rebecca's choice

Can we stop criticizing Aaron, or Robert, or Rebecca, or anyone elses choices, when WE HAVEN’T SEEN IT YET!!! It can translate differently on screen, we ALL know that! Can we not sell them out before giving them the benefit of the doubt by waiting for the episodes!! Gah!


Get to know me meme: [12/12] ships
Greg & Rebecca (Crazy Ex-Girlfriend) “I couldn’t say goodbye. If I did, I would never leave.” “That means you love me!” “Of course I love you.”

anonymous asked:

I just wanna say, I'm so happy you're embracing your feelings towards Rebecca. It's just reached a whole other level of ridiculous now heh 😂😂😭😭.

this was probably the wrong (right?) time to send this message because i’ve been yelling about this theory all evening and….

i have some more Thoughts

Keep reading

rachel bloom has compared rebecca to a “stone in a pond”, “having a ripple effect” on the people she encounters in west covina. she approaches her crusade for happiness with a vigor that can’t help but shake up the lives of the people around her. usually these changes rebecca indirectly causes in people have little effect on her - see paula’s choice to go to law school, darryl coming to terms with his bisexuality, heather deciding she wants to do something with her life and valencia rejecting the life path she’s carefully cultivated for herself over ten years. josh and greg are the exception to this. rebecca inspires them to make life changes and she ends up worse for wear because of these changes. so where does that leave rebecca? is she the woman who is consumed and invaded and spit out so some fucking man can evolve? 

i’d argue no. i don’t think crazy ex-girlfriend works along those gender lines. the show has a made a point of having josh and rebecca use similar language in their love life (”you love me?” “i love that about you.”) to denote a sameness in their mindsets about romance. some shows treat their female characters as a means for salvation for the male characters (think mon-el) and expect the audience to root for a couple that so blatantly is meant mainly to prop up the man. but in crazy ex-girlfriend, both men and women place their responsibility for their happiness on an idealized love interest. personally, i can’t hate josh after all the shit rebecca’s pulled. 

josh is one of the few main characters (by main characters i mean the characters who are usually main players in the a-story, meaning rebecca, josh, greg and paula) who hasn’t identified something that makes him feel like “glittering is exploding” inside him. the things that make the characters feel like glittering is exploding inside them are the things they use to temporarily distract themselves from their discontent at the expense of their well-being as a whole. when we met josh, he’s in a shitty relationship with a woman who upholds domesticity as the most important thing in a relationship and doesn’t value his happiness and needs outside the context of their relationship. josh was in a rut with valencia and had likely been tempted to cheat on her before (greg laments the fact that every girl he likes has a crush on josh and father brah calls him out on his habit to “run to the nearest pretty girl” which means it’s likely that josh was flirting and encouraging girls even if he never technically strayed from valencia before rebecca). rebecca encouraged josh to break out of this rut by pursuing him in her own desperate attempt to keep that glitter feeling going. josh is drawn to rebecca because he believes that she is the thing that’s missing in his life. he quickly breaks things off with her at the beginning of s2 only to come back to her after anna leaves him. josh remembers how much rebecca adores him and how good that feels and gets back together with her for that instant gratification. he thinks he can keep what they have going by forsaking the leg work of being in a relationship and proposing. on the day of the wedding, he realizes the mistake he’s making and he seeks instant gratification in a different place. father brah describes how he felt “at peace with his decision” to become a priest and josh craves that feeling so he leaves rebecca at the alter for priesthood. josh is in a tailspin. he doesn’t know what he wants from his life, he only knows when he is dissatisfied from it. he lands on the first thing that can distract him from his current woes.

greg is different than josh (and most of the cxg characters) because he knows what he wants that will lead him to fulfillment. his involvement with rebecca allows him to identify his alcoholism (his “glitter” vice) and finally realize that he can break his patterns, to see that he doesn’t have to wallow in his cynicism. rebecca does the classic romcom airport confrontation but in this moment, there’s little romance in it. this is very much a “villain in my own story” moment in which rebecca tries to tempt greg to stay in west covina, which greg considers to be a purgatory. there’s no maliciousness to this on rebecca’s part - she has her own happiness to consider. but so does greg.

