ethic models



For spring 2016 FTL Moda teamed up with Global Disability Inclusion and the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation to raise money and showcase #FashionFreeFromConfines. The runway show featured supermodels Adriana Lima and Toni Garrn alongside models with disabilities including Leslie Irby, Rebekah Marine, Shaholly Ayers and 18 year old Australian model Madeline Stuart who has down syndrome.


ETHICALLY YOURS “Celebrating the heroes leasing fashion’s conscious movement” - model: Varsha Thapa - photographer: Keegan Crasto - stylist: Daniel Franklin - hair & makeup: Tenzin Kyizom - Grazia India January 2017

  • URVASHI KAUR - Handloom kota dory tent dress wth kantha details & khaki lining - “Our core aesthetics revolves around trans-seasonal collections with versatile, multi-use separates. This philosophy fundamentally creates an aspect of reusability and longer wear for each individual piece.”
  • DOODLAGE - Upcyled mesh shirt with texture detail using scrap cord, upcyled mesh trousers with texture detail using scrap cord, finger knit scarf made using scrap strips - “Most of our garments made entirely out of upcyled fabric. Patchwork is a god way to utilize tiny scraps of fabrics and whatever katran remains, we ue that for surface design.”
  • RAJESH PRATAP SINGH - Cotton dress, hand woven cotton waistcoat, had woven cotton linen salwar trousers - “It is the process of manufacture that determines the virtue of the fabric. We try and innovate without damaging or disrupting nature as much as possible.”
  • AM:IT -  Handwoven recycled plastic baskets - “I employ rural women in and around Coimbatore to weave the bags. The idea was to empower them, along with creating sustainable and ethical fashion.”

“Playful serenity, luminous ecru tones that glow. Sun kissed skin and dark bouncy coils, culottes and curly waist skirts to twirl around in. Delicately painted abstract faces on buttoned up shirts, billowy jumpsuits and airy low crotched trousers. Hand stitch embroidery on denim jackets + miki hats full of character.”

This is More Than A Color - Collection 7

Now live at ☀️

no amount of vegan activism will create a truly ethical & cruelty-free model of food production under capitalism. the capitalist model of food production is reliant on environmentally unsustainable practices & the abuse of human laborers, and both of those things will happen with or without the use & consumption of animal-based products

We are not passive recipients of law and truth, but active creators of ethical systems and models for the Divine. We are not believers, or even doubters, but wrestlers. Israel, more than a nation-state, is this very confrontation with the Divine. The wrestling is our continuity.
—  Douglas Rushkoff
Practice Run Chapter 5

Chapter 5 has been posted!  Thank you again to my beta/ cheerleader @booksrockmyface!

I am in love with Katniss, it’s high time that I admit it. She’s all I think about. When I’m baking at work, I’m thinking about her. When I’m in class, I’m daydreaming about her. When I’m with her, I can hardly concentrate on anything else except hearing her voice and the feel of her slender fingers interlaced with my own while we watch our movie or football game. Finnick says this is how it was with him and Annie in the beginning of their relationship too, although they were friends for many years beforehand.

“How long was it before you were able to concentrate on anything else?” I ask him during our weekly Thursday evening conversation. Bracing my phone against my shoulder, I clear enough dirty clothes from my futon so I can sit down. I’ve gotten really good at the frantic Friday afternoon clean up, in preparation for spending most of the weekend with Katniss, but my standards of living tend to fall back towards bachelorhood during the rest of the week.

“Well, if I tell you I almost flunked a semester of Advanced Old Testament Theory, would that frighten you?” Finnick asks with a chuckle.

“Yeah!” I exclaim as I finally sit down. I fumble with the release on my prosthesis, working it loose until it drops onto the floor with an unceremonious clunk. Leaning back with a grateful sigh, I start massaging my stump with my free hand. “This is my last year, Finnick! I can’t afford to fail a class!”

“Calm down, baker boy,” Finnick laughs. “Your GPA is so high it wouldn’t even matter if you failed a class at this point.”

