#always reblog #thg#let’s take a moment to acknowledge that peeta doesn’t pressure her nearly as much as gale does#peeta understands that katniss has other shit going on #they both do#and he tries to respect her wishes and boundaries and support her without ever demanding that she love him#good guy peeta mellark #the love triangle is fabricated; it’s not real#katniss wants no part of it and peeta doesn’t force it on her#and gale feels so insecure about everything else that he needs reassurance from somewhere#he just doesn’t understand that katniss is not where he should be asking for it#the love triangle is manufactured by the people marketing the movies#and by the Capitol to a certain extent within the context of the novels(via khaleesi)
Steven Moffat Doesn’t Understand Grief, and It’s Killing Doctor Who
There’s a popular joke I’ve seen floating around on Tumblr for a while now. It goes like this:
- Both Elizabeths in The Day of the Doctor were Zygons.
- The Zygons wanted to trick the Doctor into doing something for them, so copied Elizabeth as a honeytrap. They then copied her again, the intention being that the Doctor wouldn’t expect both of them to be copies and if one copy got discovered then the second one could still finish the job.
- Whatever the Zygons wanted the Doctor to do required him to be King of England and Wales. (Not prince-consort, given the time period. And not Scotland, since the thrones weren’t united until James I.)
- The real Elizabeth I has met the Tenth Doctor only once - in The Shakespeare Code.
- However. Upon returning to court from wherever she’d been during Day of the Doctor, Elizabeth was informed that she had been there all along and had married a man known as the Doctor, who was now King. She was shown the painting as evidence.
- Elizabeth now had to fight to convince her courtiers that an imposter had taken her place and that she still had full rights to her hard-won kingdom. She ordered search parties sent out to find the imposter Elizabeth and the ‘king’, but neither was ever found.
- Until, that is, many years later the Queen went to view the opening performance of Love’s Labours Won, and there he was. The man she’d been hunting all these years, the man who had nearly taken her throne from her…
You know, Peeta’s unconventional masculinity is as relevant for traditional gender subversion in The Hunger Games as Katniss’s unconventional femininity.
It’s a bit annoying to see everyone and their mother praising Katniss for being such a unique action female hero, and then hearing those same people making fun of Peeta for being a weakling and a ‘sissy’.
Yes, Peeta paints sunsets and bakes cookies and frosts cakes. He is sometimes/usually unarmed and needs Katniss’s protection. He needs saving at several points across the story, and eventually he is captured and needs rescuing.
So what? Just as Katniss can be dextrous at archery, an assassin and a leader in combat, while retaining her kindness, humanity and selflessness, Peeta can paint, bake, and not be a traditional male action hero and still be the male lead and romantic hero of the story. He can still be sexually alluring for Katniss and capable of extremely heroic actions, while needing rescue and baking cakes.
And if you can’t see how relevant it is for this story and for a younger generation to understand that traditional and media-approved masculinity is also a social construct/imposition, as restrictive and reactionary as enforced traditional femininity can be, then the joke’s on you.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I NEED MORE THAN ANYTHING
I NEED A KEVIN TRAN EPISODE THAT’S BASICALLY HOME ALONE
SAM AND DEAN HAVE GONE OFF ON A HUNT
KEVIN STAYS AT THE BUNKER TO DO SOME RESEARCH
AND THEN MONSTERS HAPPEN
AND HE HAS TO COME UP WITH WACKY TRAPS TO CATCH/KILL THEM
AND THERE’S A MOMENT WHEN DEAN REALIZES THAT SOMETHING’S WRONG AND YELLS “KEVIN!!” JUST LIKE IN HOME ALONE
IT NEEDS TO BE THE CHRISTMAS EPISODE
Rebloggable by Request.
The bodily autonomy argument was what convinced me to go from extremely pro-life to pro-choice in a matter of days. You’d have to find a way to convince me that it’s OK to use someone’s body parts without their consent to convince me to be pro-life again.