and then there’s rebecca “glitter” vice - josh. josh being in this position for rebecca actually prevents her from having a functioning relationship with him. in “a boyband made up of four joshes”, rebecca fantasizes about josh being her boyfriend/therapist but she is fundamentally unable to reveal the ugly sides of herself to him in fear of losing him, and by extension, the glittery feeling. in fact, this issue extends beyond josh. we can forget how guarded rebecca is because she is so shameless in her actions but the reveal of the existence of robert reminds us how deeply internalized she keeps things. we didn’t know about robert. paula didn’t know about robert (and surely paula thought she knew everything about rebecca). naomi lies to josh about who robert is and warns him not to mention robert to rebecca. naomi doesn’t believe communication is important in between rebecca and her soon-to-be-husband; she believes josh has no right to know about rebecca’s past and that he’s more likely to leave if he knows about her. rebecca surely must believe this to be true (not just with josh, but with everyone in her life). and in the end, it isn’t robert that drives an unreparable tear in between josh and rebecca - it’s the lack of communication (and notably, the women in rebecca’s life stay by her side after she shows herself at her most unhinged).

rebecca’s quest for fulfillment runs in contradiction to josh and greg’s. or, more accurately, rebecca thinks at different points that josh and greg have a significant place in her quest for fulfillment when they’re actually obstacles to her self-actualization. but even though josh and greg aren’t the answer rebecca is seeking, their choice to leave her comes with a direct blow to rebecca’s mental state. josh and greg don’t have a responsibility to put rebecca’s happiness ahead of their own but they both leave with little sensitivity to how their actions affect rebecca. greg gleefully waxes poetic about how terrible his relationship with rebecca was to her face. josh leaves rebecca on the alter

tl;dr what i think is great about crazy ex-girlfriend is that each character is equal parts selfish and sympathetic. crazy ex-girlfriend is a MESS of different character motivations and they all implode in on each other. in both rebecca/greg relationship and the rebecca/josh relationship, both parties share blame to escalating the relationship to the breaking point. 


Modes of persuasion (insp) (x)

  • Vic: Thought I saw you come in here. We need a word.
  • Robert: No, we don't. Cos guess what? I've not heard from Rebecca. And long may it continue.
  • Vic: Don't you care where she is?
  • Robert: Oddly enough, no, I don't.
  • Vic: How can you even say that? She's carrying your baby.
  • Robert: Yeah, and I didn't ask for it. Keeping that baby is Rebecca's choice, not mine. I don't want anything to do with it.
The neoliberal emphasis on blamelessness in genuine victimhood is not critiqued but instead taken to its extreme in some versions of the victims’ rights position. A strong example of this is the victims’ rights position adopted by the pro-life movement which champions the ‘unborn victim’ as the purest and most genuine victim, in whose 'preborn’ status is figured perfect vulnerability. In an important victory for the US pro-life movement, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) was passed in 2004. The Act codifies the pregnancy/foetus as an individual person and potential crime victim, rendering violence against pregnant women as violence against  the unborn. The UVVA is an example of Fraser’s 'uncanny double’ – it was supported largely by conservative politicians who had previously opposed legislative measures pertaining to violence against women, yet these supporters mobilized feminist political signs, invoking feminist anti-violence discourses and arguing that the UVVA would extend women’s right to freedom from violence and exclude pregnant women from prosecution. In practice, this law has contributed to the climate of increased surveillance and criminalization of women’s conduct while pregnant and fertile, and pregnant women have been prosecuted directly under the UVVA (Paltrow, 2008). From a feminist perspective, the UVVA is highly contentious because, by conferring legal status and certain rights upon foetuses, it furthers and extends the pro-life attack on women’s reproductive rights, in particular the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. As I have argued elsewhere (Stringer, 2006), the UVVA is also problematic in terms of its rather improbable depiction and subsequent codification of violence against pregnant women as violence that is not experienced by pregnant women.
The UVVA individualizes the foetus as the sole victim of violence against the pregnant woman’s person, eliding the fact that violence against a pregnancy/foetus is necessarily enacted upon the body of the pregnant woman. The UVVA upholds law’s individualism agains the complexities the maternal subject poses, and addresses violence against pregnant women by presuming the absence of pregnancy. To make the pregnant woman analogous to legal norms, maternity and foetality are absented and 'she’ becomes two separate legal subjects: the 'intended victim’ (who avoided 'actual’ victimization) and the 'actual victim’ (her pregnancy/foetus, conceived here as a separate legal person and directly analogous to a non-foetal 'born person’). This mode of address to pregnant women ensures that, while the violence they experience will not be recognized, they may be perceived as potential perpetrators or accessories to violence against their own person – guilty parties in 'violence against the unborn’.
—  Rebecca Stringer, Knowing Victims: Feminism, agency and victim politics in neoliberal times