“Hmph,” I say petulantly. “It would still matter to me.”

“C'mon Peeta, I’m just giving you a hard time,” Finnick says, serious now. “I don’t think you’ll be flunking any classes. Not with your work ethic. You’re a model student.”

Read more on AO3/FFN.

@maruboi !!! I didn’t know about that. Tbh I wish … artists would publicise more? Because I knew hawberries had a store but I haven’t seen any others so I tend to buy from redbubble because it’s the only place I know and highly convenient.

It’d be great if people sent me their store URLs though because I *would* like to better support the artists. It’d also be awesome to have a great big merchandise masterpost for places to buy merch in the fandom. :0

I think maybe Akito wished that she could be like Tohru. Tohru had everything that she was trying so hard to keep. But not to just have everyone’s affection, but to earn it and really care about people like she does. I see this especially when she tried to grab Tohru’s hand and went to see Kureno in the hospital. I think this because I really empathize with akito, and that’s what I’ve wanted for a very long time, Tohru was always my role model. I aspired to be her and I think maybe Akito felt the same way.

anonymous asked:

Do you think that it can ever be morally justified to test on an animal? And if not, since many scientists agree that as of now there are no alternatives, what should we do? Simply not try and find cures?

I do not believe that it is morally justified to exploit animals for human gain, regardless of the context. There are an awful lot of myths surrounding animal testing, so bare with me on this. Firstly, I think that you might be assuming that the only way treatments can be developed is through animal testing. The effective drugs on the market have been tested on animals, but it does not follow that these things have been effective because they have been tested on animals. Here in the UK for example, any new drug must be tested on at least two mammals to be considered fit for market. Now, that does not mean those drugs came about because they were tested on animals, they could be (and in many cases are) the result of much more advanced and less victorian methods of testing drugs.

It is not the case that we treat diseases by testing on animals or we don’t treat them at all. There are a wealth of alternatives like en vitro, test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures, computerised patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials, computer models and simulations, stem cell and genetic testing methods, non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans, and micro dosing, to name a few. There are many well respected figures in the bio-medical community who do not believe animal testing is in any way helpful anymore. We have undoubtedly gained a great deal from animal testing in the past, but people like Nobel-prize winning biologist Sir Peter Medawar pointed out that we will be at a point where we can dispense with animal research altogether in as few as ten years time, and that was in 1972.

Even ignoring ethical considerations, the animal model of research is deeply flawed, 9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests still go on to fail or cause harm in clinical trials on humans. UK based companies like Pharmagene use human tissue exclusively, not out of any ethical considerations, but because they believe that the animal testing model is scientifically redundant. Animals do not get many of the diseases that humans do, so these diseases must be artificially induced. This simply does not give us an accurate measure of how organically caught diseases will respond to treatment, human cell tissue gives us a much more accurate picture. To use cancer as an example, Fran Visco, founder of the National Breast Cancer Coalition said, “Animals don’t reflect the reality of cancer in humans. We cure cancer in animals all the time, but not in people.”  

As for the research methodology, it is widely accepted that animal experiments have serious limitations in that results in humans cannot be extrapolated from results in animals. A mixture of high dosage, artificial introduction of diseases and stress conditions of animals in confinement mean there are simply too many variables to gain reliable results. The cures that work on animals very often do not work in humans. Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the US National Cancer Institute, points out that: “The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings.” So what do we actually gain from animal testing? Last year, globally, we killed 115 million animals in scientific experiments, yet the FDA approved only 35 new treatments. 115 million lives, for 35 new drugs? Does that sound like an efficient research model to you? 

Today’s drug companies do the actual research with computer based and stem cell models, and are simply obliged to test on animals once that process has been completed, in many cases slowing down the process rather than helping it. For every research organisation you can name me that is testing on animals, I can link you one that is having equal or superior results using non-animal models. As one researcher puts it, we don’t use animals because it is good science, we use them “because they are cheap, easy to handle and few people care what you do to them.”I think the many people are guilty of a rather obvious confirmation bias when it comes to animal testing, including scientists. They assume because animal research has been done, that animal research is the only way it could have possibly done, with very little possible evidence to back up that claim. Animal testing is inefficient, expensive, out of date and utterly unethical. 

