i do in fact have a problem

Anonymous asked:

Hi, I’m wondering if you could help me with this. I was planning the plot for my novel when I suddenly realized that there was absolutely nothing about romantic love in it. While that’s not the main focus (the story is mostly about family, good vs. evil etc), I’m concerned about the lack of romance here, considering that almost every book I’ve read have a romantic plot in it. Do you think it’d be a problem?


There doesn’t have to be a romance in every story. In fact, many stories do not have them. We see them frequently in YA fiction because first love is a common part of young adulthood. However, there are many readers (of every age category and genre) who would love to read stories that don’t feature a romance. So, don’t feel like you have to force one. :)

———————————————————————
Have a writing question? I’d love to hear from you! Please be sure to read my ask rules and master list first or your question will not be answered. :)

4

This is a friend over on Instagrams doing!! She posted a pic of Varric smiling and I had to see what smiling Solas looked like… So yeah! This is what he would look like if he really liked showing us those gnashers… 🤔 I feel very conflicted… Nice to see him smile and all but hmmm…. Also, I think we should all ignore the fact that he looks a bit like Gargamel in the bottom left pic… Yes… As you can see, I have had a very productive morning and got many, many important things done… *pats self on back*

Signs that people are ignorant and neglective pet owners

• when you tell them they’re doing something wrong in a polite manner, their first response is to tell you to “fuck off” or “shut up”

• when you offer them resources or information that could help them, they tell you that they “know how to take care of their pet” and that they’re taking care of their pet “their way”

• they believe that any person that views the way they house their pet as less than ideal is unnecessarily targeting and attacking them

• when they start to wonder why their pet is ill and lethargic and a person tells them it’s because they’re living in an unhealthy environment, they ignore the other person’s (or people’s) facts and information, try to excuse the problems with the way their pet is living with stuff like “i don’t have enough room” or “i don’t have the time to do all that”, and try to solve the problem through methods that do not work unless the pet is in an environment where it is able to recover and heal

• their pet(s)’s health and environment are viewed as things that would inconvenience their lives if they were to improve for the better. i.e. them upgrading from a vase to an actual aquarium would take up to much room and make too much noise

• they see people who maintain their pet(s)’s happiness and health through keeping them in the proper environment as “extra” ✨

• they call neglecting their pet their own “style of pet-keeping”


feel free to reblog and add some signs you’ve seen before

I really do believe that at least part of the problem of people distrusting science has to do with how we as scientists portray ourselves.

We have actively created a system where we derive authority from being seen as better/smarter/more competent than everyone else and then when people ask why they should trust us we respond with a very condescending version of ‘because SCIENCE IS FACT’ or something along those lines.

Like, consider how that would feel from the outside? Here are a small group of people who you have never met/interacted with who sequester themselves in impenetrable ~elite institutions that you can’t access and don’t feel party to who then tell you that what they say is fact because they’re smarter and better educated than you. And if you ever try to question them (no matter how reasonable your objections may be/seem to you) they condescendingly pat you on the head and say something like ‘don’t worry we know better. you can’t possibly understand what we do.’

Why the hell would you trust them? 

No one likes being told that they’re not smart enough to understand something, and no one likes feeling excluded from something they’ve essentially been asked to accept sight unseen. 

I don’t really have a solution to this, except some vague notion about working harder to portray scientists as people working a job, rather than geniuses who are above it all. 

And like trying harder to understand where people are coming from when they question science. And remembering that being better educated than most doesn’t make us smarter than most. It just makes us better trained in certain types of thinking.

I just think we need to keep in mind what we are asking of people. Which is to put a whole hell of a lot of faith in us.

13 Reasons Why characters

Justin Foley: Massive dickhead. Barely redeemable. He has a tragic backstory and a shitty childhood. However, he’s a massive douche, who let a girl get raped and lied to her, he was willing to kill a guy to save his own back and only right near the end did he decide to admit he was in the wrong and even then we don’t see him do anything to actually help the situation. This guy needs some emotional help and needs to start being a much better person and only then would he ever be anywhere near redeemable. 

Jessica Davis: At first I hated her for refusing to listen to her friend but then I realized this is similar to most girl as we are taught to trust our boyfriends more than our friends which sucks. However, she still tried to be nice to Hannah shortly after and a bit of communication could have helped their situation so much. I feel like she’s well and truly suffered enough and didn’t deserve any of the shit that happened to her. Already redeemed.

Alex Standall: As much as guys dont want to admit it and girl would deny it, these lists happen so often its unreal. I’ve seen groups of girls and boys alike make lists ranking others. Its not okay at all but its something that happens so often that it just goes to show how something so simple can be so harmful towards someone. He hurt two girls with this list, Jessica and Hannah. I feel like he is redeemable as he shows the most guilt to the point its shown he’s considering his own suicide. He knows what he did was wrong even if it wasn’t as hefty as some of the other guys. He was redeemed as soon as he admitted what he did was wrong. 

