whineandcheese24

[whineandcheese24]

[whineandcheese24]

do you listen to the outsiders soundtrack the wrong way (straight through) or the right way (straight through but you replay throwing in the towel 3x before moving on)

[whineandcheese24]

Your gender is now the first randomized wikipedia article you get. No rerolls.

[whineandcheese24]

this reminds me of in s1 when may tried to k*ll herself and Michael got mad that he and Athena couldn't stay at the hospital with her. I get how painful it must be to watch your daughter go through that, and then to not be able to be with her. But you realize you're not the only people in these situations, right? you realize that these rules are made so abused kids don't have to see their abusers immediately after doing the most extreme thing possible to get away from them, right? you realize if they make exceptions for you they also have to make expections for abusers, right?

and I forget what the context was, but at some point someone was talking about how anyone can see how much HenRen love their kids. And yeah, that's important. But abusers can also love their kids. i feel like there's this idea that abusers are just completely devoid of love and emotion, but it's so much more complicated than that. It's why it's so hard to walk away from abusive relationships. And it's why situations like these can't be measured on how much it looks like a parent loves their kid, or a kid loves their parent.

Hen and Karen are completely disrespecting the rules. And they think it's okay because they love their kids, but they're forgetting (and making the audience forget) that these rules are in place for a very specific and very necessary reason: Keeping kids away from their abusers. If a judge or a social worker judged a case based on how much it *looked* like a kid and parent loved each other, there would likely be so many situations where kids end up staying with their abuser.

I think one of the things that irritates me the most about the bungled Ortiz storyline is the way it didn't have to be "oh Ortiz has a judge in her pocket" and making her almost cartoonishly evil. I would have loved Hen and Karen to have to deal with the fact that they kept handing Ortiz perfectly legitimate weapons to use against them. there was *no need* for that family court judge to be corrupt because *SHE MADE THE CORRECT DECISION*

you might not like it, but Hen did sneak into a group foster home. Hen and Karen did remain in contact with a foster child who had been removed from their home. Hen and Karen did keep relevant information from their lawyer. going back, Hen and Karen did stalk Mara's brother's father with information they should not have gotten from their social worker. they did allow that boys stepmother to bring him to their house without his father's consent and against his express wishes. all of that is legitimate grounds to lose their foster license entirely. yes Ortiz used her influence improperly in the first place and then Hen and Karen kept handing her a gun loaded with bullets and daring her to hold it to their heads

I would have rather they had to deal with the fact that just because they think they're righteous doesn't mean they're right and self-righteous action is worthless when it causes you to lose the battle anyway

[whineandcheese24]

[whineandcheese24]

[whineandcheese24]

Reblog if its ok to spam you with boops

[whineandcheese24]

train over plane, any fucking day

“Nobody’s going to want to sit on high-speed rail for fifteen hours to get from New York City to LA.”

Me. I will sit on high-speed rail for fifteen hours. I’ll sit on it for days. I’ll write and read and nap and eat and then do it all over again. I’ll stare out the windows and see America from ground level and not have to drive. I’ll see the Rockies and the deserts and cornfields and the Mississippi River and your house and yours and yours too. I’ll make up stories in my head about the small towns I see as we go along. I’ll see the states I’ve yet to see because driving or flying there is a fucking slog and expensive to boot. I’ll enjoy the ride as much as the destination. And then I’ll do it all over again to come the fuck home.

[whineandcheese24]

The whole male cheerleader thing has helped me to articulate something I've noticed for a while in how people tie gender to sexuality, specifically how I feel like people are much more willing to believe that a masculine guy is gay, than that a feminine guy is straight. I'm not a gay man, so I really can't say for sure if this is what it's like irl. But to paraphrase what someone else said "the change from 'cheerleading is gay (derogatory)' to 'cheerleading is gay (affectionate)' isn't actually better." And I see this a bit, though not to the same extent, with women. Masculine women are often assumed to be lesbian, while feminine women can be either or. It's like a square/rectangle situation. Not all gay men are feminine, but every feminine guy is gay.