On a personal level, I absolutely do not believe that animal lives have any less inherent value than human lives. People may believe it is perfectly okay for 115 million animals to suffer every year so long as it benefits humans, but we do not have to look very far into our own human history to see truly terrible examples of this cold, utilitarian idea in which it is acceptable for a minority to suffer for the good of the majority. The idea that some lives matter less than others has been responsible for some of the most horrific injustices in human history, and I do not believe this is an ethos that any serious thinker should entertain. I think that at this point, the only thing we still have to learn from animal testing is the depths of cruelty that humans are willing to inflict on sentient beings for our own gain.


Once Upon a Time: Regina Mills / Evil Queen [ENFJ]

Extroverted Feeling (Fe): find ways to take care of others, make them comfortable, and put them at ease. Comfortable in a wide range of social situations. Stand as a worthy ethical role model for others. Value fairness and form intimate connections with many to meet their needs. Desire a sense of togetherness. Recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to create harmony. Feel an intimate oneness with others and comfortably disclose feelings, values, and issues. Warmly offer praise and respect and enjoy the support of others. Offer many changes to make amends.

Introverted Intuition (Ni): powerful insights into what is likely to happen; use that information to accomplish goals. Foreknowledge of how things will turn out. Automatic knowledge of the steps to set things in motion. Able to “see” a person or idea’s path with startling accuracy.

Extroverted Sensing (Se): enjoying the tangible pleasures of life. Keen appreciation of how things look, feel, and taste. Noticing relevant facts in the sea of data. Automatically aware of where they and things are in their physical space. Enjoy the thrill of action and physical experience. Engage in opportunistic risk taking.

Introverted Thinking (Ti): desire to objectively understand and appreciate others, but blindsided by an emotional disconnect. Detached analysis looks like heartlessness. Aspire to get things right by accurately understanding and applying principles to everyday interactions (often through extensive research).

Regina Mills is governed by her emotions, both as an evil queen and as her younger self. She cares very much about what other people think about her, and compromises what she wants to stay in Henry’s good graces. Early on, she is insecure about using magic and fearful that she will become as cold and hard as her mother; she hates to harm any living person or thing. Later, she undertakes a mission to inflict emotional pain on others and to control them (Fe). She has a long-term vision that results in a vindictive spell; Regina schemes, waits, and accurately predicts how others will act, using them to help her plans unfold (Ni).

She sometimes acts recklessly in the moment, without thinking of the consequences, and is capable of revising her plans on the spur of the moment. Regina enjoys having power and its luxuries; she uses tangible things in the world around her to help her improvise and maintain control of her environment (Se). Regina is highly insecure about her non-emotional decisions (Ti).

ENNEAGRAM PROVIDED by intj-the-cynical-idealist

Regina/The Evil Queen: Once Upon A Time: Enneagram 2            

Ennegram 2w1 “The Helper”

  • Basic Fear: Of being unwanted, unworthy of being loved
  • Basic Desire: To feel loved

Regina starts out her life craving love and affirmation in a pure, almost naive sense. She is secure in her relationship with David and his love sustains her even when her mother is cruel to her. But when David is killed, Regina begins disintegrating into a type 8, hungering after power in order to fill the empty void left by her true love’s death. She then spends a period of extreme vindictiveness powered by her type 8 disintegration. Her attempts to end Snow White’s happiness mask the fact that she has lost the ability to form human relationships and her initial rejection of Robin Hood shows that she believes herself to be unlovable.

Regina then casts a curse to destroy everyone else’s happiness and ensure her own. Unfortunately for her she fails to realize her true desire to be loved and affirmed and is disgusted with Storybrooke’s mandatory respect. She then adopts Henry in order to fill the hole left by a real, loving relationship. When he learns to hate her, she disintegrates into type 8 once more, desperately trying to maintain his loyalty.