Tyler Down: I don’t get why everyone is up Justin’s ass but hate this kid. They both committed a similar crime. One is a pervy stalker and the other took what was an innocent mishap and made it into something filthy and then distributed it. I hate them both but they are incredibly similar except one is the lonely isolated loser with a camera who was bullied beforehand and the other a popular jock with a bad home life. As far as I’m concerned if one has the possibility to be redeemable then so does the other. I feel like Tyler needs some serious help, the kind that Hannah needed but never got. Except where Hannah killed herself, this guy is going to kill others. I can actually see some parallels between Hannah and Tyler, the only difference one is a creep and deserves at least a years sentence in prison. This kid really isn’t okay mentally and thats shown throughout the series, do I feel sorry for him? No. But, he would be redeemable if he got help and it turns out that he didn’t shoot Alex like many people are speculating. As far as I’m concerned, you cant love Justin and hate this guy as they both did similar crimes except one let his girlfriend get raped. Both are creepy assholes. Also, at least the kid told the parents and people about the fucking tapes and Hannah unlike the other assholes trying to cover it up. 

Courtney Crimson: She annoyed the fuck out of me when she was defending Bryce and trying to call Hannah a liar when it was already established that these tapes are all true. However, after actually taking some consideration into her character I can understand why she was scared and thought what she was doing was right. Yes this is the 21st century and her parents were gay so she must have known she’d be accepted. But its not that simple, she’s probably seen her parents go through shit and heard them say that her parents homosexuality would rub off on her. If she came out she would give the homophobes what they wanted, evidence to back their claim. I don’t agree with her further spreading rumours and defending a rapist. But with some compassion I find her story more redeemable than some of the others. Her character showed just how spiteful females can be towards each other. I feel like if she would just tell the truth, she could have been a redeemable character.

Marcus Cole: I haven’t seen this guy mentioned despite the fact he’s so much worse than both Justin and Tyler. He literally assaulted a girl in broad daylight and got away with it. And then when she dies he shows no remorse and even tries to stop the tapes from being distributed. He is one of the only two absolutely nonredeemable characters because he shows no remorse and only cares about his reputation. Whilst watching this I honestly got the feeling this guy has no compassion or emotions whatsoever and the only reason he didn’t agree with Justin wanting to hurt Clay is because he knew it could cause problems. He was only interested in calculating the best situations for himself and that makes him way worse because even at the end he didn’t think he did anything wrong. 

Zach Dempsey: The ‘nice guy’ mixed in with the wrong crowd. He may actually be a kind and nice guy but his popularity made him feel entitled and when Hannah pushed him away he acted out in revenge. What would have been a petty revenge on its own took away some of a girls last bit of happiness. He obviously had his own problems and confidence issues and what he did wouldn’t have been so bad without the other things that happened.  He’s definitely a redeemable character. 

Ryan Shaver: I don’t feel like he was focused on enough. He’s definitely a prick but he seems to be the only one to outright be like ‘yeah I’m an asshole’. He seems to be the kind to tell the truth and whilst still being a thoroughly unlikable character he does seem to want to do whats right. He know what Bryce did was wrong and he blatantly addresses the fact that Courtney is defending a rapist and is a rape apologist. I didn’t like him because of his lack of emotions however I did appreciate a character with a decent moral compass and I think hes redeemable but needs to take more interest in peoples lives outside of his stupid writing. 

Clay Jensen: Actual sweetheart. Unfortunately, he didn’t see the signs but its shown throughout the series that he helped her feel both better and worse in some of these situations. However, he has nothing to be forgiven for as he technically did nothing wrong except not notice which he tries to make up for with Skye at the end. 

Sheri: I guess she deserves to be forgiven when it comes to Hannah as she was just trying to be nice and after Clay is probably the nicest on this list. However, I feel like she let what others think help her to make decisions that aren’t as forgivable. However, she still deserves a chance at becoming a better person even if she does get put in prison for some time. 

Bryce Walker: Let him burn. That’s all I have to say about this fucker, he is not redeemable at all. Kill it with fire. He has no reason for what he did other than being a giant jackass with money. 

Mr. Trey Porter: Redeemable but a jackass. He’s one of those teachers that doesn’t actually give a shit about the students. The fact he told Hannah just to move on when shes been raped and is physically, verbally and sexually abused almost everyday is sickening and shows you just how good these anti-bullying campaigns actually are when teachers don’t even give a shit. 

I know a few people do not like the show, however I think it was good because it showed plenty variations of mental health, abuse and bullying with out actually addressing them but still showing the consequences. We didn’t just get Hannah’s story we got all the others stories too and it shows how mental health and bullying really can cause a butterfly affect. This show may not have been perfect but it was accurate and important.

EDIT: When I measure how redeemable these characters are, I’m not saying what they did was okay. I’m measuring how forgivable they are or if they do deserve forgiveness at all. This is my opinion obviously, you’re allowed to think differently. 

anonymous asked:

I joined a DnD campaign but when I told my parents they told me to quit because they say it's a demonic game linked to witchcraft. Was Dungeons and Dragons linked to that stuff at any point? Like in the 80's or 90's when my parents were young that lead them to believe that?

Actually, yeah! People tried to blame D&D for all kinds of crazy stuff in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. 

This led to one of the classics of D&D media, the Dead Ale Wives’ sketch: 

Which shows just how silly the association between D&D and “evil stuff omg!!” really is. 

