Avatar

The Bluemeany

@thebluemeany / thebluemeany.tumblr.com

      *waves* Blog is mainly fandom, writing and trippy things: DS9, West Wing, Doctor Who and other side-obsessions. Going through a Garak/Bashir phase at moment ( you might have noticed). Also occasional attempts at drawing and vidding. Like chatting about ideas.    
Avatar

clean water (highly problematic)

This isn't about people trying to say that modernity is bad and we should return to the past, though! This is just how history/public history as a field works!

"Whig history" is ... well, this is a really simplified definition/explanation, but it's a method of doing history or explaining history to the public that focuses on a narrative of progress. It has no nuance and is essentially a tool to tell a contemporary audience how lucky and great they are, at the current endpoint of all these advances. But proper history writing shouldn't be done just to tell you how lucky and great you are, it should teach you about what the past actually was like - how it differed from today, not just how it was worse.

It's all right for any individual with only a minor level of interest in any given topic to look at it primarily for the basic and most important facts. It can still be problematic, depending on what the topic is and how big the group of individuals with that opinion is (e.g. large numbers of people looking at Christianity as an objective "advancement" on Judaism and Protestant Christianity as an objective "advancement" on Catholicism has not been great), but the history police are not going to take you away for thoughtcrime just for doing it.

However, it's the job of a museum (or an academic history book/article) to go farther than that. There was a water culture in medieval/early modern London, and it changed with the New River. The older water culture had demonstrable effects on how people socialized and took political action. That's fascinating! That's worth knowing! It's not a call to tear down the Metropolitan Water Board and go back to drinking from wells and public fountains. Sometimes a big improvement happens, but one of its effects is kind of negative; that's just the way life is. Hiding the negative because only a traditionalist could think a new technology was anything but 100% positive is ultimately just setting people up for second option bias and terrible takes ("actually life was BETTER before there was a good source of clean water, but they're keeping it from you!") down the line.

Avatar

But that is the implication, where the reality is that this was basically unqualified progress and clean water is an objective good. History as hand-wringing does in fact occlude a very real trajectory of better outcomes for humanity. A reflexive "yes, but" is functionally regressive. And you see it used to horseshoe into nostalgia bait, where now a good chunk of people on this very website think that e.g. medieval peasantry had it good.

I think this is the fictional museum that was in London last year ? If I’m remembering right and it’s the one up in Clerkenwell - it was an art installation, rather than History - the narratives here aren’t based in any historical evidence I don’t think. ( And also I think the interpretation of the loss of ‘water culture’ is also a imaginative fiction, not or weakly suported by evidence - this is speculative art, not evidence based history I think… or at least the artist was blurring the lines of those two things, the viewer wasn’t supposed to be able to tell)

@philosopherking1887 , in answer to your question, I didn’t see it, so I can’t say for sure , I remember reading some of the reviews/ promotional material they put out.

From what I can remember , two screenshots from the event listing above about maybe what they were trying to do - I think it was clear from outset to audience who went it was an art exhibition that was a blend of fiction and real history.

Avatar

clean water (highly problematic)

This isn't about people trying to say that modernity is bad and we should return to the past, though! This is just how history/public history as a field works!

"Whig history" is ... well, this is a really simplified definition/explanation, but it's a method of doing history or explaining history to the public that focuses on a narrative of progress. It has no nuance and is essentially a tool to tell a contemporary audience how lucky and great they are, at the current endpoint of all these advances. But proper history writing shouldn't be done just to tell you how lucky and great you are, it should teach you about what the past actually was like - how it differed from today, not just how it was worse.

It's all right for any individual with only a minor level of interest in any given topic to look at it primarily for the basic and most important facts. It can still be problematic, depending on what the topic is and how big the group of individuals with that opinion is (e.g. large numbers of people looking at Christianity as an objective "advancement" on Judaism and Protestant Christianity as an objective "advancement" on Catholicism has not been great), but the history police are not going to take you away for thoughtcrime just for doing it.

However, it's the job of a museum (or an academic history book/article) to go farther than that. There was a water culture in medieval/early modern London, and it changed with the New River. The older water culture had demonstrable effects on how people socialized and took political action. That's fascinating! That's worth knowing! It's not a call to tear down the Metropolitan Water Board and go back to drinking from wells and public fountains. Sometimes a big improvement happens, but one of its effects is kind of negative; that's just the way life is. Hiding the negative because only a traditionalist could think a new technology was anything but 100% positive is ultimately just setting people up for second option bias and terrible takes ("actually life was BETTER before there was a good source of clean water, but they're keeping it from you!") down the line.