Eventually Regina begins to realize that she cannot form the relationships that she wants if she doesn’t take care of herself and finds who she is as an individual (Type 4 integration) She reconnects with Henry and eventually Robin Hood by realizing that she needs to change, instead of trying to change everyone else.

anonymous asked:

What is relationship anarchy?

The Thinking Asexual defines relationship anarchy as such:

relationship anarchy – This is a relationship philosophy which goes one step further than polyamory and generally dismisses any preconceived ideas about relationship structures, drawing clear lines of separation between “friendship” and “romantic-sexual relationships,” relationship hierarchy, or categorizing relationships according to their behavioral and/or emotional qualities. Relationship anarchy rejects monogamy and the idea of love being finite or limited, in the same way that polyamory rejects that paradigm. Relationship anarchy, however, seeks to dissolve rigid emotional distinctions between sexual and nonsexual relationships, romantic love and friendship, in a way that polyamory usually does not. Relationship anarchy rejects emotional hierarchies of relationships: both the ranking of one romantic-sexual relationship over another and the ranking of romantic-sexual relationships over nonsexual and/or nonromantic relationships.

You can read more at the Relationship Anarchy Manifesto.

To me, relationship anarchy is about consent and explicit negotiation. Not just consent in sexual relationships, but consent in the boundaries of the relationship itself. When I have a relationship with someone, even if they don’t identify as a relationship anarchist, I make sure to ask them exactly what they expect out of the relationship, how they experience attraction and affection, and what kind of boundaries they want to set. And further, it is an open and evolving process of negotiation, so I often check in to make sure everyone is happy with where the relationship is. I think everyone can practice this as relationship anarchy about treating others ethically and with respect and acceptance. My relationship with Rel has been hugely enriched since we began to negotiate our relationship on these terms. Further, it adds a new layer of depth and consideration to each and every relationship I hold, whether or not you would call that relationship a “friendship”, a “romance”, a sexual partnership, or whatever. To me i don’t have different categories of relationships that mediate my experience of other people, but rather, I experience people directly. Like all anarchy, relationship anarchy isn’t about being against structures; rather, structures of relationship (like boundaries and labels, for example) are explicitly negotiated and consented to.

To me, my coming to relationship anarchy has to do with my romantic orientation, which makes it difficult for me to distinguish between different kinds of affection. However, I also consider it an excellent model for ethical relationships in general, and I encourage all people to take these principles to heart whether or not they choose to identify as a relationship anarchist. To me it’s more about what you do, and the most important thing to do is respect others and their boundaries.

I hope this helps,


anonymous asked:

modelling au for jiguk^^ (u can choose which way etc dont feel compelled to conform to anything!)

Yet again, so much more I wanted to write for this jikook model au! I hope you like it~ (thank you bby @confidenceatitsfinest)

+ Jungkook is an up and coming rookie model who just got signed to the same agency as Park Jimin

+ He didn’t expect to meet Park Jimin so early on in his job, but his manager wanted him to see a professional at work

+ He takes him to one of Jimin’s photoshoots and the moment he get there, he is completely enthralled. The man was gorgeous, sure, but what really caught Jungkook’s attention was his work ethic.

+ The model would listen attentively to the photographer and do everything he asks of him. He took his job very seriously. But the second the cameras turn off, his demeanor changes and he puts on a beaming smile

+ When Jimin notices him and their manager, he walks over and Jungkook immediately turns to his shy self having a top model who is on every bill board before him @confidenceatitsfinest

+ He stutters out an introduction and mentally bashes himself for sounding stupid, But Jimin is known for being super nice to the rookie models and he’s the same way with Jungkook. Jungkook thinks Jimin is like the perfect human being. @confidenceatitsfinest

+ After some months of training with Jimin and other various hired professionals, Jungkook starts his first photoshoot for a men’s fragrance ad

+ Jimin decides to sit in on this photoshoot because his schedule was free that day and he had helped a little with Jungkook’s training

+ A bit nervous, jungkook seemed to be struggling, not quite doing exactly what the photographer wanted, especially with his head angles

+ Jungkook doesn’t expect jimin to walk on set and take his face in his hands, angling his head where the photographer wanted

+ Jimin’s touch is surprisingly gentle and Jungkook is momentarily frozen in shock.