Mod storytime: My own mom actually had some reservations when I started playing - she had attended MSU around the time of Dallas Egbert’s death, so it was understandable. So I asked if we could have the games at our house, where she could watch and see what we were doing. She agreed, and after the first game had absolutely no problem with me playing. She told me later that, as a mother, it was incredibly nice to see her kid safe at home (or a friend’s house), telling stories and eating pizza with a group of other kids, instead of out on the street doing God-knows-what. 

In fact, she ended up liking the game so much that she now has her own character, a barbarian queen!

Originally posted by endeora

anonymous asked:

Isn't there a really dodgy bit in Why Does He Do That? I read somewhere that it says a man who says he's being abused is the abuser in a relationship, which... no, male victims of domestic abuse exist too...

Yes.  I was actually going to post about this.

It’s not just a “dodgy bit”.  There are multiple points at which he says things that I didn’t care for.

The “male abuse victims are probably lying” thing is is the biggest flaw in the book, but the book is still absolutely vital, and people should still read and recommend it.  Full stop.  Because a thing is flawed does not mean it has no value and should not be circulated to those people that it could help.  If the book were less shockingly accurate and unflinching in its portrayal of abusive men, if it were less good in the ways that it is good, perhaps I would feel more hesitation.

I’ve read basically the whole thing so far (I’m about 20-30 pages from the end in the PDF), and here’s the deal.

He doesn’t say unilaterally that men lie about being abused.  He says that abusive men lie about being abused by women.  It’s a fine distinction, and not really much better, but I want to be clear that that is what he is saying.  Not that men lie about all abuse, but that they lie about being abused by women.  Abusive men, especially, will tell this lie to get the upper hand.

Based on what he has seen after dealing with a couple thousand men who abuse women, I do not doubt that this is true.

But he seems to think the number of abused men is smaller than the number of abusive men who are lying about being abused.  Even if that is true, abused men are not acceptable collateral damage.  It’s not okay to act like the issue isn’t important just because liars exist.

He uses SOME qualifying language. I’m not going to go digging for it, but it’s along the line of “Male victims of domestic violence are really rare compared to the number of female victims.”  After that he kind of treats it like they either don’t exist, or the fact that they do is irrelevant in the face of the much more widespread problem of men who abuse women.  I won’t lie, that’s not good.

To be frank, he does not seem all that aware of social justice issues the way that all us gigantic queers on Tumblr are.  His awareness of LGBT issues is peripheral.  When he says “men” and “women”, he definitely means “cis men” and “cis women”.  And the book definitely reads like a book written by a cis dude to me.  But honestly, this is a book that only a cis dude could have written, because only a cis dude could have worked with other (cis) men the way he has, and it is precisely that experience that makes it so valuable.

The fact that he’s biased doesn’t mean he is talking out his ass the rest of the time.  He’s not.  At the time of publication (2002) he had worked with over two thousand abusive men whose targets were women.  He pioneered recovery programs for these men.  He was the first to really get down and work with them on a daily basis, both in group and personal therapy settings.  And that experience shows.

No.  He really really doesn’t understand abused men.

But he understands abusive men.  Specifically, he understands men who abuse women.

On the one hand, it’s given him an unprecedented level of insight into abusers’ mindsets, and that is so valuable.  

On the other, the graphic and awful examples he has seen of men who are lying to get themselves out of trouble or justify their behavior have definitely colored his views of male victims.  These men – men, I emphasize, referred to him by the legal system, meaning they were entirely confirmed abusers – WERE almost always lying about it.  I think he mentions two exceptions?  And yeah, that sounds like shit abusers fucking do.  I believe him.

Within his setting, within his sample, I believe he is 100% correct in his assessment – abusers are likely to be lying about having suffered partner violence.

That setting absolutely is not the rest of the world, and I think he loses sight of that, if he ever had sight of it to begin with.  That’s a terrible flaw.

Another flaw is that it gives very little face-time to same-sex relationship abuse.  It goes into it a little, and does it a little ham-handedly but not too badly, but mostly it gets ignored.

Rather than raise these issues at all and then doing it badly, I wish he had said “The issue of abuse in LGBT relationships, as well as the issue of women abusing men, is sadly beyond the scope of my experience, and therefore this book is not about those issues.”

There is nothing wrong with focusing on one aspect of the issue of intimate partner violence.  That he did so is not a bad thing.  The bad thing that he did is to treat the rest of it like a non-issue, when it isn’t, and that he said some things that encourage the reader to be generally suspicious of men who say that women have abused them.  Those are bad things.

Would I recommend it to a man who is being/was abused by a woman?  No no no.  Absolutely not.  Those dynamics are completely different, and the abuse is likely to look very different, and I feel like very little of it will be accessible to someone in that situation.  I think it would do more harm than good.

Would I recommend it to someone in a non-cishet relationship?  Maybe, but probably not, unless I had a little insight into the relationship and felt like it would be a good match.

Would I still recommend it to women, or to people who want a general understanding of the dynamics between abusive cis men and abused women?  YES.  YES A THOUSAND TIMES.

The book is not “good” in a morally/ideologically pure, okay?  It is flawed.  But for what it is, which is a book about men who abuse women, it is very good.   He is on the side of abused women, all the fucking way.  And that is still an astonishingly rare thing to find. 