Avatar

But that is the implication, where the reality is that this was basically unqualified progress and clean water is an objective good. History as hand-wringing does in fact occlude a very real trajectory of better outcomes for humanity. A reflexive "yes, but" is functionally regressive. And you see it used to horseshoe into nostalgia bait, where now a good chunk of people on this very website think that e.g. medieval peasantry had it good.

I think this is the fictional museum that was in London last year ? If I’m remembering right and it’s the one up in Clerkenwell - it was an art installation, rather than History - the narratives here aren’t based in any historical evidence I don’t think. ( And also I think the interpretation of the loss of ‘water culture’ is also a imaginative fiction, not or weakly suported by evidence - this is speculative art, not evidence based history I think… or at least the artist was blurring the lines of those two things, the viewer wasn’t supposed to be able to tell)

On Power, and on Powering Through, and Why They’re Really Not the Same

I don’t pay much attention to personal attacks in reviews. It comes as the flipside of success; an attempt by the critic to puncture what they see as too much success. But I still remember one review, just after the film of Chocolat, when two of my novels happened to be in the Top 5 at the same time, in which a (male) newspaper critic referred to me dismissively as a premenopausal woman writer. I was a little taken aback. Clearly, it was meant to disparage, but I was only 35, ten years away from the perimenopause. What exactly did he mean? It wasn’t a comment about the book (which I doubt he had even read). The obvious misogyny aside, it seemed to express resentment, not of my books, but of me, myself, my right to take up space in his world. That word – premenopausal – was at the same time a comment on my age, my looks, my value, and a strong suggestion that someone like me shouldn’t be this successful, shouldn’t be writing bestsellers, shouldn’t be so – visible.

I don’t recall the name of the man, or the paper for which he was writing. He was far from being the only journalist who felt I didn’t deserve success. I shrugged off the unpleasant comment, but he’d meant it to hurt, and it did. I still wonder why he – and his editor - thought that was appropriate. I also wonder why, 20 years on, women are still dealing with this kind of thing. It’s still not enough for a woman to be successful in her chosen field. Whatever her achievements, you can be pretty sure that at some point, some man in his 50s or 60s – maybe an Oxbridge graduate, author of an unpublished novel or two - will offer his opinion on her desirability, either in the national Press, or most likely nowadays, by means of social media. The subtext is clear: women who don’t conform to societal values of what a woman should be are asking for this kind of treatment; especially those who dare to achieve more than their detractors.

10 years after that nasty review, I finally began the journey into perimenopause. No-one told me it was happening. No-one in the media was talking about it at the time. Even my doctor never thought to mention that my symptoms – the insomnia, headaches, mood swings, anxiety, depression, sleep paralysis, hair loss, brown patches on my skin – might have a single origin. I began to feel I was losing my mind: as if I were starting to disappear. I started to doubt my own senses. I blamed it all on the stress from my job. My mother had powered through menopause – or so she led me to believe – and made no secret of her contempt for modern women who complained, or treated the symptoms as anything more than a minor inconvenience.

And so I did the same. I powered through; and when at last I began to experience the classic symptoms of menopause - irregular bleeding, hot flushes, exhaustion, night sweats so bad that I would awake in sheets that were wringing wet – it did not occur to me to seek help. After over a year of this, I finally went to my doctor, who took a few tests, cheerfully announced I was menopausal, and when I inquired after HRT, advised me to power through – that phrase again - and let Mother Nature take her course. The internet was slightly more helpful. I took up running, lost weight, cut down on alcohol, downed supplements and sleeping pills and vitamin D, and felt a little better. Then, breast cancer came to call, and by the time my treatment was done, the symptoms had more or less disappeared, or at least had been superseded by the symptoms of chemo. I congratulated myself at having powered through cancer as well as surviving menopause.

But two years later, I feel old. I look that way, too. I’ve aged ten years. Some of that’s the cancer, of course. I was quite open about my treatment when I was powering through it – partly in order to pre-empt any questions about my hair loss or any of the all-too visible effects of three courses of chemo. Not that it stopped the comments, though. Even at my lowest ebb, a sector of social media made it clear that my only concern should be to look young and feminine to anonymous men on Twitter.