“Stay still, right there.” And why the heck does Jimin sound like he’s constantly fucked out??? @confidenceatitsfinest

+ “You’re doing just fine, it’s only your first photoshoot so don’t get too hung up. Now look into the lens of that camera like you own it.” Jungkook could only nod with wide eyes.

+ The photoshoot goes extremely well and Jungkook begins to get more jobs just from this simple ad

+ Jimin and Jungkook start hanging out more, to Jungkook’s surprise. ‘sunbae’ turns into ‘hyung’ ; “You know you can call me hyung now, right?” “O-of course su—I mean hyung.” Jimin chuckles

+ Jungkook’s rise to fame ends up being quicker than expected and he starts doing photoshoots with Jimin

+ One day they are left at the studio, alone after everyone had gone home. Jungkook is surprised when he hears Jimin say: ‘Get behind the camera, I want to take pictures of you.”

+ “Hyung, but you’re a model, not the photographer.” “Doesn’t matter. It doesn’t take a professional to capture a moment.”

+ Jimin starts off by taking pictures from far away, but he gradually gets closer, and Jungkook doesn’t notice it at first until he’s a foot away from him

+ “Aren’t you close enough, hyung?” Jimin looks at the camera with confusion, turning it as if it was broken. “Huh, funny.” Jungkook gives him a questioning look. "What’s wrong?”

+ “It seems like no camera is able to capture how beautiful you really are.”

+ Jungkook is in so much shock that he doesn’t know what to say. So instead, he leans in without thought, and captures Jimin’s lips between his own.

+ They start dating. And at first they try to hide it, but it isn’t long before their manager catches them in the break room one day. But he’s some what okay with it, because, well, publicity.

+ Their relationship makes them even more well known, they go along with it because its a win-win situation. The people deem them the ‘best looking celebrity couple’

+ They talk to their manager and firmly state that they don’t want their relationship exploited. and they wont go on staged dates or anything like that.

+ Because some may say models are plastic, but their relationship was as real as it could get.

Unpopular Opinion: I’m not a fan of the the decision to make The Doctor a female.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not simply hating on her because she’s a woman. In fact, almost all my arguments have to do with long-established canon, while the rest have to do with the motivations behind the change. My opinion on the latter can simply be summed up as a way for the BBC to get old fans to return whilst also seeming progressive in their portrayal of The Doctor. My main concern isn’t what they can achieve with a female Doctor, but rather what they won’t be able to without a male Doctor; that being an actual positive ethical role model for male-identifying people.

However, I am aware that everyone has an opinion and maybe some points to bring up to counter mine, which I am interested in hearing. So please, if you feel, read through what I have to say and lend me your own opinion/view on the situation.

The Importance of An Ethical Male Role-Model

We’ve seen a good rise in the amount of strong female characters; balancing emotion and logic into a character who, while flawed, still brings about realistic decisions and actions befitting a person in their position. A surge in that positive representation is fantastic and should be continued. However, contrary to that end, I’ve seen the erasure of what few positive male role models there have been in the media, turning more towards buff, gun-slinging emotionless robots as perfect representations of what men are to be. Sherlock’s character was trivialised in Moffat’s re-telling of the show, same as The Doctor’s character was vastly trivialised in Moffat’s tenure in Doctor Who. But prior to that, The Doctor, whilst flawed, always tried to learn from his mistakes, had emotional reactions and dealt with issues that arose with as little violence as he could, several traits we’re seeing less and less of. This made him a great role model for anyone of any gender who watched: not because of his gender but because of his ethics. However, as a male, much like the need for better female characters in general, we need more ethical characters in general and The Doctor can do that, as can his companions.