I can’t find it right now, but there’s a court case establishing that a father does not have an obligation to donate—I think it was bone marrow—to save his child’s life.
And yet we’re supposed to put up with what amounts to forcible donation of our uteruses? Something’s not right there.
I’ve been pro-choice pretty much my whole life, but it wasn’t until maybe five years ago that I heard this particular argument; since then I’ve felt a lot more confident in my stance and have even used this argument against pro-life people who have tried to convince me.
I’m not going to argue with you about your stance on abortion, but I’m going to point out that if you agree with the OP’s belief that an unwanted pregnancy constitutes an attack on the bodily autonomy of the mother by the child you are (perhaps unintentionally) implying two things.
1) That the punishment of someone who infringes on another’s bodily integrity should be decided without consideration of the offender’s intent or ability to understand what he did.
2) That the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for infringement upon bodily integrity.
I don’t mind controversy, so I’ll address this no problem. You’re trying to frame this in the context of punishment, which is a straw-man argument. This isn’t about punishment.
What we’re saying is that human beings have a right to decide what happens to their own bodies, even if that decision results in the death of someone or something else. For example, by law, you cannot be forced to donate one of your kidneys or part of your liver to someone who needs it. You cannot be forced to give blood. Even if you are the only person with a certain blood type and your refusal will mean the death of someone else - maybe a family member, maybe your child - if you refuse, that is your right as a human being and no court can prosecute you for murder. You, and only you, are the final arbiter of what happens to your body, and if you decide the risks are too great, the right to refuse to help is absolute.
What you are implying is that bodily autonomy ought to be less important than saving someone’s life; that a fetus, or a human being, should be given the opportunity to live at the expense of other people’s bodily autonomy.
So put it into context. You have a kidney that’s a perfect match to someone in the hospital - let’s call him Fred - who will die in the next week if he doesn’t get it. For your own personal reasons, you do not wish to have your kidney removed. Your reasons aren’t material to this particular argument, but they can range anywhere from your phobia of hospitals to your allergy to most kinds of anesthesia, to a history of kidney disease in your family that may mean you will need that extra kidney one day or to the simple fact that you do not wish to give this kidney at this time. The point is: you do not consent.
If life is considered more important than bodily autonomy, then the law can force you to be taken to the hospital against your will, be sedated against your will, cut open against your will, and have your organ removed against your will. You may be tied down to the bed; you may be locked in a room and not allowed to leave until you agree to the operation. You may be shown tapes of Fred and his family over and over and over again. But however it happens, it happens without your continuous consent. This isn’t Fred’s fault - he doesn’t even know you exist, he has no idea that this is happening, and maybe he would be horrified if he knew and would ask them to stop. But it’s happening because life, in this universe, is more important than bodily autonomy. Namely, Fred’s life is more important than your bodily autonomy.
Now put yourself back in the world we live in - you still have that kidney that’s perfect for good ol’ Fred in the hospital who needs it within a week, otherwise he’ll die. If you refuse, for whatever reason, the result is that Fred does, in fact, die. But Fred has not been punished, Fred wasn’t given a death sentence. The decision you made had nothing to do with punishing Fred; it was about your health, your body, your life. Certainly people might be angry that you didn’t give Fred the kidney that he needed, but just because he needed it to survive did not mean he had a right to it that trumped yours. No matter what reason you had, your bodily autonomy was more important than his need.
Now, if you think that the world where life should be more important than bodily autonomy is the one we ought to live in, then we’re going to have to just agree to disagree, because I find that a fucking Orwellian nightmare of the highest order.
If, however, you agree that it’s better that we live in a world where someone else doesn’t get to make the decision about what happens to you based on the need of some third person, then I’d like to welcome you to the pro-choice movement, because congratulations - you’re pro-choice.
I M LISTENING TO THE SANTA BABY COVER BY MICHAEL BUBLE AND HE FUCKING
CHANGED THE LYRICS TO “SANTA BUDDY”
IM LAUGHIGN SO HARD
NO HOMO SANTA