CAMaraderie: If River Song can concentrate on a dress size and this is her second regeneration, why can't the Doctor concentrate on...
Woman Time Lords can control the way they will look when they regenerate, while male Time Lords cannot. This was established in Classic Who, when Romana regenerated.
Also, the Doctor wanting to be Ginger is not about the hair…
When the Second Doctor is forced to undergo regeneration (not that it’s called that at the time) the Time Lords give him a few options as to what he can look like. My guess is he’s absolutely rubbish at the whole regeneration thing, having only once or twice (3-4, 6-7 depending on whether you count the Rani being aboard the TARDIS while he’s still regenerating) regenerated in the presence of another Time Lord. The 3-4 regeneration required that Time Lord to give him a bit of a push. The Jacobi Master exercises some choice over his regeneration into Simm’s Master and Romana pretty much does whatever the hell she wants.
For months, every morning when my daughter was in preschool, I watched her construct an elaborate castle out of blocks, colorful plastic discs, bits of rope, ribbons and feathers, only to have the same little boy gleefully destroy it within seconds of its completion.
No matter how many times he did it, his parents never swooped in BEFORE the morning’s live 3-D reenactment of “Invasion of AstroMonster.” This is what they’d say repeatedly:
“You know! Boys will be boys!”
“He’s just going through a phase!”
“He’s such a boy! He LOVES destroying things!”
“Oh my god! Girls and boys are SO different!”
“He. Just. Can’t. Help himself!”
I tried to teach my daughter how to stop this from happening. She asked him politely not to do it. We talked about some things she might do. She moved where she built. She stood in his way. She built a stronger foundation to the castle, so that, if he did get to it, she wouldn’t have to rebuild the whole thing. In the meantime, I imagine his parents thinking, “What red-blooded boy wouldn’t knock it down?”
She built a beautiful, glittery castle in a public space.
It was so tempting.
He just couldn’t control himself and, being a boy, had violent inclinations.
Her consent didn’t matter. Besides, it’s not like she made a big fuss when he knocked it down. It wasn’t a “legitimate” knocking over if she didn’t throw a tantrum.
His desire — for power, destruction, control, whatever- - was understandable.
Maybe she “shouldn’t have gone to preschool” at all. OR, better if she just kept her building activities to home.
I know it’s a lurid metaphor, but I taught my daughter the preschool block precursor of don’t “get raped” and this child, Boy #1, did not learn the preschool equivalent of “don’t rape.”
Not once did his parents talk to him about invading another person’s space and claiming for his own purposes something that was not his to claim. Respect for her and her work and words was not something he was learning. How much of the boy’s behavior in coming years would be excused in these ways, be calibrated to meet these expectations and enforce the “rules” his parents kept repeating?
There was another boy who, similarly, decided to knock down her castle one day. When he did it his mother took him in hand, explained to him that it was not his to destroy, asked him how he thought my daughter felt after working so hard on her building and walked over with him so he could apologize. That probably wasn’t much fun for him, but he did not do it again.
There was a third child. He was really smart. He asked if he could knock her building down. She, beneficent ruler of all pre-circle-time castle construction, said yes… but only after she was done building it and said it was OK. They worked out a plan together and eventually he started building things with her and they would both knock the thing down with unadulterated joy. You can’t make this stuff up.
Take each of these three boys and consider what he might do when he’s older, say, at college, drunk at a party, mad at an ex-girlfriend who rebuffs him and uses words that she expects will be meaningful and respected, “No, I don’t want to. Stop. Leave.”
The “overarching attitudinal characteristic” of abusive men is entitlement.
I’m sticking with a hard “G” (like “gift”}
I don’t think I can say it with a soft G.
Or, you know, Hard G like “Graphics” - the word it represents.
Dude doesn’t even know his own word.
“Jay-pheg” for JPEG then, right?
He may have invented the GIF but he’s still a dummy.
Correcting the pronunciation of a file extension is one of the most pointless things to do. It literally does not matter; people know what you mean. It’s a made-up thing, it’s not a word. Who cares if people say “ghiff” or “djiff”, just let me have an animated cat picture.
Also this wouldn’t be a problem if people switched to MNG files.
It’s “MUNG” you fool!
This photoset should be required reading for every citizen.
I had to explain this in philosophy yesterday. to fellow adults.
It is so shocking when grown adults (from some super sheltered midwestern suburb usually) are like “uhmmm monkeys and humans barely even look alike, and like… evolution? i mean, we aren’t pokemon, duh!”
I just don’t even know how to respond to such fuckery.
This post is a good resource, but I honestly think people like that usually don’t WANT to learn. They turn away and go “NO CUZ THE EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD!!!”