fully fundamental

anonymous asked:

Moffat has been homophobic in the past, still is, and torturing and potentially killing a lesbian character is nothing new, bury your gays trope is homophobic no matter how hard you try to excuse it. Also racist cause she's been the first black companion since 2008? And how many has there been? Sexism isn't the issues here, it's homophobia and racism

Hi there! 

The issue raised by the post I saw had everything to do with sexism, “Steven Moffat’s desire to torture his female characters” was the wording used. That is specifically what I was responding to, because that claim is simply unfounded (as I…outline in my original post!). But if you want to discuss homophobia:

I want to clarify that I’m gay myself and so I’d like to think my response to homophobia in media is both personal and well tried and tested. With this in mind, I truly struggle to see evidence of homophobia in Steven Moffat’s work… 

Jenny and Vastra’s love is warm, witty and completely celebrated by Doctor Who’s narrative.There’s nothing else to say regarding them, apart from perhaps the fact that they are both exceptionally interesting, lively characters with rich and engaging personalites. (There WAS an awful, awful, awful moment of sexual assualt in “The Crimson Horror” involving Jenny and Eleven, which I absolutely hate and condemn, but this was ultimately an ill-judged moment of improv from Catrin Stewart and Matt Smith, in a Mark Gatiss penned episode, in an era of the show that has been long since moved on from. It should have been cut, but it’s existence has very little to do with Steven Moffat). 

Bill Potts is perhaps the sunniest, most refreshing, and most accuarte depiction of a young gay woman I’ve ever seen. Her sexuality is a beautiful, beautiful part of who she is, and this is something she both acknowledges, embraces (loudly among strangers, quietly among her family), and pokes fun at. That’s as vibrant and genial and natural a piece of Lesbian representation you can find. The way the show has depicted Bill’s sexuality has struck a huge chord with me personally, and it’s something I’m so happy millions of children and adults are also encouraged by. It’s also, yes, something that I, as a gay person, am tremendously thankful to Steven Moffat for. 

As far as Steven Moffat’s character, I of course don’t know him, so can’t totally vouch for him, but if we take him by the things he has said about gay representation, its pretty wonderful, progressive stuff. If we take him by the things profressional colleagues have said about him, it’s pretty wonderful, progressive stuff. He’s a self described “Lefty”! And if you were to ask me for my personal opinion, (having been a huge fan of his for years and years I’d like to think I could make an accurate assessment), he strikes me as a man who has, particularly since c.2012, worked incredibly hard to listen, improve, instruct and educate himself on the many social issues which he now fully and fundamentally embraces and celebrates in his work. That includes LGBT represenetation, representation of people of colour, and representation of women. 

You’re absolutely right, the ‘bury your gays’ trope is homophobic. But at the moment, Bill is not buried - she’s not dead! Suffering, hurting, yes. But alive and kicking, (and blinking and crying too…) That last shot wasn’t for nothing! It tells us that despite everything, underneath a morbid attempt at destruction, she is fighting, surviving. That should give us all a lot of hope. If by the end of next week, Bill ends up dead with her agency torn apart, I will be utterly surprised, but horrified and angry alongside everyone else. But that hasn’t happened yet.

I don’t think the race aspect is unarguable. Although Steven Moffat has said really lovely, (and self critical), things about the representation of people of colour on Doctor Who, there’s certainly something to be said about the fact that Bill is now the second black character to be converted into a cyberman in the show, (the third if we widen the scope to Torchwood, however I’m inclined not to, given this happened in a…well…dreadfully dated and sexist episode penned by Chris Chibnall under Russel T Davies’ showrunning in 2006), and there’s no getting away from the fact that that’s a very uncomfortable figure for the show to hold, however unintentional it is. Beyond that, there’s not much to be said until we see how the story, (bearing in mind we are less than halfway throgh this one given next week’s extended running time), progresses. There’s a very likely chance the events here will be subverted.