Right now, I don’t feel either. My hair has gone grey and very thin. My skin, too, seems thinner; both physically and mentally. At a recent publishing event, several acquaintances failed to recognize me; others just looked through me as if I had become invisible. Invisibility would be a relief; I find myself dressing for camouflage. I tend to wear baggy black outfits. I got my OBE last week. Photographs in the Press show me talking to Prince William. I’m wearing a boxy black trouser suit, flat shoes and a red fedora. I think I look nice. Not glamorous, but comfortable; quirky; unpretentious.

On a thread of largely supportive messages, one Twitter user pops up to say: Jesus, who’d accept an honour looking like that middle-aged disaster? @Joannechocolat thought she’d make an impact? She needs a stylist. If you look in the dictionary for the definition of “dowdy”, it features this photo.

It’s not the same man who belittled me over 20 years ago. But the sentiment hasn’t changed. Regardless of your achievements, as a woman, you’ll always be judged on your age and fuckability. I ought to be used to this by now. But somehow, that comment got to me. Going through menopause isn’t just a series of physical symptoms. It’s how other people make you feel; old, unattractive, and strangely ashamed.

I think of the Glass Delusion, a mental disorder common between the 14th and 17th centuries, characterized by the belief that the sufferer was made of glass. King Charles VI of France famously suffered from this delusion, and so did Princess Alexandra Amélie, daughter of Ludwig 1st of Bavaria. The condition affected mostly high-profile individuals; writers, royals, intellectuals. The physician to Philip II of Spain writes of an unnamed royal who believed he was a glass vase, which made him terribly fragile, and able to disappear at will. It seems to have been a reaction to feelings of social anxiety, fear of change and the unknown, a feeling both of vulnerability and invisibility.

I can relate. Since the menopause, I’ve felt increasingly broken. I don’t believe I’m a glass vase, and yet I know what it feels like to want to be wrapped in a protective duvet all day. I’ve started buying cushions. I feel both transparent, and under the lens, as if the light might consume me. On social media, I’ve learnt to block the people who make mean comments. To make myself invisible. To hide myself in plain sight. I power through, but sometimes I think: why do women power through? And who told them that powering through meant suffering in silence?

Fortunately, some things have changed since I went through the menopause. Over the past few years, we’ve seen more people talking about their experiences. Menopause is likely to affect half the population. We should be talking about it. If men experienced half these symptoms, you bet they’d be discussing it. Because power isn’t silence. You’d think that, as writer, I would have worked that out sooner. Words are power. Sharing is strength. Communication breaks down barriers. And sometimes, power means speaking up for those less able to speak for themselves.

I look at myself in the mirror. I see my mother’s mouth; my father’s eyes. I see the woman I used to be; the woman I will one day become. I see the woman my husband loves, a woman he still finds attractive. A woman with a grown-up child who makes her proud every single day. A menopausal woman. A cancer survivor. A woman who writes books that make other people sit up and think. A woman who doesn’t need the approval of some man she’s never met to be happy. She can be happy now. I can. And finally, I understand.  Powering through isn’t about learning to be invisible. It isn’t about acceptance, or shame, or letting Nature take its course, or lying about feeling broken. It’s looking beyond your reflection. It’s seeing yourself, not through the lens of other people’s expectations, but as yourself. The sum of everything you’ve been; of everyone who loves you. Of claiming your right to be more than glass, or your reflection in it. The right to be valued. The right to shine, regardless of age or reproductive status. Men seldom question their own right to these things. But women have to fight for them. That’s why it’s so exhausting.

This morning, instead of putting on my usual baggy black sweatshirt, I chose a bright yellow pullover. I looked at myself in the mirror. It’s not a great colour on me now, but it feels like dressing in sunshine. My husband came into the bathroom. You look

My husband rarely gives compliments. I can’t remember the last time he commented on how I was dressed. I wondered what he was going to say. Dowdy, perhaps? Inappropriate? Like a menopausal woman in dire need of a stylist?

At last, he said: When you smile like that, you look like a friendly assassin.

A friendly assassin. I’ll take that.  

Shining like the sun. That’s me.

Its crazy how many people think everyone who works in tv and film is rich. The only rich people are the execs and the tippy top percentile of directors and actors. Listen to any actor who is well known for a tv show and they’ll tell you they make more money from cons than what they made on their show.