The Focus on Companions

More importantly, I always found the role of The Doctor’s assistants/companions to be of more benefit to the gender/racial/sexuality representation of the show rather than The Doctor himself. The way he interacts with them, indifferent of gender, is very much representing how we should indeed be addressing each other anyway. And the companions learning and evolving over the course of their adventures meant to show us how to implement those positive changes within ourselves. The companions have always, to me, represented more human role models than The Doctor ever did. Not to mention, are they now going to surround The Doctor with male actors to counter the gender change? Are her “preferences” also going to change and she’ll suddenly prefer men? There are a lot of ways this could be ruined and even be a step-back for representation in not only gender but sexuality, even more so than we’ve already seen in the show with The Doctor’s Asexual erasure.

To that end, does it really matter what gender The Doctor is? No. But does that mean The Doctor should be female, or even can through Time Lord physiology or even with what we’ve seen in the series/climate surrounding recent years of Doctor Who?

Female Representation (In Moffat Who)

To this day, the only references we’ve had to The Doctor and Time Lords in general being able to swap genders through regeneration have been in Moffat’s stories. However, many of these have been punctuated as jokes. Beginning with the Red Nose Day Special that Moffat wrote personally, then continuing on into his second series as showrunner. Even his representation of a female Master was pulled off in a less-than-flattering way, reducing her to The Mistress and even having her and an earlier male incarnation of the same person flirt together. These included with Rassilon’s sudden gender-swap seemed more to be a novelty or attention grab that hardly paid off on any kind of character level beyond the sexual. Not to mention the treatment of women in the rest of Moffat’s series leaves a lot to be desired. I don’t want a female Doctor to pop up at the expense of a sex joke, because we’ve had that so much already and frankly, it’s getting ridiculous. So how a female Doctor will be handled is going to require much caution and forethought. But with that, comes the danger that the writers will also retcon or mishandle the following point:

Established Sexualities (Amongst The Whole Series)

The Doctor was Asexual for the whole run of Classic Who, and can still be considered as such during the RTD era given that he never engaged in any blatantly and purely sexually-motivated acts (sans Moffat’s own ‘Girl in the Fireplace’). This all suddenly changed when Moffat took over and The Doctor began expressing more sexual acts with his companions and random other women throughout. This established a more heterosexual image for The Doctor, countering everything that came before him. And the image is pretty clear that he prefers women over men. With the introduction of a female Doctor however, the handling of sexuality may again be called into question. Will she prefer women as The Doctor has during Moffat’s era or will she suddenly betray that sexuality as well and prefer men instead?

Since The Doctor is always the same person at the core (integrity/sexuality-wise) then the changing of gender should not affect that sexuality. But since there has already been an erasure of Asexual identity within the character, the possibility of the erasure of Lesbian relationships for The Doctor could occur. Or else be handled as badly as in Moffat’s series (where the only Lesbian couple there never even shared a kiss unless they needed to resuscitate the other). These are just some of the risks the writers will need to take when pursuing a female Doctor on the coat-tails of Moffat’s series. So far, there has been no good recent track record to give me much hope for the future. Representation is already much more at risk here than simply making a new female character. Speaking of which, another bother with this whole debate has been:

The Perception of Companions/Assistants

Companions and Assistants to The Doctor have been as much Main Characters as The Doctor. As stated above, The Doctor forms only part of the series’ two hearts. He tries to bring the best out in people through example. The Companions take that on into themselves and The Doctor learns even more from them in the end. The Doctor and the Companion/Assistant are a symbiotic circle integral to the show, so not considering any of them as Main Characters has been somewhat troublesome. Their need to move on from a life away from The Doctor does not diminish their importance to the show, and the fact The Doctor continues on as they leave does not elevate him above them. He needs them as much as they need him, so all Companions are Main Characters, not Secondary by any means.