SWAPLOCK >> a gender swapped au
starring: rebecca hall as sherlock holmes, rosamund pike as joanna watson, ben whishaw as ollie hooper, anna chancellor as morag holmes, dan stevens as martin morstan, matt bomer as ian adler, nicola walker as greta lestrade, judi dench as camilla magnussen, richard ayoade as sam donovan, darren criss as jason hawkins and lana parilla as jane moriarty.

anonymous asked:

Do you hear that Vic? It was Rebecca's choice to have the baby, not Roberts. So glad he said that! She can't force him to be involved. She's proper pissing me off. It seems like the man isn't allowed any kind of choice. If the woman wants an abortion, the man is supposed to let her even though he might want to keep it. If he doesn't want the kid but she wants to keep the baby, he has to be forced to be a dad.

I hate this so much. If he wanted the kid and she didn’t then they would hate him for forcing her to carry a kid she doesn’t want. But now he’s getting yelled at for not wanting to be involved with a kid he has never wanted. Rebecca is the one that wants to keep it, she can deal with it. It’s not his problem. He has no obligation to her or the kid. Same as if she didn’t want it and had it for him. She could then leave and have nothing to do with it. She has no obligation. He’s gonna be guilt tripped and forced into being in this kids life and he’s going to resent it. I know I would rather know from the get go that my dad didn’t want me and therefore had nothing to do with me than have a life with a man who clearly didn’t want this.

I’m praying there’s a reason for all this nonsense from Vic because I really like her but right now I want to slap her. Robert isn’t interested. At all. Just drop it. Nothing is stopping her from being in the kids life. Ugh…it’s so gross.

So Rebecca has the choice to keep or abort the baby and whatever she decides is acceptable. Well, that’s fine but why does Robert not have a choice about wanting to be a father? Clearly, he is not ready and parenthood is not something that should be forced on anyone. Why is Vic forcing this baby down his throat without even first discussing his feelings and the circumstances leading up to it?Why has the paternity issue not been challenged or even some concrete evidence of pregnancy been provided before everyone starts setting up the frigging nursery? I am so over this pathetic storyline and want to give it up but goddamned Robron have me sucked in. I just want to see them happy for more than five minutes! :(


Vessel begins with a young doctor who lived by the sea, and an unlikely idea. Rebecca Gomperts, horrified by the realities created by anti-abortion law around the world, felt compelled to challenge this.  Her method: to provide abortions on a ship in offshore waters.

Her project, Women on Waves, begins as flawed spectacle, a media frenzy, faced with governmental, religious, and military blockades.  But with each setback comes a more refined mission, until Rebecca has the revelation that she can use new technologies to bypass law – and train women to give themselves safe abortions using WHO-sanctioned protocols with pills.

We witness the creation of an underground network of emboldened, informed activists, working at the cutting edge of global reproductive rights, who trust women to handle abortion themselves. Vessel is Rebecca’s story: one of a woman who heard and answered a calling, and transformed a wildly improbable idea into a global movement.

I bawled my eyes out watching this… specifically when the group of male protesters screamed, “NAZIS” at women who were going to get abortions.

Nazis… my fucking heart stopped. I want SO badly to see this film. It looks like such an important documentary that shows abortion is a fucking necessity all over the world.

What kills me is how, when I was in my sheltered little Catholic high school, we were taught about abortion (incorrectly) and why it was bad (it isn’t). The way my teacher portrayed it to me was “irresponsible” and “horny” teenagers selfishly killing their babies because they couldn’t keep their legs closed. What didn’t I hear about? Literally the rest of the world’s reasons for abortions… The force-fed lies from the Catholic church are the reason I’m not religious anymore. They try to turn young women against the rest of the world’s pain, claiming that babies are a “gift” and they’re trying to destroy “God’s gift”.

I feel like this is going to be such an important film, but I cannot find anything on Tumblr about it. Word needs to spread!


There’s only one ever Guardian in the whole world, Eve Baird… and The Library thinks that it should be you.