Support the writer’s strike and when the director’s guild and SAG go on strike support them too.

It’s the same in the UK across arts and entertainment. According to Equity’s 2018 report (biggest trade union for professional actors in the country) 97% of their membership earnt up to £43,000 that year. Only 3% earnt more than that. 68% of actors made less than £5000 in 2018.

ALCS reported that professional authors (defined as people who have it as their primary occupation and make at least 50% of their earnings from writing) on average earnt just £7000 from writing in 2022. 

Theatre is even worse. Half of UK Theatre Directors earn less than £5000 per year. The average salary is £10,759.  (This is from an old report now from 2015. But it’s hard to imagine with lockdowns/pandemic this has got better.) And London is one of biggest theatre hotspots in the world, most places are probably worse than this.  

I’ve worked in UK theatre for seven years now and I’m 100% sure that the lack of good pay and the level of explotation is the biggest reason the arts are not diverse. It’s very hard to fund yourself to stay in the industry long term if you’re not already independently wealthy.

Avatar

I don't mean any of this in a weird way but if we're interested in breaking down binaries, we can't cling onto the binary of cis versus trans. If gender expectations are as constrictive as we say they are, then this imagined class of people who are okay with gender expectations 100% of the time with no complications is just that. Imagined. It's similar to "neurotypical" as an imagined class of people who are completely comfortable with the social and mental expectations of their jobs and would never understand what it's like to get overwhelmed or feel out of place. The unintended implication is an obsession with labelling and pathologizing that says that it's not gender or workplace norms that need to be interrogated, it's you.

The truth is that you can be outside the binary without formally committing to calling yourself nonbinary. I am a cis gay man who feels most comfortable and affirmed when I'm free to wear earrings and garments I bought in the "women's" section. I tell people my pronouns are he/him because it's the simplest explanation, but they/them and even she/her are comfortable, even validating, in the right circumstances. There are a lot of cis gay men just like me. Am I actually nonbinary and just in denial? No. Being a gay man is deeply meaningful to me. Am I encouraging nonbinary to start calling themselves cis and questioning whether they're actually nonbinary? No, and I feel more comfortable in my own manhood knowing I have the option to leave. I just want us all to define ourselves on our own terms. I want celebrate common ground and shared queerness with trans people and not have to overstate our differences. We treat it as a political and moral obligation to fine tune our labels for the sake of establishing who's allowed to say what, who's allowed to relate to who, and I have to ask: Are we committed to breaking down boundaries or not?

Being honest, I’ve always found the idea that, because I’m a cis woman rather than non-binary, I ‘accept’ or feel comfortable with societal gender expectations slightly offensive.

I haven’t accepted anything. I just know I’m a woman. And within that word ‘woman’, I can be anything. There are infinite ways to be a woman, infinite ways to express my gender.

‘Woman’ is not a box, or a mix of gender expressions, or a certain set of defined roles. It’s a state of being. It just is. And it’s a state of being that roughly half of the humans who’ve ever lived have experienced. 

A gender non-conforming cis woman will still be a cis woman: this is like feminism 101, I’m not sure how to have conversations about things like gender and women’s rights etc. if there isn’t even agreement on that.

Zhaan says the surgical reconstructors did an excellent job on your leg. There's no sign that it was ever broken. Yeah, I was uh - worried about you when you didn't show up for the wedding. Anyway, I'm - I'm just, um, glad you're okay. And I have noticed that you're not talking to me.

Or the scene that completely changed my brain chemistry

cw transphobia

obviously this is an extremely bizarre tweet that got ratioed to hell and back, but it’s also hilarious that of all the authors in the entire English literary canon, she somehow landed on Shakespeare as the epitome of cisnormative writing.

like ma’am shakespeare’s characters go on stage and announce their gender to the audience within the first few lines in nearly every play. Including…you know….the very play you reference???

Some fun additions to this thread

everybody who has ever read Shakespeare is currently in that thread like:

AS YOU LIKE IT

everyone always cites Twelfth Night as peak Shakespearean Gender Fuckery but I dare anyone to look Rosalind from As You Like It in the eye and not acknowledge her as the most gender-fucking lead in Shakespeare’s entire bibliography.

Celia: “we must flee in disguise, so I shall be a demure country maid!”

