#groundbreakers

[kattahj]

The Barbie movie isn't about girl power. It's not about how women can do everything they set their mind to. It's about how sometimes women are tired and average and that has to be okay too, because you don't have to do everything to be worth anything. (And that this is also true of men.)

[cryptidlurkingindacorner]

pressure the game where everything is the exact same except sebastian is 2 ft tall

[sortingmyideas]

every time you say there 'is no platonic explanation' for two characters interacting in any way, you owe every aro and ace person on the planet 200 dollars

[oc-loving]

share a physical feature of your oc's that you like a lot!

[the-groundbreakers-modern-dance]

MONKEY KING Een danstheater met circus.

[hellyeahscarleteen]

We could use your help!

If you support the groundbreaking, inclusive, affirming, feminist, comprehensive, young-people-centered, queer sex ed for all we've provided for 25+ years to over 90 million people, please help us raise the $15K we need to pay our bills in 2024, or become one of 250 new donors we need for 2025! You can do that at Scarleteen.com/contribute or by heading to our site and clicking ‘Pitch-In ’. 🎉 If you’re already donating (thank you!) please consider increasing your monthly amount, if you can, even a little bit. We’ll count any increases we get towards our two goals! You can do that by clicking 'Manage Your Donation' in your latest donation receipt. If you can’t donate yourself, can you tell your friends, family and followers who we are, why you value our work and ask them if they’d be willing to donate? You can share this post and the link above, but using your own words is the most effective! Despite leading the way in SRE online from the 1990s on, and always making sure young people have access to good information even when it is suppressed elsewhere in their lives, we remain underfunded, including funding to pay our staff a fair, living wage. We need to meet this $15K goal to fund our most basic needs and our tightest budget. If you can help us do that, we can focus on providing awesome SRE, growing, improving and kicking-ass, and finding more funding for 2025. Thank you! ❤️

- The Scarleteam

[margaretkart]

Homer would be proud? Of what exactly? A film about his work with no Greek actors, no Greek crew, and absolutely no effort to respect Greek culture? Instead, we get Viking ships, Moroccan architecture, medieval castles, and costumes that look like they came from a random fantasy series. This isn't an adaptation, it's a historical disaster.

How do you take one of the most defining epics of Greek civilization and strip it of everything authentically Greek? This isn’t artistic liberty; it’s blatant disregard. If Homer saw this, he wouldn’t be honored, he’d be wondering what bizarre alternate timeline he woke up in.

The executives being so out of touch that they simply pat eachother in the back congratulating themselves, thinking that the creator himself would approve of this? Let's be for real 🙂

[omgthatdress]

Okay here's the thing about method dressing, that is, wearing shit on the red carpet inspired by the role you just played. It can absolutely eat. This dress is amazing.

BUT the biggest thing: the schtick gets fucking old. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande have been doing their green and pink Elphaba and Glinda thing since the fucking summer Olympics. Yup. 8 months of pink and green, always showing up in the same variants of the aesthetic again and again and again and again.

It's fun when you do it at premieres. Zendaya has been so good at making it fun and not over-doing it. Ariana and Cynthia dressing as their Wicked roles, however, I am so fucking sick of.

I wish I could love this dress and appreciate how spectacular it is, because it is woooonderful. But now I just wish it would fucking end.

[hearthmistress]

i'm sure this has been articulated before and probably better, but i can't stop thinking about the fact that the main reason buddie fans hate Tommy (outside from the fact he is blocking their ship from becoming "canon") is because Tommy is getting the Eddie storyline they want. Or rather, the fandom idea of Eddie is being played out with Tommy's character arc.

This really clicked with me after I watched a nearly 4hr 9-1-1 recap youtube video created by a buddie fan. I genuinely think (the buddie of it all and their view of Tommy aside) it's a great video and worth a watch! Really articulates what makes 9-1-1 fun and lovable, the issues the show has (especially with copaganda), the bad writing with certain characters and character plot arcs, and genuinely had a lot of points I agree with/have been saying myself since I started watching 9-1-1. Even the buddie of it all, I could get on board with because I like watching people argue why they ship something - I don't have to agree with it or like the ship to be interested.