It validates the experiences of women abused by men by showing different types of abusive behavior and different types of abuser.  He says at multiple points “If you’re wondering whether it’s abuse, then it probably is.”  And that is still such a radical, necessary, healthy and badly-needed thing to say.

I’m not going to defend the way he treats the issue of abused men, or abuse in LGBT relationships,  He barely deals with these issues at all, and when he does, it’s halfhearted at best and actively regressive at worst.  In that regard, it’s shitty.  If that is what you are needing, this book won’t give it to you.

I am going to defend it as an excellent starting place for women abused by men, or in toxic almost-abusive relationships with them.

I would prefer it not be flawed, and if it has to be flawed, I would prefer it come with a disclaimer, but I would rather it circulate flawed and without a disclaimer of any kind that fail to reach someone who really, really needs it.

We could be waiting a long time for a better, more inclusive book to come out.  There’s not time to wait.  This book is needed now.  TODAY.

That said, I am always glad to reblog helpful resources for abused men, or for people in non-cishet relationships, if you know of any.  I would love to know about comparable GOOD books for LGBT people, if you know any, or would love to know about GOOD books written for male victims of domestic violence.

Submission: As a queer, nonbinary person and an animal educator, I’ve thought a lot about the issues recently being discussed on this blog and I wanted to share some of that here. I’ve tried to be as calm and clear as possible, but this is an emotional issue for me so it might be a bit emphatic.

Serveral people in this discussion have mentioned already the problems with questioning the existence of bi/pan/trans/ace/aro animals, but not questioning the existance of straight, cis animals. You’ve made passing mentions to this, but I think it’s actually really important to step back and reframe the entire discussion in this context, if you want to be fair and accurate both to the animals and to the people emotionally affected by this issue.

In particular, this passage: “However, the animal science world uses gendered pronouns to denote physical sex in an animal, because that is how efficient and accurate communication about the animal is ensured” raises some massive red flags for me. Yes, it’s important to clearly communicate with your vet about the body parts an animal does and doesn’t have, for ease of treatment. However, pronouns are far from the only way to do this, and definitely not the most efficient. The pronoun “she” doesn’t tell you if a dog is unaltered, spayed, in heat, pregnant, or menopausal - information your vet definitely needs to know.
It’s the work of half a moment to state “my dog is a spayed female” at the start of an appointment, regardless of what pronouns you use after that. In fact, many trans* people have already learned to talk with their doctors in specific terms about their hormone levels and organs they do or don’t have, and cis people need to catch up. Part of the reason this is such an emotional issue for trans people is that the argument, “your doctor needs to know the gender you were assigned at birth! Therefore everyone you meet needs to know, and it should be on your ID, in case you get in an accident and we have to tell the doctor!” is often invoked. (I wish that was an exaggeration. It’s not. This is in spite of the fact that, as a trans* person, knowing the gender you were assigned at birth is more likely to lead to false assumptions about your health and biology than true ones.) So yes, your doctor needs to know about your biology and your vet needs to know about your pet’s, but gender pronouns really aren’t the way to do it.

Outside the vet’s office, insisting on cisgender-equivalent pronouns for your pet leads to a world of problems. I volunteer at an animal shelter, and I see people misinterpret animal’s actions through their percieved, anthropomorphic gender roles constantly. They’re more eager to read aggression from a male animal and affection from a female, which has the potential to lead to massive problems, since both of those behaviors can be dangerous to misinterpret. I would personally argue for the stance that people would be more able to accurately interpret the behavior of animals if we refered to all non-human animals with gender-neutral pronouns, to more accurately reflect the fact that animals do not have gender. Even in social animals that do have sex-differentied social roles, those are completely different from human gender roles and should not be confused with them by the use of human gendered pronouns. If the biological sex of an animal matters in a particular context, you can mention it in that context, rather than applying it all the time as though it was part of their identity.

I do understand that some people find it reassuring to observe that the social roles of biologically male or female animals are different from those of humans, and that they too can be as nurturing as a male penguin or as fierce as a female hyena. So I understand that sometimes people will want to refer to those animals as male or female, in the same way that I want to refer to a cuttlefish as genderfluid because it makes me feel happy and validated. I just want cis people to understand that those interpretations are exactly equivalent.

As for how this perspective affects the emotions of humans impacted by this issue: claiming that gendered pronouns are a form of scientific terminology that accurately reflects the biological sex of an animal is, intentionally or not, supporting the idea that there are biologically and scientifically two genders. It gives fuel to people who try to force that mindset onto humans, and believe me, they use it. I’ve met many people who become enraged if I use the wrong pronouns for their dog, but refuse to respect my identity and pronouns. The attatchment of gendered pronouns to biological sex in non-humans is absolutely reflected back into humans by most of the public, whether that is your intention as an educator or not.