Rosalind: “that sounds super rad, imma be a twink and name myself after the twinkiest twink that ever twinked!”

Celia: “that tracks”

Rosalind: “And then I’m gonna meet up with the guy I think is cute and help him practice flirting by pretending to be a twink pretending to be a girl (Aka me) and I’m going to be so incredibly normal about this.”

William Shakespeare, visibly vibrating: Imagine a hot boy who is also a hot girl. Just imagine that. Are you imagining it yet? OK now imagine another one

I’m 100% agree with the pronoun commentary in this thread, and also the fact that the writing in Shakespeare is incredibly bi.  

But, in response to other commenters, I’m not sure the gender bending in Shakespeare is really a diversity win, is it? I mean, literally the ‘gender bending’ is because women were banned from acting and also to a large degree excluded from public life in the 16th Century.

The fact that the actors were all men pretending to be women and Shakespeare had to write around that isn’t progressive. It’s the consequence of a society that was restricting the freedoms of 50% of the population.

Not sure we want to be like ‘ Woot! The oppression of women allowed men (just the men obviously) to fictionally be allowed to cross gender norms out of artistic necessity, woot!’. 

Does beta canon give Leeta a family name? I can't believe I know Dukat's full name but not hers

If I remember correctly, there’s a beta canon novel where because she’s a war orphan, she doesn’t know what her family name is. She was too young when her parents died during Cardassian occupation and so has forgotten her full name. She also can’t remember enough details to find out who her parents were or what happen to them. 

I think Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges is one of DS9's best episodes, but after some time, I've come to agree with Ira Steven Behr's take:

From Memory Alpha:
"It's an excellent show, but it doesn't have all the levels it should have. We thought we'd do a show about the compromising of Bashir. Unfortunately, it doesn't do that. At the end, Bashir winds up making this angry, pointed speech to Ross, which is a lot less interesting than the situation at the end of "In the Pale Moonlight". There, a man is trying to deal with his own culpability. And this is a show that demanded, I felt, Bashir's culpability. And he gets to walk away clean, with him being the one pointing the finger. It takes the show down a notch, and keeps it from reaching the level we wanted."

I basically agree. In a way, from a dramatic POV, Bashir's confrontation with Ross is necessary. The story needs some exploration of the broader themes of the story, which is what we get when Bashir confronts Ross. It also makes up for the fact that Bashir had nothing to do during Cretak's trial; he was totally passive and that's a disappointing way to end a Bashir-centered storyline.

But by putting Bashir functionally in the TNG/Picard role, they ended up downplaying Bashir's culpability in the plot to bring down Cretak. So here's what could they have done instead.

My alternate take:

  • Bashir lies awake in bed, rethinking the events of the conference, etc.
  • He goes to confront Ross, but instead of finding him alone in his office, he finds Ross yukking it up with Sisko and Kasidy and maybe some others. They're oblivious to Ross's role in setting Bashir up. Bashir and Ross make eye contact, but there's no confrontation, and no emotional catharsis for Bashir. This will be a case of "kill your darlings," 'cause you'll lose some excellent dialogue
  • In the next scene, we see Bashir drinking at Quark's. He's miserable. He's used to thinking of himself as James Bond, but in his first foray into real world spycraft, he got thoroughly used. He admits this to another character. The most logical choice is O'Brien (to set the stage for "Extreme Measures") or Garak (to parallel their scene from earlier in the episode). This character is sympathetic, but does not attempt to ease Bashir's feelings of culpability
  • Bashir ends the episode deciding it's time he started fighting fire with fire, so to speak.
  • My personal preference is to have the above character be Garak. Just write one small scene in which it's implied that Garak's gonna mentor Bashir off screen on how to handle Sloan the next time they meet. That would nicely cap Garak's mentorship of Bashir in early seasons and especially Garak's lesson for Bashir in Our Man Bashir
  • I know some people wanted a confrontation between Sloan and Garak, but Sloan was alway set up as Bashir's nemesis, and I think for Bashir's arc, ultimately, he had to battle Sloan alone
  • We still get the final confrontation between Sloan and Bashir but Bashir's already planning his next move

Finally, I just want to acknowledge it's easy to critique someone else's work and offer "fix its," but I actually do love this episode, and find it powerful just the way it is. All that credit goes to the writers who did the hard work of constructing the episode for the rest of us to enjoy.