My main issue with the video (and why I can't stop thinking about it) is how the creator viewed Tommy and how (perhaps purposefully) bad-faith they have interpreted his actions towards Buck. Again, I don't care if someone doesn't like Tommy or has no strong opinions of him, but I prefer people's dislike to be based on reality and/or what the character actually did, and not through the rose-coloured glasses of a shipper lens.

When the creator of the video brought up Tommy as Buck's love interest, they mostly said they were rather cool on him and that we don't know a lot about him yet to really know the character (and given that this was published before S8, that's fair). However, they bring up the cafe scene in S7E05 and Tommy's "mmmm, not like that" line as "evidence" that Tommy's indifferent to Buck and this is where buddies and general audiences separate into different realities, because this moment is a) clearly supposed to be funny/romcomsque and b) demonstrates Tommy's dry wit and, dare i say, sassiness - a trait applauded by buddie fans with Eddie (and they use as proof as his "queerness") but condemned when a canonically gay character does it. The video creator themselves mentions numerous times Eddie's sassiness as a positive trait (and to be fair, they also mention that it's sort of Eddie's default trait because he's a nothingburger character - which I agree with), but when Tommy does it, it suddenly demonstrates that a character doesn't really like/care for their love interests (which given what we know about S8.... hilarious in hindsight, holy projection batman).

Anyways, that really clicked into place for me that the (outsized) outrage buddies have towards Tommy is because he is canonically demonstrating traits they want to see in Eddie/how they view (fandom) Eddie.

Tommy as a character is:

-a deeply closeted gay man when we first meet him, who participates in toxic masculinity as a means to protect himself and/or because he can't (or is unable to) fully articulate himself as a queer person.

-alluded to have been raised in an environment where he had to hide his queerness (as discussed specifically in S7E10 with 118 being a "regressive place" when he was there). Is pressured by both his biological family and his work "family" to maintain a certain idea of manhood, and by extension, stay closeted. Also served in the army, an institute infamous for being homophobic, and undoubtedly influenced his ideas around duty and manhood.

-unable to maintain relationships with women, even serious long-term ones as with Abby, and uses these relationships (either subconsciously or not) to maintain the illusion of his heterosexuality.

-tied with "traditional" masculine interests/hobbies/institutes. He was in the army, he likes monster trucks, fighting, craft beer, flies a helicopter, etc. He seems, on the surface, a guy's guy.

-now canonically out and was/is in a relationship with Buck and has served, vitally, as a closet key to Buck, ensuring that two firefighters on the silly weewoo show are, in fact, together.

-very clearly invested in Buck's well-being, both within and outside of relationship. Has demonstrated numerous times "going out" of his way to put Buck's emotional needs first and to value Buck in way others (Eddie) do not.

-one half of a groundbreaking queer relationship. Cannot be repeated enough, the fact that the show has a main character (beloved by fandom and the general audience alike) come out as queer in a long-running mainstream show is groundbreaking. The fact that Tommy is one half of this ship is so important both to the show and Buck's entire arc. It is important and groundbreaking.

These are almost all things/traits that buddie fans argue make Eddie queer and/or why buddie would be a groundbreaking ship. Which sure, but the reality is the showrunners, the actors, the show itself have maintained Eddie is straight, and (as articulated by the creator themselves in the video) most of what they project onto Eddie comes from the fact he is poorly written rather than because the show was planning on making Eddie gay in the first place.

