No I don't want your number And no I don't want to give you mine
This song is destroying my soul in the best way.
Ships, Songs, Stars & Stiles
Peter isn’t telling the truth. So was Paige a complete lie? Or maybe, was it Derek’s involvement in the story that was the lie?
I think Paige was real but I don’t think she happened to Derek. She happened to Peter. Peter, who’s the cocky, suave charmer, the captain of the basketball team, the one who’s there to watch the alphas arrive at Beacon Hills and who’s present at all the stages of Paige’s attack and her failed turning.
MY MIND IS BLOWN
I liked Visionary and felt so frustrated by all the negative posts about it I found on Tumblr. I thought they were missing the point. Both Gerard and Peter may be unreliable narrators but as I watched I was mostly painstakingly aware that the most unreliable narrator here IS DEFINITELY JEFF DAVIS.
We don’t have enough data, at this point, for anything to make sense and if you try to piece every ep back together in order to figure it out IT WON’T ADD UP. It’s meant NOT TO.
WE SIMPLY DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. It’s all a gigantic clusterfuck and I don’t trust anything anymore except that Gerard is evil and I hate him and Peter is evil and I love him.
This theory that this happened to Peter totally works for me. He was cleary projecting during his account of events, trying to disguise his lies behind GENUINE emotion. Let’s keep in mind that Peter has been pretty much useless so far this season. So whatever really happened this is the first inkling THAT PETER HALE IS UP TO SOMETHING. At least I hope he is.
Watching this episode was so weird. I was like:
"WHAT IS HAPPENING??? This is like a completely different show, an actually good one."
See, this season had failed to meet my expectations so far, BUT I LIKED FRAYED OMG YES, MORE.
And then THIS happened and I’m like NOPE. Most infuriating ending ever. I am not buying it, I am pissed & I DON’T CARE HOW THIS TURNS OUT YOU HEAR? Way to ruin a good ep.
Once again the question of Sterek in canon has been raised and once again I feel like we’re kind of missing the point. This conversation is not new, it’s been had for a year, ever since the possibility appeared for real when Jeff Davis said it might be possible.
When I watched the first season, I…
"I want to see them bleed for this."
THIS, SO MUCH. I ship Sterek because, should they get together, they would be this magnificent TRAIN WRECK. I want to see them struggle and fight and make a terrible mess of things. Hurt themselves, hurt each other, be at a complete loss how to make it work and yet unable to walk away from it. Both Derek and Stiles are lost and broken. I see their relationship as the best way to explore this. Intimate, heartbreaking moments revealing the inner darkness, the fear and the scars.
I ship Sterek because I am craving depth.
Okay but TW has some REALLY FUCKING WEIRD INTIMIDATION TECHNIQUES.
- Threateningly cleaning windshields for someone
- Angrily grabbing desserts with someone
- Turning off someone’s music in the high school boys’ locker…
"Threateningly removing your shirt at them. It works best when your twin is doing it at the same time."
I can’t. I just can’t. I’m laughing so hard right now. Would we love this stupid show half as much without this utter delicious nonsense? Quality television indeed.
"Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions.
Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately ‘favouring’ the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time.
In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:
The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.
In other words, if women talk at all, this may be perceived as ‘too much’ by men who expect them to provide a silent, decorative background in many social contexts. This may sound outrageous, but think about how you react when precocious children dominate the talk at an adult party. As women begin to make inroads into formerly ‘male’ domains such as business and professional contexts, we should not be surprised to find that their contributions are not always perceived positively or even accurately."
As a teacher, I give girls what I hope is a lot of attention. I don’t know if I give girls their fair share, but I aspire to, especially after noticing that boys are willing to use their greater share of teachers’ attention to get girls who they feel aren’t being quiet and docile enough punished. I have therefore acquired a reputation for “caring more about the girls.” This has had two marked results: Some straight boys have gotten more hostile toward me, and most girls have gotten more confident around me. This makes me think I’m doing something right.