Using gender pronouns as scientific terminology also muddies issues significantly as soon as you leave the field of mammals, where it quickly becomes clear that a male/female dichotomy is far from absolute. Do I use female pronouns for the hermaphroditic flatworm who lost the penis-fencing match and is now carrying eggs? Will those pronouns still apply after the eggs have hatched? What if they win the penis-fencing match next time and contribute sperm instead?
How about a worker bee, who is genetically female but has not developed reproductive organs and plays no reproductive role?
Do I use male pronouns for a fish who was born genetically male, but isn’t able to engage in sexual behavior and fulfill the male sexual role until mating is initiated by the supermale? How about for the supermale, who is genetically female and used to be reproductively female but has since morphed to be reproductively male due to being the largest fish in the school? Is it even accurate to say “genetically female” of a species where both major reproductive roles are carried out by the same genetic category of animals, and those born “biologically” male only reproduce at all by swimming into the middle of the mating dance, ejaculating, and hoping for the best?

A similar issue exists with the assumption that animals are straight. I’ve seen some cringe-worthy anthropomorphization of male/female pairs of animals, including calling them “married,” referring to them as being “in love,” and a lot of analogies to human married-couple behavior, but I’ve never seen this criticized or significantly discussed as an issue of anthropomorphization. But every time I see a post about lesbian birds or trans fish, this issue comes up. I don’t think that animal educators are doing this on purpose, but I do think it is an indicator that many animal educators have not sufficiently deeply challenged the cultural narrative that straight and cis are “normal” but queer and trans* are “debatable” and should be challenged and argued about. 

Science is an ever-changing field, and scientific terminology becomes outdated and is changed as we realize that it reflects our social assumptions more accurately than in reflects reality. The terms we use to discuss sex, gender, pair-bonding, and mating behavior are all deeply intertwined with human social assumptions of cisgender, heterosexual, monogamous life-time bonds that are simultaneously romantic/affectionate and sexual in nature. Scientific communication would be improved by dropping those assumptions and the terminology that comes with them.

I don’t think I have much to add to this - it’s really well thought out and well said - so I’m going to boost it as is as part of the continued discussion. 

Scientific communication would absolutely be improved by changing the terminology to something more accurate. I don’t know if it’s something that would currently be feasible - because of a myriad of things that make attempting that type of change across so many cultures and languages and historical/social contexts difficult - but I definitely support the idea. 

mandatory attendence can be ableist

mostly because of how mandatory attendence is usually set and done is made to help healthy people who take one or two sick days, not sick people who take multiple days to handle or cope with their sickness.

the “you can only be absent three times this semester or ill start dropping your grade” or “this quarter, you cant be absent more than 4-7 times or else you might fail” is very limiting to disabled students who need multiple days just to recover from going to school for one day, or are very sick and need to miss more than three days to even begin to get their illness under control.

another big thing ive heard from highschools, colleges and so on is that “if i let you skip, i need to let everyone skip”, this is stupid, because not everyone is disabled, abled people dont need to take multiple medical days, abled people dont have an illness that is making attendence harder for them, teachers, principals, etc who say this dont understand that disabled people exist and one of their limitations can be the ability to be in class for long periods of time/at all. you dont have to do it for everyone, because not everyone is disabled. and it infuriates me because why do they care about fairness when theyre openly saying that they wont make an accomodation to help a disabled student have an equal opportunity that abled people get with no problem and no fight.

and thats where the biggest issue in mandatory attendence lies, with the simple fact that its obvious teachers didnt think to add disabled people and what they might go through when thinking of rules, whether its because they didnt care enough about disabled students, or they just simply forgot, i dont know, but ableism is ableism.

and a disabled student having to hope a teacher understands their situation, because it isnt mandatory that you not punish the disabled person for being sick, is ableist as well, because getting a teacher who doesnt understand that someone cant help being sick or absent, can set a disabled person up to fail where it wouldnt set an abled person up to fail.

is this done on purpose? is it by accident? i dont know, i dont care, because ableism is ableism.

and id hate for any disabled person going into school feeling like being sick is their fault and choosing being present over being okay.

How yoi plays with sports story scheme

I was wondering recently why Yuri on Ice seemed to be so different and fresh to me and why so many people get so emotionally engaged with it. There is definitely a nice animation and great characters and representation and such a beautiful love story but I felt like there was something in the narration layer that I couldn’t name until I compared yoi storyline to the most common schemes.

When you look at most of the pop cultural stories, especially those where main plot focuses on sport, you’ll see that there is that one scheme they all follow - you have a hero who has talent but lacks something (like a good mentor or hard work or confidence), he finds a motivation to win (it may be anything from parent’s death to wish to impress a girl) and he finds a dedicated coach, he trains, he loses, he learns something about himself, he wins, he gets an award. This is the basic way of constructing such stories and it’s catchy because we all want to believe that we are able to fight our weaknesses and win by ourselves. You may modify this scheme to a large extent but the main core will always be a single hero who needs to grow in order to win and actually I think that this scheme is present in Yuri on Ice but in Yurio’s not Yuuri’s story. Yurio has talent, lacks hard work and needs to learn something about himself, his skate-off with Yuuri gives him a motivation to win, he trains hard, he loses, he grows, he wins. This doesn’t make his story or his character less interesting but I wanted to give you an example of what am I talking about so I could compare it to Yuuri’s story.