I read through numerous comments for the recap video and for a following video from the same creator about whether they had been queerbaited (I wish buddies learned the term "ship-tease" because if one half of your ship is canonically queer, no you cannot be queerbaited and dismissing Buck's canonical queerness just because your ship is not happening is, uh, a problem), and numerous times buddies have mentioned how "groundbreaking" buddie would be as if all the things they mention about the ship hasn't already happened with Bucktommy on the show. Their issue is not that the show refuses to do this (and the amount of comments I read that said things like 'they'll never make buddie happen because the network is too conservative'.... for a show with a black lesbian relationship from season 1 and has already made half of your ship queer and made him fuck nasty on screen with his male love interest.... the mental gymnastics is too much), but the fact that the show HAS already done this, just not with their blorbo of choice.

My closing thoughts (for now, I have MANY!) is that in the follow up video about being "queerbaited by 9-1-1", numerous comments asked "if Eddie isn't gay, that would mean he's just emotionally immature, terrible to women, and not a great friend or parent. He would be the worst character on the show".... and like yes, that's the real character you are choosing to stan, not the fanfic one! I fully understand that Eddie is blank canvas for most buddies to pin their hopes and dreams onto (again, because he is poorly written and is essentially a nothingburger character), but no matter how you twist each bucktommy interaction, make bad-faith interpretations, project things that never happened onto Tommy, in the end, Eddie is still a straight boring character. And Tommy is the one who is canonically living out the character-arc you so desperately want to see on the show.

[addawithbalmiki]

on my posting era so last post tonight about why Mel and Frank are perceived as being romantic despite all the media's (scoff) disbelief and why can't a woman and man be friends doesn't really work for them: BECAUSE Langdon already has female friends and his dynamic with them are soooo different from what he shares with Mel.

they repeatedly point out how langdon is not someone who's, while quite likable, soft and gentle. he banters with garcia, collins and dana. he's wildly gleeful and snarky over every single conversation, even while treating patients. he's serious and distant with trinity, and hostile with her later on. he shows kindness to whittaker when his patient dies, but doesn't go out of his way to engage with him. with everyone else in the show, frank langdon is shown to be a bit of an asshole and abrasive without softening his edges.

EXCEPT MEL.

like the change isn't immediate. he doesn't automatically go soft on her, but when he sees that she's not engaging with him the way he's comfortable with and also that she's quite different, he changes his approach. he praises her in ways he doesn't praise anyone. he seeks her out for patient care. he constantly asks her if she's okay. it's a direct contrast to the man frank langdon is portrayed to be and he's so vocal about his preference that there's no room for misinterpretation. add to this the constant running theme of langdon being a neglectful husband and the patients reflecting his life, you can see that what mel and frank share is an instant connection.

and then people will come and cry about "why can't a man and woman be friends?"

[nataliescatorccioapologist]

Knowing that Nat got rescued from the wilderness just in time to watch the premiere of The Sopranos gives me peace

[rexomi]

Something something. Making Solas a liar in Veilguard actively brings back a problem they fixed working on Inquisition.

On December 20 2019 VGS posted an interview with Trick Weekes about their work on Solas. This whole sentence is a link so its large enough for mobile but also disclaimer this is before they changed their name so deadname warning.

Here's a transcription I found here which is where i took the screenshots above. Since I know not everyone has 40 minutes to listen to an online radio interview.

I however highlighted the main point since most of you are not reading the screenshots anyway but skimming through. Rant under Read-more. Also bc i try to not be too negative on people's dashs but also i wanna ramble some more.

"But he lied a lot more. And it really weakened his character."

You can tell this happened during the game. Solas lies only once within Inquisition. He says something he can't be vague about and you push him so he lies, badly. He usually tells the truth vaguely. Typically Solas lies no more than Blackwall.

I fully believe that if in Inquisition your inquisitor figured out that Solas was Fen’harel and asked him bluntly to his face he'd confess. He might even be impressed. But why would you ever start to think that. No one assumes that their coworker is actually Poseidon regardless of how much they love the beach and ocean.

He hides in your expectations.

