• Ask Me
  • supernaturalapocalypse:

    9x23 // 4x01 - It was all about saving one human
    People play in the sandbox they’ve been given. The narratives of Sherlock, Supernatural, Teen Wolf and even One Direction are all dominated by male/male relationships already, with female characters either in the minority or in the background. The fact that there are only three female/female pairings on this list may not just be a comment on fandom itself, so much as a sign of how rare it is to see a television show or movie that focuses heavily on an intense relationship between two women.

    'Sherlock,' 'Teen Wolf,' 'Supernatural' among top targets for fanfic writers

    Just wanted to pullquote the most insightful part of that dailydot piece from earlier today.

    (via stopitsgingertime)

    liamdryden:

    thrillboswaggins:

    joehwh0:

    gUYS WE’VE BEEN NOTICED

    image

    Two things I’m willing to bet a lung on:

    • Moffat wrote the line
    • it won’t be nice things

    alittleworldofimagination:

    OH

    image

    MY

    image

    FUCKING

    image

    GOD

    image

    LOOK

    image

    AT

    image

    THIS?????!?

    ritchandspace:

kerjenfanfic:

ritchandspace:

Source
Uh oh.
Those numbers are really significant.   I did a bechdel test of each episode myself last year and my results were the same.
If nothing else, no one can deny that women speak less in Moffat Doctor Who, and they speak even less to other women about things that aren’t the Doctor.

However, RTD’s women talk much more negatively, so all that number shows is that Davies’ women are stereotypes of shrews. For example:
Rose meets Sarah and puts her down repeatedly. She finally talks with her only to discuss nothing but the Doctor. She also puts down Martha, trying one up her about who was first (which is ridiculous since the Doctor had 40+ companions before Rose and 2 or 3 loves before Rose). She is snide to her mother’s concern and throws away her family in order to get the Doctor. She is equally snide to Mickey and treats him poorly. Even Billie Piper says Rose is a “bit of a cow”.
All the mothers in the Davies’ era are the same type: all with nasty dialogue and treated as shrews.
Martha is put in humiliating circumstances to be laughable and looked down upon because of her unrequited love for the Doctor. She finally sticks up for herself only to show up again married to a man we never saw her meet and fall in love with.
Donna is made to be man crazy and her dialogue is either about that, whether she is a sexual partner with the Doctor, or how she will throw her life away to be with him.
The Prime Minister is humiliated and destroyed by the Doctor for making a different decision than him. She is then treated as a joke when she comes back.
So what good is 20% more dialogue when it’s negative towards women and the opposite of positive women’s role? Women who do not have a life of their own outside of the Doctor and finding a man. Women who put down each other. Even in the Metacrisis, Donna shoves Sarah Jane to get at the handsome man and her man hungry state is treated as a joke.
And let’s talk about Liz I under Davies: the woman Ten married as a nothing thing, takes her virginity, dumps her, and treats the whole thing as a frat boy joke.
Or the poor woman whose life becomes an oral sex machine to service a man for the rest of her days. In fact, Davies wanted to bring this couple back and show her servicing her boyfriend.
That is NOT something to brag about as dialogue for women.
And then there’s the Tardis who is downgraded to something Rose abuses to save the Doctor and he treats as his “sports car”. Whereas she is treated as an independent female under Moffat’s era, equaling and one upping the Doctor, changing their story to not her being subordinate to him, but as her starting their journey.
Last: there’s a reason why the Bechdel test is NOT used by true studies since it was NOT made for this use. It was made by the Swedes for satire only and for money, plus not for this media at all. You can read the whole thing here.
So this whole graph proves that it’s pointless because it does not measure WHAT these women are saying, how they treat one another, and with a test that is made for something else entirely. I might as well use the SaaS dev/test on Doctor Who and claim it has bearing.