So now, where is Yuuri’s plot different you could say. Well, in a way you could find all those elements in Yuuri’s story too but his development is where it all turns to be innovative. You see in the basic scheme the hero needs to learn to win by himself while Yuuri has got to that point a long time ago. He had all of that: his motivation, his hard work, most of his abilities, his own strength before he met Victor. He was fighting by himself for five years before and even if his anxiety makes him look like a weak loser it is obvious he is already beyond that “learning about myself” phase. Even this confidence Victor helps him to find he already had just hidden. Yuuri knows his emotions and some of his strengths and most of the weak points himself and either he wins or loses those minor competitions it doesn’t change him too deeply. But what Victor gives him is the belief that he doesn’t have to fight by himself anymore. Not in a “you can learn from other people” or “teamwork is important” kind of way (’cause they are still used in most of the stories) but in acknowledging that you may become better if you let someone close to you (this lesson applies to Victor to btw but he is not the main hero so I’ll skip this part). 

I won’t say this reverses the scheme completely as this is still some kind of personal development that helps to win (though the fact that Yuuri does not finally win is interesting by itself) but it definitely changes the subtext of the whole story.  We like stories about heroes fighting by themselves because we often struggle with our problems alone and we need to believe me can do it. But Yuri on Ice gives us the idea that thought you are strong enough to fight maybe you don’t have to fight alone at all. I guess this is why it has such a great emotional impact because in a world that tells you all the time that it’s only for you to win the story of someone who still needed help even if he already was strong and beautiful is really hopeful, positive and in a way more realistic then the basic “hero can only win by himself” scheme. 

There is also the whole layer of how Victor doesn’t fit to the standard portrayal of a mentor figure but I think this is quite easy to spot and maybe let’s not make this longer than it has to be but the last quick reflection I had is that the most common way of portraying romantic relationships in the sports stories is either when the hero needs to sacrifice his relationship in order to focus (which is the trope I personally hate) or when he wins the attention of his love interest by winning the final competition (so the love is somehow a reward then). What is great in Yuuri and Victor’s relationship is how Yuuri doesn’t have to win to prove his worth to Victor. Almost from the beginning, Victor knows Yuuri’s flaws and he falls for him anyway. So Yuuri is not only given support that helps him to become better but also he doesn’t need to earn that support. Which I think again is quite moving because everyone dreams of this kind of relationship. We are all scared that we are not good enough to let someone help us in the first place and this is where yoi tells us it doesn’t have to be this way.

I’m sure there are much more tropes that are reversed in yoi and there is the whole narration layer that is also quite original but as storytelling is what I have the most experience with I decided to focus on this aspect only. And I may be wrong I just like to find and discuss narration schemes so please argue if you disagree but I love the fact that even when yoi takes those basic narration schemes it uses it to send a very positive message across and for me it could be a reason why there is such an enthusiastic fandom around it - because this anime exchanges the story of fighting alone for a story about growing in a relationship though it does not change a sports story for a cheaply romantic one.

tvline.com
Supergirl: As Alex Fights for Her Life, Kara and Maggie Team Up for a Rescue
By Matt Webb Mitovich

Two wildly different scenes were unfolding during TVLine’s recent visit to the set of The CW’s Supergirl.

Upon our arrival, you heard orders being barked throughout the DEO, as frantic agents swung into crisis mode. A half-hour on, the scene at hand was much quieter, the words being spoken much… warmer. The calm after a perilous storm…?

In the episode being filmed — airing this Monday at 8/7c — one of the DEO’s human heroes is blindsided by a blast from the past, setting the stage for a well-meaning but at-times tense team-up.

“This episode is called ‘Alex,’ and there’s a guy who comes back from Alex and Kara’s past,” Chyler Leigh shared with TVLine in between scenes. “In the [Supergirl] pilot, you saw a young Kara miraculously save a girl from car. Well, this one guy saw her do it, and knowing that she had these powers, he figured out that Kara is Supergirl.”

Seeing an opportunity, this man puts in motion a “big, elaborate setup” that targets Alex and compels Supergirl to spring a dangerous individual from prison. When Alex goes missing during this ordeal, it will take the combined efforts of two of the people closest to her to hopefully save the day.

“Maggie and Kara have to team up to try to figure out what’s happened to me, and that sets up a lot of interesting conversations between the two ladies,” Leigh previews. “It’s almost like a peeing contest, you know what I mean? Like, ‘Who can do this better? Who knows Alex better?’ And it comes to a head at one point.”

As Melissa Benoist puts it, “[Kara and Maggie] are both women who are very strong and opinionated and stubborn, and they very much have their own way of figuring out a problem.” So as they join forces, “They don’t necessarily agree on how to deal with the fact that the person that’s the most important to both of them is missing and in danger.”

Representing Alex’s first-time love and longtime sister, Maggie and Kara “both have such strong feelings for Alex,” affirms Floriana Lima, who plays the NCPD detective. “And yeah, they’re both strong, opinionated women who really are passionate about their work, so they’re going to butt heads a bit — but not in any aggressive, bad way.”

Instead, Lima says the conflict is more along the lines of, “‘I want to go this way,’ and Kara, Supergirl, wants to go another route. And we’re both telling each other, like, ‘No, that’s not the safest plan.’ We both think we know Alex more than the other.”

That said, this bit of “quality time” together does allow for some bonding between Kara and Maggie, who ever since the latter started dating the former’s sister — and amid all the drama that’s been going on in National City — haven’t had much of a chance to really know each other.