So far, my points have focused on the exterior representation/perception of the characters within Doctor Who. From here, I’ll be focusing on relevant canon outside of Moffat’s rather tumultuous era that supports the point that Time Lords cannot swap genders.

Biological Differences

The Doctor has had to wear many faces now, and whatever face he winds up with, he sticks with. However, in Destiny of the Daleks, it was established that Romana could use her post-regenerative energy to modify her appearance to become something that suited her. She went through almost half a dozen incarnations before falling back on the appearance of Princess Astra from the previous episode. The Doctor conversely has often made a lot of judgements on his appearance, deducing if he liked it or not and even made a big deal on the face he was to be given when banished to Earth, implying he could not modify it again without regenerating. This indicates a distinct biological difference between male and female Time Lord physiology beyond simply moving and replacing sexual organs. With how complex the Time Lord biology is, this feature may not be something that can be replicated through any natural process and may perhaps even be harmful to try without outside help (i.e. medical/technological intervention).

So while this doesn’t rule it out, it also doesn’t mean the process of change will be as simple as it is for humans or even various animal species on Earth who can change genders at will. That being said, there are more societal reasons why if the Time Lords could change genders so easily, that the hierarchical and governmental structure of Gallifrey would be very different than what we know.

Gallifreyan Views on Gender

Time Lord society is not perfect. And we’ve seen its portrayal in the Classic series through to The End of Time remain consistent in showing this. Discounting Moffat’s switching of The Doctor’s people between benevolent lovelies to evil all over again whenever it is necessary for the plot, the inherent sexism of Gallifrey is clear from very early on. For most of the series, the only female Time Lord we know of is Susan, and that’s only by assumption that since Susan is The Doctor’s granddaughter, she is in fact a Time Lord. But as is known, Time Lords base their society much on biology and (less obviously) sex. Once The Doctor returns to Gallifrey proper, no longer a renegade on the run, we do not see a female Time Lord in the higher ranks of the Gallifreyan government. In fact, the first Time Lord female we meet aside from Susan is a Space Traffic Guard locked away in the lower levels of the Citadel, far away from where the “important” members of society are.

From her lines of dialogue, it appears she may have even graduated with a better grade than even The Doctor did at the Academy and has been stuck in her position ever since. The Doctor acquired much through his particular bloodline (being a descendent of Rassilon) but with many politicians on Gallifrey even verbally discussing how they place more respect in men (namely older-looking men), gender also appears to be a factor in where you fall as a Time Lord. Even Rodan, our Space Traffic Guard who quite possibly graduated higher than The Doctor isn’t even considered a Time Lord and openly refers to Time Lords as someone higher than she is.

The very next female Time Lord we meet is Romana, who acquired the highest marks of almost every other Time Lord at the Academy. Being the second confirmed/established female Time Lord we’ve seen, we can assume that her high-position was acquired simply because she couldn’t be ignored. Which just begs the question of where does a woman need to score in The Academy to even be considered into politics or anywhere high-ranking on the Time Lord High Council? Some of this can be considered speculative, but we will return to Romana as evidence of sexism on Gallifrey in a moment. For now, lets focus on Presidents.

Cardinal Borusa, later Chancellor Borusa and eventually President Borusa received his office by representing Gallifrey in the absence of The Doctor (who was ultimately the only candidate for the position but opted to run away instead). Borusa eventually wound up committing treasonous acts against Gallifrey, even breaking the Laws of Time, to acquire immortality. However, he was stopped by five of The Doctors and Chancellor Flavia (our next female Time Lord focus) became President in the exact same way Borusa had: in the absence of The Doctor. However, despite the similarity in the acquiring of the position, and the fact that Flavia never committed treason against her own people, she was never considered a proper President. Borusa still was, and is, considered to be a President within Time Lord society, but Flavia despite holding office, never was. In fact, she appeared to be one of (if not) the only female Time Lord members left on the High Council, and appeared to have been misinformed by members of the Council to get her to destroy the surface of the Earth in the future.