You see women who are portrayed as central, vital, and heroic, who save the universe time and again, to be shrews because sometimes they are negative (like, you know…real people).
You see a disabled woman (Ursula) to be “an oral sex machine” to a man who was explicitly in love with her (who only mentioned their “love life” as an afterthought and dropped it when she asked him to - you are the one who believes that her disabilities dehumanize her).
You think American comic creator Allison Bechdel’s popularizing of the Bechdel Test in 1985 was actually created by the Swedish in 2013 (you did not read the article you linked to).
You credit Moffat for a Neil Gaiman story, but blame Davies for a Toby Whithouse story.
You say the graph doesn’t measure what they are saying, but you cite Rose as being a “shrew” because of her jealousy over Sarah (which is resolved with them becoming friends and realizing how pointless fighitng over a man is) and Martha, despite the fact that this graph MEASURES WHEN THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A MAN.  You are apparently completely missing the point, citing instances when they are talking about a man to prove the Bechdel test as meaningless.

    ritchandspace:

    kerjenfanfic:

    ritchandspace:

    Source

    Uh oh.

    Those numbers are really significant.   I did a bechdel test of each episode myself last year and my results were the same.

    If nothing else, no one can deny that women speak less in Moffat Doctor Who, and they speak even less to other women about things that aren’t the Doctor.

    However, RTD’s women talk much more negatively, so all that number shows is that Davies’ women are stereotypes of shrews. For example:

    Rose meets Sarah and puts her down repeatedly. She finally talks with her only to discuss nothing but the Doctor. She also puts down Martha, trying one up her about who was first (which is ridiculous since the Doctor had 40+ companions before Rose and 2 or 3 loves before Rose). She is snide to her mother’s concern and throws away her family in order to get the Doctor. She is equally snide to Mickey and treats him poorly. Even Billie Piper says Rose is a “bit of a cow”.

    All the mothers in the Davies’ era are the same type: all with nasty dialogue and treated as shrews.

    Martha is put in humiliating circumstances to be laughable and looked down upon because of her unrequited love for the Doctor. She finally sticks up for herself only to show up again married to a man we never saw her meet and fall in love with.

    Donna is made to be man crazy and her dialogue is either about that, whether she is a sexual partner with the Doctor, or how she will throw her life away to be with him.

    The Prime Minister is humiliated and destroyed by the Doctor for making a different decision than him. She is then treated as a joke when she comes back.

    So what good is 20% more dialogue when it’s negative towards women and the opposite of positive women’s role? Women who do not have a life of their own outside of the Doctor and finding a man. Women who put down each other. Even in the Metacrisis, Donna shoves Sarah Jane to get at the handsome man and her man hungry state is treated as a joke.

    And let’s talk about Liz I under Davies: the woman Ten married as a nothing thing, takes her virginity, dumps her, and treats the whole thing as a frat boy joke.

    Or the poor woman whose life becomes an oral sex machine to service a man for the rest of her days. In fact, Davies wanted to bring this couple back and show her servicing her boyfriend.

    That is NOT something to brag about as dialogue for women.

    And then there’s the Tardis who is downgraded to something Rose abuses to save the Doctor and he treats as his “sports car”. Whereas she is treated as an independent female under Moffat’s era, equaling and one upping the Doctor, changing their story to not her being subordinate to him, but as her starting their journey.

    Last: there’s a reason why the Bechdel test is NOT used by true studies since it was NOT made for this use. It was made by the Swedes for satire only and for money, plus not for this media at all. You can read the whole thing here.

    So this whole graph proves that it’s pointless because it does not measure WHAT these women are saying, how they treat one another, and with a test that is made for something else entirely. I might as well use the SaaS dev/test on Doctor Who and claim it has bearing.

    You see women who are portrayed as central, vital, and heroic, who save the universe time and again, to be shrews because sometimes they are negative (like, you know…real people).

    You see a disabled woman (Ursula) to be “an oral sex machine” to a man who was explicitly in love with her (who only mentioned their “love life” as an afterthought and dropped it when she asked him to - you are the one who believes that her disabilities dehumanize her).

    You think American comic creator Allison Bechdel’s popularizing of the Bechdel Test in 1985 was actually created by the Swedish in 2013 (you did not read the article you linked to).

    You credit Moffat for a Neil Gaiman story, but blame Davies for a Toby Whithouse story.