TLDR: Basically, I appreciate that people have concerns about how Bill’s story will end next week, but these concerns are driven by prominent misunderstandings of Steven Moffat’s character, and his writing, and until we see otherwise, I’m 100% inclined to put my trust in him, and to wait and see what happens. His track record in giving female characters agency and a triumphant ending following being ‘killed off’ in a finale cliffhanger is second-to-none:

  • Amy killed off in ‘The Pandorica Opens’ only to end ‘The Big Bang’ happily married and travelling
  • Amy commiting suicide along with Rory in ‘The Angels Take Manhattan’ only to end the episode determidly standing by her husband’s side, living a long and happy life with him in New York. 
  • Clara being killed off in ‘Face The Raven’ only to become a time travelling immortal by the end of ‘Hell Bent’

Given this, I’m genuinely confident that Bill’s story will, too, by it’s end, be triumphant.

anonymous asked:

As an INFJ, I'm pretty awkward about physical contact. I didn't like hugs as a preteen, because I didn't know what to do with my hands. That was years ago, and I can deal with it okay now. Actually I find I secretly want people to hug me, or hold my hand, or rest their head on my shoulder, even if we're casual acquaintances and it's not amorous. Like, I just crave physical proof that they are really there, and happy to spend time with me. Is this a common "side effect" of developing inferior Se?

Yes, it definitely could be! 

Being an Ni dom means that you’re naturally inclined to be somewhat removed from (and therefore less comfortable with) the physical world around you. This can make it harder to naturally know what to do with your body, be physically present, and/or be effortlessly reactive. As you develop Se, you start to become better at these things, but Ni (convergent intuiting) will always be your dominant perspective - which means that while physical connection may be something that you desire, being fully present is fundamentally more difficult for you than for someone who has unfiltered Se. 

Note: I personally know several Ni doms who are awkward about physical contact. They’re so up in their own heads that it’s hard for them to just “be”. One of these Ni doms has well developed Se in some ways - he’s an incredible athlete (and a particularly aggressive and reactive one at that) - but otherwise very reserved about showing physical affection and sort of freezes up when he’s hugged (though he loosens up a ton after drinking alcohol). How inferior Se manifests will be different from person to person, but awkwardness with physical contact seems to be a pretty common symptom! 

fizzygingr  asked:

(1/4)I'm really drawn to your faith story and your relationship with Catholicism. Do you mind if I ask you a question about it? I'm a lifelong catholic, majored in theology, and am finishing up a job as a youth minister and religion teacher. I also have been strongly affected most of my life by moral OCD/scrupulosity, which means my faith for many years has been rooted in a fear of doing or believing the wrong thing.

(2/4) I believed so many things against my conscience because the Vatican said them (like all the church teachings about gender and sexuality, and especially JPII’s theology of the body). I realized a few months ago that if being catholic meant believing in the tradition that had been dominant until Vatican II and is still hanging around, then I couldn’t be a part of it anymore. 

(¾) And I can’t conceive of another way to be Catholic. Like, I could be a “Vatican II Catholic,” but I’d feel like I’m leaving behind the continuity and the sense of belonging to the universal Church. Since then I’ve felt really lost and disconnected from God, I’m not even sure if I believe in God anymore, and I’m not sure where my faith can go from here.             

(4/4)So I guess what I want to ask is, do you have any advice about rebuilding your faith from the ground up? I sometimes have this visceral reaction against anything catholic (which can make it really hard to be a youth minister), but I’m not ready to abandon spirituality altogether. I just feel really lost. (If you don’t want to answer this, or you can’t, or you have nothing to say, I understand.)      

So it sounds like we actually have a lot of things in common! Apart from the lifelong Catholic part, of course. But I also majored in theology and I’m a campus minister these days.

Again, I can’t give you any solid answers (and tbqh I never trust people who offer hard and fast answers, anyway), but I can tell you what’s been true for me.

Keep reading

there is no (full, reciprocal) love, there is only an immense need for love; every actual love encounter fails and throws us back into our solitude.
—  Perhaps, it is only when one is in love that one can fully confront one’s fundamental solitude.

Ay look it’s my friend rapping. And it’s legitimately good lol