I agree too. Whilst I like the episode, I think the final scene doesn’t work.

My take… and I appreciate it’d be difficult on some levels to have the rest of the season play out to its conclusion if this did happen. But if I wanted to make the final scene of Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges work…

I would substitute Ross’s character for the entire episode with Sisko. ( Sisko’s involvement being a step further to what he was doing during In The Pale Moonlight).

Makes it much more personal for Bashir, in the fact that it’s Sisko. Makes it a lot harder for Bashir to take the self-righteous, angry ‘you’re to blame’ angle if it is Sisko he’s shouting at rather than Ross.

Or, if not a direct replacement of Ross’s character for Sisko, then Id make it so Sloan hinted or outright told Bashir about what Sisko did during In The Pale Moonlight , so the final scene could then be about both characters culpability in the downfall of Romulan politicians.

ever since i found out that peter capaldi auditioned to be sisko ive been desperate to see his version of the "in the pale moonlight" speech. avery brooks did it best but still i know capaldi would have acted his heart out on that. he plays guilt and pent up anger so well he would have been perfect. somebody that still has a twitter tell him we need this

^^^ People have probably seen this before, but there’s an audition call sheet for the UK casting they did: Peter Capaldi, Anthony Head, Keith Allen, Ralph Brown (of Withnail & I fame), Peter Firth, Pip Torrens (Tommy  Lascelles in the Crown) are all there for Sisko...

Avatar

ANTHONY HEAD !!....!!!!

Also, I think this is alternative Bashir. Not 100% sure because the actor hasn’t done much since and then went on to be a director/ teacher at RADA... but it’s the name on IMDb and, lets face it, this photo does sort of scream ‘ FRONTIER MEDICINE with no clue what I’m doing and oh crap, I’m in love with a lizard’.

ever since i found out that peter capaldi auditioned to be sisko ive been desperate to see his version of the "in the pale moonlight" speech. avery brooks did it best but still i know capaldi would have acted his heart out on that. he plays guilt and pent up anger so well he would have been perfect. somebody that still has a twitter tell him we need this

^^^ People have probably seen this before, but there’s an audition call sheet for the UK casting they did: Peter Capaldi, Anthony Head, Keith Allen, Ralph Brown (of Withnail & I fame), Peter Firth, Pip Torrens (Tommy  Lascelles in the Crown) are all there for Sisko...

Anonymous asked:

You're not embarrassed being an old woman and being in tumblr? I would rather die that my grannies have an actual account on tumblr for celebrities rho

Why would I be embarrassed for having interests I enjoy? My guess is that you’re really, really young. And that maybe you don’t actually have solid relationships with adults who have lives outside of parenting or work. But I hope for you that when you’re my age you have hobbies that bring you happiness. And that by that point you realize that trying to shame someone for being an adult only makes you look too immature to be in adult spaces, which Tumblr is.

When I was 20, I loved music, making art, writing and reading good stories, fashion, talking about popular culture, making friends, going to concerts… You’d be surprised how little changes when you’re my age. I just have way more money and time to enjoy those things now. I’m only 55. I’m not dead. I’m also not a “granny”, but even if I was, I’d probably still like all of those things.

Ageism isn’t cute, love. And I sure don’t ever see people telling men they shouldn’t go to football games or have their little “fantasy football leagues” or wear their favorite player’s merch. For every comment you guys like to say is misogynistic (but isn’t), this is one that really reeks of it.

Avatar

What she said. ^^^ I am well over 60, I have been in fandom since I was 12, one way or another, and I ain’t leaving. And misogyny is never attractive.

I’ll be 60 soon and ha ha ha I’m in fandom forever.

(Enjoy your time with other children anon. And I promise you, they’re not creating all the content you love.)

Avatar

Just turned 70 this last May. 

I am a fan. I’ve been a fan of one or another book series, TV show or comic since I was eight. I’ve been in organized, convention-going and print-based fandoms since I was old enough to vote. My generation invented online fandoms, and I’ve been in them from almost the very beginning of online. I’ve been on CompuServe and AOL and LiveJournal and the other earliest platforms where fandom congregated: Tumblr’s merely one of the newer ones. 