And I do understand the correlation. Queer people are more likely to challenge gender norms, because their very existence is a challenge, might as well do the whole shebang. But the idea that only queer people are allowed to be gnc is in and of itself enforcing gendernorms. You're essentially saying that only certain people can dress/act a certain way, and anyone who defies these rules of how to dress/act is wrong.

This line of thinking of "anyone who crosses barriers or breaks gendernorms can't be straight" or more to the point "I can correctly infer someone's sexuality from their dress, mannerisms, and hobbies alone, and if they say I'm wrong, they just don't know it yet" is incredibly harmful. How many times has a gay man (or woman) refused to accept their sexuality because they don't have the "correct" hobbies? And how many times has any kid, gay or straight or whatever, cut themselves off from a certain activity or style because it doesn't "match" their sexuality?

It's why a story like Eddie's, about a straight man being vulnerable, is so important. How people act and present themselves can be, and often are, tied to their sexuality. But you can't, and shouldn't try to draw conclusions about who someone wants to sleep with/date based on their perosnality/clothes/hobbies. If you want to see a real change in breaking down gender and sexuality norms, than you have to stop assuming someone's sexuality based on their hobbies.

Actually, you have to stop assuming people's sexualities, period. Full stop, end of sentence. People are what they tell you. And if they never tell you anything, well it's none of your goddamn business.

[whineandcheese24]

we definitely did not spend enough time criticizing the GROWN ASS MAN chasing a couple teenage girls. and for Athena to yell at them when they were trying to do something nice for Denny? especially when they WEREN'T EVEN THE ONES WHO HIT HIM??? istg the way kids are treated sometimes pisses me off so much

Show of hands, who thinks the teenagers should not have been shamed for an adults reckless behaviour?

✋

It is kinda wild that the Sigmas were considered at fault by Athena when their literal Vice Principal was trying to run them off the road for egging his car.

And that’s no cap.

[whineandcheese24]

I see we're sticking with writing the most emotionally devastating plotlines and then distracting the audience with cute bucktommy scenes, huh Tim?

[whineandcheese24]

idc if it's not a person. if your icon is a sunrise, you're a sunrise now.

poll about swapping with prev's icon here

[whineandcheese24]

there is nothing y'all can say to me that will convince me that Max didn't want to kiss the Human Ken Doll (and vice versa). like, why were they sitting so closely?

[whineandcheese24]

they have a handshake where they blow kisses at each other? what am I watching?

[whineandcheese24]

Honestly this kind of take is part of a larger problem I have with the way fandom perceives forgiveness. People tend to equate forgiveness in fiction with excusing what a character's done and/or being all about the forgivee instead of the forgiver. But in reality, forgiveness is about the person doing the forgiving, and it has more to do with their own mental state than the other person's actions.

Ted didn't tell Jamie to forgive his dad because it was the Right Thing. He said that because Jamie said that being mad at his dad wasn't helping him anymore. Jamie didn't forgive his dad because of anything his dad did, he did it because it was what was best for his own mental health.

And you can argue that Jamie shouldn't have been all buddy buddy with his dad in the final montage or whatever, and part of me agrees with you. But that brings me to my other problem which is how people aren't great at empathizing with fictional characters.

"But I'm made at X because of how much I can feel they hurt Y". Yeah, sure, but can you empathxe with how that anger is affecting Y? There's a layer of separation between ficitonal characters and real people that I don't think everyone understands. Jamie's dad comes on screen and you hate him, but for you that hatred is a catharsis created by the show to feel good for you. And then you turn off the TV and you don't have to think about it anymore. Jamie has to deal with this anger all the time. It's not cathartic for him, it justs hurts. You don't want to forgive Jamie's dad, but he's not actually a part of your life. He's just a fictional character you don't have to deal with irl. Jamie does. So of course he's going to choose the root that feels better, and often the root that feels better is the one that has less anger.

Ted telling Jamie to forgive his dad is all the proof we need to know that he's not a good person. Ruined the character entirely.

[whineandcheese24]

umm... why are they looking at each other like that?