How she left office is not mentioned, but it could be assumed she either resigned due to a lack of support or was even deposed, leaving an open power vacuum amongst the Time Lords. This hole was filled by Romana who had been summoned back from E-Space and attempted to reform the Time Lords into a much more respectable society. However, she was shunted out of office once more to make way for the resurrection of Rassilon at the beginning of the Time War, meaning that despite her actions, she was still viewed as something less worthy of that position.

Sexism is indeed engrained within Time Lord society. Why is that noteworthy to this argument? Because if Time Lords could swap genders as easily as through a simple regeneration or even if they could only do it technologically to an extent, then their society would have evolved to reflect that trait. Time Lords would have been much more tolerant and accepting towards women of their own culture at least, but that is clearly not the case. And if they could swap genders, why wouldn’t more women turn into men in order to rise to a position they wanted to be at? To some at least, this would be a logical step. To those who cared more about position than gender (which most Time Lords would), why would this not be the case for Rodan or Romana or even Flavia who may have all acquired more respect had they become men?

In Summary

To me, the gender change of The Doctor seems somewhat unnecessary on top of going against well-established canon. It feels almost like a badly thought out attention grab, much in the same vein as the Statue of Liberty Weeping Angel or the concept of a secret Doctor regeneration. The execution for this worries me greatly in that it could mean even worse for the series’ sub-par levels of representation than we’ve seen in recent years.

This is all from my perspective though, so I’m interested in hearing feedback (please try to keep it civil) and anything anyone has that can assuage some of these fears/points of contention. Thank you for your time (and space).


Gossip Girl: Blair Waldorf [ESFJ]

Extroverted Feeling (Fe): find ways to take care of others, make them comfortable, and put them at ease. Comfortable in a wide range of social situations. Stand as a worthy ethical role model for others. Value fairness and form intimate connections with many to meet their needs. Desire a sense of togetherness. Recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to create harmony. Feel an intimate oneness with others and comfortably disclose feelings, values, and issues. Warmly offer praise and respect and enjoy the support of others. Offer many chances to make amends.

Introverted Sensing (Si): build on prior knowledge and experience to ensure success. Notice if something doesn’t match what is expected. Recall detailed data to support their decisions. Recognize familiar elements so they can act quickly. Trust common experiences and feel energized by participating in traditions to solidify the group or family. Follow others’ successful endeavors when trying something new. Reviewing the past to draw on the lessons of history, hindsight, and experience to feel a sense of security about the future.

Extroverted Intuition (Ne): enjoy spending time exploring new ideas or hidden meanings. Engage in conversations where potential possibilities are explored. The desire to connect the details of their wealth of data and experiences. Desire to learn about the unknown and hone their skills. Tendency toward being naïve at times.

Introverted Thinking (Ti): desire to objectively understand and appreciate others, but blindsided by an emotional disconnect. Detached analysis looks like heartlessness. Aspire to get things right by accurately understanding and applying principles to everyday interactions (often through extensive research).

Blair Waldorf goes from being the “queen bee” in her high school to wanting to be the toast of New York society as a fashion designer. She cares very much about what other people think about her, and expresses her emotions openly. Unfortunately, Blair can also be quite cruel to others; she understands their emotions and both how to appeal to them to get what she wants and how to hurt them (Fe). Blair is traditional. At first, she merely wants to fulfill her family’s expectations of her and marry Nate. Later, she maintains the traditions of the school and tries to walk in her mother’s footsteps. Movies help shape her dreams – she models herself after bygone heroines like Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn, and struggles to want to change herself or her life – in her mid-twenties, she’s still wearing headbands and clinging to old social rules (Si).

Her creativity comes in handy both for business and manipulating situations to her advantage; Blair is able to connect her own experiences with new ideas and find ways to recover from bad situations (Ne). She can be a little overly romantic and naïve when dealing with others. She trusts her emotional connection to people and charm to get her through problems, but is able to step back and think critically about people and situations. But doing so is always to support either her concern for them or her desire to use them in some way (inferior Ti).