You can't ask him about being an ancient elf or being Fen'harel of myth because those aren't very probable. They're astronomically low to be truth within that universe. And outside, no one finished DA2 and went i wonder if one of our next companions is the Dread Wolf. Sera said, impossible things can't be surprises. He doesn't have to lie so when the truth comes out it's becomes obvious on a second playthrough.

They then actively bring back a problem they fixed in Inquisitions development. That they were open about fixing. That having a character that outright lies to you makes you have no intention of even hearing out the character. It retroactively undercuts Inquisition bc i see people trying to find Solas' lies in it when they aren't going to find any beyond the court intrigue.

It undercuts any lore we do get from Solas bc people dismiss it outright as being a lie from Mr "I abhor blood magic". I feel like shaking people's shoulders like no, dont do it.

They retconned him guys i have proof from 2019.

And its like if you hate Solas is this even satisfying? Like that's not Solas. His motivations are gone (that's a whole other post) and so is his core personality trait. It's like they went here's the Dreadwolf but during the ten years they replaced the smug asshole who was insufferably right with a 20 yo senior chihuahua that doesnt have any teeth.

My favorite villains are those that tell the truth. Because nothing hurts more than the truth. Can you imagine if he told you the truth. If he told you horrible things that you dismissed as lies to only be true. Wouldn't Varric’s death have more weight if he told you Varric was dead only for you - for everyone - to see him in the Lighthouse. If it was a spirit who took his shape to help you or even because it saw something worth reflecting in your memories.

So you dismiss him until it's revealed near the end oh he was telling the truth and you have an oh shit maybe he was right about other things but its too late to try and stop any of the truths he told you which could be from allies/companions betraying to stuff about Ghilan'nain and Elgarnan.

Like the only way to redeem Solas was to listen to him and by going out of your way to address problems he sees and you can find the alternative to tearing down the Veil by a series a little puzzle pieces throughout the game.

Have it be he will only listen to you if you listen to him. That he'll reject your other solution bc why the hell would he trust you if you couldnt extend the same.

Like Solas couldve been a great villian and he should've been great for both the haters and those that liked him. Not only the romance but for those who became his friend. Like i keep coming back to if i hated Solas would i be satisfied with Veilguard.

And the answer is no because that isnt Solas.

Tricking him has no weight bc he's an idiot in Veilguard like not even in the ending bc doesn't notice you switch the dagger around like right in front of him but none of his actions make sense. Ppl have mentioned the regret prison makes no sense for Elgarnan and Ghilan'nain bc they don't have regrets.

Attacking Solas has no weight because he literally needs the shit kicked out of him by a dragon for it to even begin to work. They literally need him to be at deaths door before its realistic that Rook could take him in a fight.

Redeem has no weight bc of the massive retcons to his motivations. They had to retcon the post credits scene bc even if Flemythal went hey i don't want you to do this Dai Solas wouldve went okay but that doesnt solve my other problems with the veil including the corruption of spirits and the fact its in literal shambles so i guess is still coming down.

I'm just disappointed. By the end of Trespasser they had a great villian and they just tossed it to the side and reverted him and people are arguing about a character who's sole defining trait in Veilguard is a problem they solved before Inquisition launched.

Basically we can sum it up with a screenshot.

[kayvsdoodles]

old nerd doodle i don't think i posted

[leqclerc]

Charles Leclerc in Formula 1: Drive to Survive, Season 7 (2025)

[mallloryrowinski]

I just wanna know how some of you call yourselves feminists while preaching Catholicism in the same breath. Are you aware that you literally can’t get divorced in Vatican City? Is that okay with you because “marriage is God’s law” or whatever, so women shouldn’t have any rights?

You can’t claim to fight for women’s liberation while defending an institution that has spent centuries oppressing us. The Catholic Church has institutionalized male dominance—banning female clergy, opposing abortion, contraception, and even divorce. These policies directly strip women of autonomy.

If you're picking and choosing what’s convenient while ignoring the harm, that’s not feminism—it’s just cognitive dissonance