    You say the graph doesn’t measure what they are saying, but you cite Rose as being a “shrew” because of her jealousy over Sarah (which is resolved with them becoming friends and realizing how pointless fighitng over a man is) and Martha, despite the fact that this graph MEASURES WHEN THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A MAN.  You are apparently completely missing the point, citing instances when they are talking about a man to prove the Bechdel test as meaningless.

    archangeldean:

    clairvoyantsam:

    Friendly reminder that at the end of this coming week we’re getting two brand new Supernatural sneak peeks :

    Season 9 Gag Reel + Season 10 Scene  

    (◑‿◐)

    REJOICE

    image

    By rejoice you mean sign up for therapy right

    She was 18 years old, a freshman, and had been on campus for just two weeks when one Saturday night last September her friends grew worried because she had been drinking and suddenly disappeared.

    Around midnight, the missing girl texted a friend, saying she was frightened by a student she had met that evening. “Idk what to do,” she wrote. “I’m scared.” When she did not answer a call, the friend began searching for her.

    In the early-morning hours on the campus of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in central New York, the friend said, he found her — bent over a pool table as a football player appeared to be sexually assaulting her from behind in a darkened dance hall with six or seven people watching and laughing. Some had their cellphones out, apparently taking pictures, he said.

    Later, records show, a sexual-assault nurse offered this preliminary assessment: blunt force trauma within the last 24 hours indicating “intercourse with either multiple partners, multiple times or that the intercourse was very forceful.” The student said she could not recall the pool table encounter, but did remember being raped earlier in a fraternity-house bedroom.

    The football player at the pool table had also been at the fraternity house — in both places with his pants down — but denied raping her, saying he was too tired after a football game to get an erection. Two other players, also accused of sexually assaulting the woman, denied the charge as well. Even so, tests later found sperm or semen in her vagina, in her rectum and on her underwear.

    It took the college just 12 days to investigate the rape report, hold a hearing and clear the football players. The football team went on to finish undefeated in its conference, while the woman was left, she said, to face the consequences — threats and harassment for accusing members of the most popular sports team on campus.

    A New York Times examination of the case, based in part on hundreds of pages of disciplinary proceedings — usually confidential under federal privacy laws — offers a rare look inside one school’s adjudication of a rape complaint amid a roiling national debate over how best to stop sexual assaults on campuses.

    Whatever precisely happened that September night, the internal records, along with interviews with students, sexual-assault experts and college officials, depict a school ill prepared to evaluate an allegation so serious that, if proved in a court of law, would be a felony, with a likely prison sentence. As the case illustrates, school disciplinary panels are a world unto themselves, operating in secret with scant accountability and limited protections for the accuser or the accused.

    At a time of great emotional turmoil, students who say they were assaulted must make a choice: Seek help from their school, turn to the criminal justice system or simply remain silent. The great majority — including the student in this case — choose their school, because of the expectation of anonymity and the belief that administrators will offer the sort of support that the police will not.

    Yet many students come to regret that decision, wishing they had never reported the assault in the first place.

    The New York Times, "Reporting Rape, And Wishing She Hadn’t" (via inothernews)
    dancingtothelight:

I don’t know the source for this otherwise I’d give it
this is where I found it
but this is the most amazing solution to the biggest Harry Potter mystery
original source thanks to a lovely individual

    dancingtothelight:

    I don’t know the source for this otherwise I’d give it

    this is where I found it

    but this is the most amazing solution to the biggest Harry Potter mystery

    original source thanks to a lovely individual

    offaeriesandfawns:

    utterly-insane-panda:

    OMGOMGOFNFO I love them so much

    AWWWWWHEHE

    spnupdates:

Supernatural Season 10 premieres Tuesday, Oct. 7th!
    clairvoyantsam:

exploit-my-savagery:

oswins-doctor:

suluisms:

For a second I thought this was the new supernatural season ten opener



I knew I’d see this with the Supernatural title eventually, I wasn’t expecting it to be a day later.

    clairvoyantsam:

    exploit-my-savagery:

    oswins-doctor:

    suluisms:

    For a second I thought this was the new supernatural season ten opener

    image

    I knew I’d see this with the Supernatural title eventually, I wasn’t expecting it to be a day later.