
And as has been pointed out, it’s not really the length of the fabric we’re critiquing - it’s how it restricts the actor’s movement and informs the camera work.
Disney’s The Jungle Book cast so far: Neel Sethi as Mowgli, Ben Kingsley as the voice of Bagheera, Lupita Nyong’o as the voice of Rakcha, Scarlett Johansson as the voice of Kaa and Idris Elba as the voice of Shere Khan (x x x x)
And not only is the cast amazing, but the film is going to be a mixture of live-action and animation (a-la Mary Poppins). Neel Seth (Mowgli),is going to be the only live-action actor and everyone else’s characters will be animated AND I COULD NOT BE MORE EXCITED.
Portrait of Elizabeth Murray
England (c. 1650)
Oil on canvas, 124 x 119 cm
I think I have seen pictures of this before, in high school maybe, but I don’t remember there being a second person before. I seem to remember this image being cropped differently too, which is very disturbing because now that I see the entire painting, the way I remember it being cropped was very clearly and deliberately intended to remove the person holding the tray of flowers.
Since we’re throwing haymakers at the kyriarchy today, I think this is something that we should really be talking about too, because it happens
ALL. THE. TIME.
Level 1: People of Color from Medieval, Renaissance, and other Early Modern European works were often literally painted over in later decades or centuries.
Level 2: It was very fashionable in a lot of 17th and 18th century paintings to have a Black servant featured in portraits of very important historical figures from European History.
Honestly? They’re practically ubiquitous. A lot of the very famous paintings you’ve seen of European and American historical figures have a Black servant in them that have been cropped out or painted over.
Those silly stock photos from your American History Professor’s Powerpoint?
Your Professor’s PowerPoint for “George Washington”:
The actual painting:
Your professor’s Powerpoint on Jean Chardin:
The actual painting:
PowerPoint on Maria Henriette Stuart (with some commentary about the Habsburg jaw):
But, because of whitewashed history curricula, teachers and professors continue to use the cropped images because they don’t want their lecture to get “derailed” by a discussion about race.
These images are also more commonly seen on stock photo sites, including ones for academic use.
I honestly can’t find anyone really writing about this, or even any analysis on how often the cropped photos are used.
The reason they are so easy to crop out is because of the the artistic conventions which reflect the power hierarchy:
Oil paintings of aristocratic families from this period make the point clearly. Artists routinely positioned black people on the edges or at the rear of their canvasses, from where they gaze wonderingly at their masters and mistresses. In order to reveal a ‘hierarchy of power relationships’, they were often placed next to dogs and other domestic animals, with whom they shared, according to the art critic and novelist David Dabydeen, ‘more or less the same status’. Their humanity effaced, they exist in these pictures as solitary mutes, aesthetic foils to their owners’ economic fortunes.
This is drastically oversimplified, but at least it addresses it directly.
If anyone knows more on any studies or statistical evidence on this tendency, feel free to add it.
I just learned things.
i think about this a lot
My art history teacher told us about this black crusader who was considered a hero in Europe. He showed us some portraits of him, but after time Europeans began to portray him as a white man in artwork. He also showed us medieval paintings of free black men. He said people think there are no medieval paintings of black people, but there are and they just aren’t shown to or seen by many people.
I’m glad to hear that your teacher has been trying to incorporate this kind of material into the curriculum. That’s why I try to include as many educational links and resources as I can along with the images-even professional educators can have a hard time finding these artworks and info about them.
It’s also worth mentioning that part of why I focus on Europe-which is a subject of some valid criticism, considering how little time is usually spent on non-Western cultures in history related classes-is because what MUST be included in U.S. world history education by high schools and colleges is according to strict guidelines that are Eurocentric and/or Western-centric.
Educators are often working under pretty strict conditions about what they HAVE to teach you. It’s my hope that by providing a lot of specific examples from eras and artists, professors and high school teachers will be able to make their powerpoints and handouts more representative of the people in the classroom and still stay within the dictates of their department or institution.
Ideally, world history and art history will become less Western and Euro-centric, but in the meantime while our history education remains the way it is, these materials can help show that history is more diverse than a lot of textbooks would lead you to believe.
an old euphemism for queer female relationships was
penguintim replied to your photo “is that a guided tour of queerbaiting and plot holes”
Have you fallen through a plot hole in time and came out in Moffworld?
Apparently so, since today at work we received an order from a Mr S. Moffat…
"Mum, Dad… I’m a disguise of the Master”
"God said Adam and Eve, not Adam and Portreeve!"
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released seven years ago - July 21, 2007.
Some motherfuckers have it in their mind that just because they’re family you’re suppose to have an unlimited amount of tolerance for their bullshit.