“That’s inevitable,” says Benoist. “When you feel like you could lose someone that important to you, the woman she loves and the sister that she’s always had, it’s impossible not to feel closer after an ordeal like that.”

Alex, meanwhile, is no submissive captive. Far from it. Rather, she will exhibit some moves of her own in the name of trying to save her bacon. In one instance, she uses a credit card to perform some ersatz surgery (“It’s pretty badass, I’m not going to lie,” Leigh says with a wink), while in another she busts out a Navy SEAL trick to contend with a sink-or-swim situation.

The DEO, too, is doing its own part to resolve this crisis. While Hank/J’onn Jonnz attempts to pull off one of his shapeshifter tricks to get a bead on the baddie’s whereabouts, Winn “is in full nerd-out, hacking-and-scanning records, finding-the-bad-guy kind of mode,” says Jeremy Jordan, the aforementioned barker of orders. “He’s doing his Tech Guy on Crack kind of thing.”

If it all sounds like a super amount of angst for those (viewers included) who love and care for Alex Danvers — “There are a lot of ups and downs, a lot of close calls,” Lima warns — make no mistake, it is. But as a reward for sticking through it all, Lima teases “a moment” awaiting Maggie and Alex, once the dust settles. “A pivotal moment,” at that.

COMING MONDAY NIGHT: Chyler Leigh and Floriana Lima react to the Sanvers “moment” and discuss the importance of getting an LGBTQ story right.

anonymous asked:

how do i be a good ally. i feel so gross i feel like I'm not doing enough as a white person i want to do better please don't take this in a bad way

Well first of all you need to hit the #DELETE on the “good ally” rhetoric bc as a white person you will never truly unlearn racism and you will never truly be a good ally. Solidarity and Good allyism doesn’t actually exist and it was made by (surprise!) white people to give themselves pat on the backs for not calling someone a racial slur. It doesn’t exist and y’all need to stop with this “i’m not racist” and “i’m a good ally” crap because it’s unrealistic and further proves you don’t want to learn on your own accordance but on the emotional labor that POC have to give. 

There is a lot of things about racism that are so complex and you have to understand that you will never understand. You will never understand because you don’t have to actively fight something from birth to death. This isn’t an insult, but a fact that as a white person you will always be ignorant. Constantly. It’s ingrained in you and the structure your ancestors built to keep POC at the bottom. 

However, to be, yknow, not shitty is actually talking to POC. Like you can’t do anything if you don’t interact with POC. Listen to us, listen to our problems and rant posts we make in regards of racism. Reblog posts that talk about racism, i have a ton in my xx tag that are good. Realize that you are the problem and will always be a problem no matter how “not racist” you are.

If you can, actively protest. Actively go to BLM protests. Actively go to protests and know how to protest. Never organize protests that are racially charged like a white person should never organize a BLM protest. If you can’t protest, actively reblogging posts and consuming media by POC is good too.

You have to be active. You HAVE to be. There is nothing worse than a white person who is not actively fighting what kills people on a DAILY basis. As a white person you must be active in fighting the oppression you inherently emit or you are not helping. You simply are not helping and while it sounds tiring being actively involved in “”politics”” (racism and the fight against it is not and never will be politics but that’s another conversation for later) think about how many poc are fighting right now because their existence is hated. It’s tiring and I wish I could take a break but I have been fighting since I was born and the bare minimum is asking whites to fight with us.

Expecting POC to educate you in every little thing is a privilege. Expecting to be educated is not only ignorant but it also means you think of us as some tool to further an agenda. This is different but it’s true to the matter that you, as a white person, have to CONTINUOUSLY be researching. Educating is an emotional feat and it gets a bit tiring for POC to constantly have to educate. Everyday, we educate. Don’t be lazy. Before you ask your local coloured neighbor on if this is racist or not, look it up. If you don’t really get the basis of something, look it up first. I get that you can’t do that for everything but trying is key. 

On a further note, intracommunity issues STAY intracommunity. Do not get involved or put opinions in these things. They do not affect you (most of the time). 

Also have common sense? Think.

Sometimes all you can do is listen, reblog posts and research but that’s better than nothing. You have to do something in order to combat the racism you have internalized and will always have internalized. Racism is not unlearned but the ways you act on it can be. 

I am sick and tired of these stupid videos going viral on facebook about how technology has made us antisocial and that social media is evil.

Let me tell you a story. I’m half English, but live in Spain. I get to see my English family, at best, once a year. Sometimes not even that.

I love my English grandparents, but we don’t have many things in common. We can get a nice 20 minute talk going about what we’ve been doing lately, and then I usually fall silent whilst my mum talks about cooking with my grandma and my dad goes on to talk about science with my granddad. It’s so disappointing, because I barely see them, and I can only rely on their interest in what I’m doing with my life to start a conversation.

A few months ago we flew to England and stayed with them a few days. Whilst having supper, naturally (as always) the conversation started with how I was doing, and what I was planning to do with my future now that I had graduated. I told them I was thinking about moving back to Japan to start working there. Somehow, one way or another, we started talking about life in Japan, and my parents chipped in by commenting on their experience in Tokyo as tourists. “There’s so many people!” And then someone asked, “what’s the population of Japan?”