Longer thoughts on how this phenomenon relates to sexual harassment in classrooms, if you’re interested: The girls figured out I won’t report them if they hit boys who are sexually harassing them, I’ll only report the boys. This led to an increase in how often girls got the last word and boys got smacked in my classes, and, also, to a DECREASE IN HOW OFTEN GIRLS GOT SEXUALLY HARASSED. The sexual harassers seem to have been depending on the sort of “equal blame” and “retaliation is never warranted” and “don’t hurt others’ feelings” perspectives so many schools try to instill in kids; the sexual harassers were usually the ones bringing me into the situation by saying, “Miss, she hit me! You should write her up!” Once they figured out I was only ever going to respond, “If you don’t treat girls like that, they won’t hit you,” the girls got more confident and the sexual harassers largely shut the fuck up.
In schools, fighting against sexual harassment is often punished exactly the same as, or more severely than, sexual harassment — a lot of discipline codes make no distinction between violence and violence in self-defence, and violence is ALWAYS the highest level of disciplinary infraction, whereas verbal sexual harassment rarely is. Sexual harassers, at least in the schools I’ve been in, rely heavily on GETTING GIRLS IN TROUBLE WITH HIGHER AUTHORITIES as a strategy of harassment — creating an external punishment that penalises girls for and therefore discourages girls from fighting back. Sexual harassers are willing to use their greater share of floorspace to ask to get girls who won’t date them punished. By and large, teachers do punish those girls when they swear or hit. Schools condition girls to ignore sexual harassment by punishing them when they speak up or fight back instead.
Once the sexual harassers in my classes understood that girls wouldn’t be punished for rejecting them, they backed off around me. And there started to be a flip in what conversations I get called into — girls are telling me when boys are being nasty (too loud and dominant), instead of boys telling me when girls are being uncooperative (louder and more dominant than boys think they should be).
reblogging again for the wonderful commentary.
The “sexy silence” model is based on two stupid and outdated assumptions: 1) that a man’s pleasure takes priority over a woman’s, and 2) that a woman’s pleasure must be expected and assumed, because how could she ever resist a man? The “just say no” part of the rule didn’t always exist. That developed later when society realized that women should have some say in the matter. Duh.
But “just say no” isn’t enough. Imagine this: since men are expected to make the first move in the majority of sexual situations, where does that leave women if they’re not yet sure what they want? This “sexy silence” standard makes saying “no” or “stop” even harder for women who want to feel sexy but don’t necessarily want to do what their partner wants to do; who want a hug goodnight, but not a kiss; who are excited about kissing, but uncomfortable with petting; who are enthusiastic about making out, but aren’t ready for sex. Being forced to say “no” or “stop” will invariably make the experience end sooner than it might otherwise, and on a rather negative note, even if it started positively with both people excited. Come to think of it, I can’t think of anything less sexy or romantic than making an enthusiastic move and being pushed away, or having to tell someone whom I like to stop what they’re doing.
Even more troubling is the possibility that a woman might not know how or when to put the brakes on, and by simply hesitating for too long, could end up doing any variety of things against her innermost wishes. Oh wait! That happens all the time. It’s called rape. That’s right. The “silence is sexy” model is a big part of how we created rape culture."
This is a fantastic article. But I really, really, really wish articles like this would start using “person” instead of “woman” when they write about someone not being sure what they want sexually. I’m not a woman, most people perceive me to be cismale, but it doesn’t actually fucking matter.
I’m a person who sometimes doesn’t know what they want sexually.
So I’d rewrite this article as follows:
The “sexy silence” standard makes saying “no” or “stop” even harder for people who want to feel sexy but don’t necessarily want to do what their partner wants to do[…].
Even more troubling is the possibility that a person might not know how or when to put the brakes on, and by simply hesitating for too long, could end up doing any variety of things against their innermost wishes.
Seriously, it’s not that big a change to the text, it doesn’t seem like it’d be that big a change to the thought process, and I’m sure I’m not the only person who has had experiences just like this woman, but who is not a woman—who may even be a man (SATIRICAL GASP!)—and who therefore cringes every time they read posts that assume our gender can’t possibly be raped because, I don’t fucking know, we have a penis?
However, that point aside, this is truly an excellent piece and deserves a read.