If some adorable, entitled, wet-behind-the-ears wee nonny thinks they’re going to roll up and have a little self-righteous fun shaming some senior Tumblrina into buggering off of here because she’s An Old—and should therefore (by their way of thinking) be embarrassed for enjoying the manifestation of her continuing passion for the best in media along with others, in long-standing community— Well, they’ve got another think coming. 

…And oh yeah: You don’t like it? Then just get off our lawn, sweetiecakes. We were here long before you were, and (if you’re so easily embarrassed) we’ll still be here long after you’re gone. :)

(waves) (And hey, hi there, Atlin!)

Yup.

See, the thing about this is that OP wasn’t being intentionally misogynistic. They were just reflecting the general societal expectation that women give up all their interests and their selfhood once they reach a certain age. There’s an expectation that you become extensions of other people–you’re a mom, you’re a wife, you’re a coworker–with no room for yourself. Interests that serve these roles–such as cooking, baking, decorating, cleaning, parenting, yoga–are fine to have. They are “allowed” because they conform to expected gender roles and responsibilities. But interests outside of these roles–such as writing Good Omens fanfic, gushing over hot athletes, making gifs of favorite TV shows–are not allowed. They are “cringe” if you’re a woman over a certain age. 

It just goes to show that many of us have been indoctrinated to believe that women should only focus on certain things once you reach a certain age and give up everything else, all of our hobbies and interests and skills and joys–the very things that make us unique and interesting and alive–in service of a faceless feminine ideal, be it the self-sacrificing mother or the girlboss or the sweet old lady. 

And if you can’t see the misogyny and tragedy in that, then I don’t know what to tell you except maybe go ask your mother what she was like before she had you.

On December 6th 1989, fourteen young women, many of them engineering students, were murdered in the mass shooting at Montreal’s École Polytechnique that was prompted by the killer’s hatred of women and what he said was “fighting feminism”.   On December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, we remember: Geneviève Bergeron Hélène Colgan Nathalie Croteau Barbara Daigneault Anne-Marie Edward Maud Haviernick Maryse Laganière Maryse Leclair Anne-Marie Lemay Sonia Pelletier Michèle Richard Annie St-Arneault Annie Turcotte Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz

Sisko is awesome. He’s a quiet, one man 24th Century equal access revolution. He’s the Captain who:

  • Wrote a letter of recommendation to allow the first (and only) Ferengi to join Starfleet
  • Had the first (and only) Klingon in Starfleet as his Commander. AT THE TIME that it seemed very likely the Federation and the Klingons were about to go to war.
  • Pulled strings to keep the first (and only) openly Augmented Officer in Starfleet from losing his commission and kept him on as his Doctor even though he was illegal. ALL WHILE never once mentioning that Bashir had lied to him for five years.
  • Had the only Changeling in the quadrant as his Chief of Security. AT THE SAME TIME as there was a mass-panic about Changelings and the Federation were at war with them. AND never once suggested Odo try and become more humanoid…

Half of his senior staff are exceptions. He supports them quietly and, presumably, behind the scenes defends their right to be there, mostly without them knowing it. Sisko rocks.

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Wait, I'm sorry, I appreciate that Disney is terrible but are you implying Doctor Who having an actual budget would be bad? The appeal is that it looks bad? I literally found it unwatchable because it looks so bad, but that's what you like about it?

That’s EXACTLY what I’m implying. I’m genuinely sorry that it’s a problem for you, but I, and many other people in the fandom! unironically find Doctor Who’s terrible special effects to be part of its charm. They were terrible in 1963 when they introduced the roving trash cans that are the Daleks, and they’re terrible in 2022 when they use simplistic and blatant greenscreen to put the characters on the roof of a space train going through a wormhole. Doctor Who can and should have good acting, good writing—compelling characters and well-constructed both episodic and season-long plots—and a soundtrack that makes me tear up sometimes (@Murray Gold I miss you). But special effects that look like they were made in someone’s garage and/or on iMovie, I would argue, contribute to the core themes of the joy of imagination and the principle that anyone can be a hero like the Doctor and her companions. Yes, you, with your plastic sonic screwdriver toy and your cardboard suit painted to look like a Cyberman! That’s about all the BBC has, and if they can do it, so can you!

The only good special effects on Doctor Who should be regeneration and opening and stepping into the TARDIS, and the latter should be a accomplished mostly with physical effects (which it is). Keep your nasty budgetses; we want the same spacesuit used over and over and obviously plastic alien masks.

Avatar