And I said, “Let me google that.”

So I pulled out my smartphone. 127.3 million. Can you believe it? That’s a lot! That’s twice as much as the UK, isn’t it? What is the population of the UK? Granddad says 60 million, but grandma says 62.

Google says 64.1 million.

What about Spain? 50 million, perhaps? 55? Mum says 48, dad says 40. Nope, it’s 46.77 million as of 2014, says google.

We all guessed at the population of the US, of Canda, of France, of Germany; we cheered when one of us had almost hit the mark, and gasped at unexpected numbers. We looked up the dates of historical events, we read random wikipedia facts, we searched Stonehenge on google maps and read about the theories behind it, we googled ‘disc symbols ancient’ to try and figure out what this paperweight my granddad had in his office was supposed to be because he couldn’t remember its name and immediately found out it was a replica of the Phaistos Disc. “‘Disc symbols ancient’! How did google know what we were looking for just from that? That’s amazing!”

We went on for hours, and it was so. much. fun. For three whole hours, three. whole. fucking. hours, every topic we talked about was somehow linked to googling facts or images on my smartphone, and do you know what my granddad said to me as we started cleaning everything up?

He said this thing I had was amazing, and he wanted one too.

Technology is not a conversation stopper. It’s a conversation starter, and if you don’t know how to be responsible, if you don’t know how to make use of this amazing thing we have to keep a conversations going, then the problem isn’t smartphones, or facebook, or twitter. It’s you.

A much more experienced friend and I had a conversation yesterday about magic and the nature of sensing it.

This is someone who magically speaking, I consider to be a human battery. Still, she said even she sometimes has doubts about her own work. Yet I, the barely-above-witchling level practitioner, had power in my little oils and powders that she could sense, objects that I’ve always worried felt dead when I touched them.

Basically, it’s way easier to sense other people’s energies than it is to sense your own. It’s like tasting air; you’re constantly surrounded by your own energy all the time, so that’s just what feeling “normal” is like for you. It’s a lot easier to recognize a foreign energy in something.

What I took from it is, if you can sense what other people are doing but don’t feel like you can do things yourself, it’s likely NOT because you’re weak. In fact, you might have more power than you thought you did, but just are so used to your own energy that it just doesn’t feel like anything. It’s a discernment problem that is very common, not a marker of your ability!

I just felt like that was important enough to share.

about the Chechnya - lgbt violence. ^this. this is actually true, but none of the articles covers that I don’t know why.
i hate what’s going on there, I can’t stand the president of Chechnya. I was ready to vomit and cry when i read the article. but i really can’t stand when Tumblr assumes Chechnya=the whole russia. In fact, it’s a republic with their own rules and system and president. and I would never go there in my sane mind, even though officially it’s Russia. and 99% people I know think the same. and if you read the article, not only police was violent but gays’ families also. their own families were killing them because of the religion and pride. say what you want, it’s true. and I’m not anti-Islam, we do have another Muslim republic in Russia, Tatarstan, and it’s one of the most progressive places. it’s totally totally different from Chechnya. but again, the problem isn’t the whole Russia (though it is homophobic but not that extreme) and please shut the fuck up with ‘what the hell is wrong with fucking Russia’ comments I’ve been seeing. the problem is people. the problem is fucking religious homophobia and conservative traditions and EXTREMELY toxic cult of masculinity developed in Chechnya by its president Ramzan Kadyrov. now I’m going to sign petitions, have a good day Tumblr

Lancelot Idea (+Lotor headcanons and Klance)

This is gonna be a very long post that features a lot of my ideas that I thought of, like, ten minutes ago. I’d like to make this into a comic/fanfic but if anyone else wants to as well, go ahead! Link it to me somehow cuz I’d love to read it and die cuz I’ll love you forever ahhh

It’s about 1,700 words, hehehe…I got really carried away. sorry about any mistakes too, I wrote this as fast as possible lol. I’ll put it under a cut.

Keep reading

8

Once, long ago, a fisherman caught a magic haddock. The haddock offered the fisherman three wishes in return for its life. The fisherman said, “I’d like my son to come home from the war and 100 pieces of gold.” The problem is magic haddock, like robots, don’t think like people. The fisherman’s son came home from the war in a coffin and the King sent 100 gold pieces in recognition of his heroic death. The fisherman had one wish left. What do you think he wished for? Some people say he should have wished for an infinite series of wishes, but if your city proves anything, it is that granting all your wishes is not a good idea. In fact, the fisherman wished that he hadn’t made the first two wishes.In a way, he pressed the reset button.

Bakushima/Kiribaku could be canon

Well okay, first of all I’m not that kind of big dreamer who thinks this really is gonna become canon ‘cause… not. Let’s be real, this is a shonen manga, read by a majority of teenage boys, and therefore, explicit shonen ai will never occur (hope i’m wrong).

If Horikoshi sensei was gonna make a m/m ship canon, probably he would start receiving some hate from his fans, which is pretty sad.

But on the other hand, implicit insinuation may occur, and I think that’s already happening. I’m gonna try to lay up some very canon moments beacuse Kirishima/Bakugou it’s just so great… <3

Keep reading