Jul 26, 2024
EMMA (2020) costume appreciation: 5/∞ (costume design by Alexandra Byrne)
Loading...
seen from Spain
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from Lithuania
seen from Canada
seen from Israel
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Yemen
seen from United States
seen from Israel
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
seen from T1
seen from Russia
seen from Switzerland
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from China
EMMA (2020) costume appreciation: 5/∞ (costume design by Alexandra Byrne)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
if you are still taking frank pov requests: i am adoring the hardcore loserly pining we're getting in wise mind, but i would also be very interested in something earlier in frank's emotional arc, like when he first starts to be very drawn to mel or when he first realizes how into her he is!
[love this prompt, got carried away, oops - set during ch 1 of EC - 4.6k]
Frank’s really nervous about co-teaching.
He’s not entirely new to it. He remembers his time with his cooperating teacher during his student teaching placements and he co-taught with Donnie during his first year, but he was basically a completely different person then: a newlywed, a new parent, new to Pittsburgh with a fully functional back. Still in love with Abby; still loved by her for every part of himself.
(He hopes. He doesn’t think she was lying about that, at least.)
There’s a lot making him nervous about coming back to PTMHS. He and Leanne talked for a long time about whether he should move to a different school, spend some time outside of the classroom, switch out of education entirely, but Frank’s always loved a challenge and hated ending things. Besides, it felt like there was something calling him back to the Pitt.
Not to be too dramatic, but he’s starting to wonder if that was Mel King.
no, the u.s. does not teach geography in most places, unfortunately. now, every single state has different laws about what you have to teach, and then many curriculum decisions are made at the local/municipal/county level (not to mention homeschooling and private schooling creating another level of variation), so there are always exceptions and SO MUCH of what specific kind of education you got/get depends on your exact geographic location (your region, your state, your city or county, and then--within the school district you were in--which specific school you went to because school budgets are linked to property taxes in most places so the schools in nice neighborhoods always have more resources). and i grew up in a red state and all of my cousins (whose educations i know best after my own) also grew up in red states, mostly in the south.
but in general geography isn't a priority. when you're in elementary and middle school, the area of study is called "social studies" and this is supposed to combine history, civics, and geography (and possibly other social sciences) which is actually a great idea in theory, but there is VERY little world history when you're that age. most of it is u.s. and state history--one year you'll do u.s. history, the next you'll focus on your state, etc. and in most places, instead of building on things slowly, you do the same big things (maybe a unit on native people, colonialism, the revolutionary war, the civil war) over and over again at different age levels. world history and dedicated geography of any kind aren't really available for most students until high school and even then it's often an elective--you could take something else instead.
this is in addition to the fact that only within the last twenty years or so are most school districts even starting to think about the importance of foreign language learning at a young level. i wasn't required to take a foreign language until high school, and then the options were limited (spanish, french, and one latin class that was only still offered because an older teacher loved to teach latin and people thought it would help with a.c.t. scores--i doubt it's still offered at the school i went to). now, i did go to a smaller high school with more limited offerings, and i'm sure if you go to a big school in a big district, especially in a big city, you might have more language options. but foreign language acquisition was not a priority when i was coming up in the 90s, nor was it when my younger cousins were in school in the 2000s.
nowadays, there are lots more language immersion elementary and middle schools (especially spanish language ones) not to make students who speak spanish as a first language more comfortable but to teach white kids to speak spanish because everyone knows it's good for the brain now to learn another language when you're very young. okay, and also because a lot of people in education really are progressive and want kids to remember that the u.s. isn't the only country in the world.
but teaching students about the realities of the rest of the world just wasn't a big priority in u.s. schools when i was a kid and i doubt it is now in most places. almost all the world history i learned, i learned from historical fiction i read on my own. so i know quite a lot, but that's because i was a voracious reader who was always looking for stories about people from places other than the contemporary u.s. and then after high school i discovered that nonfiction could be awesome, actually, at least if it's about history! i don't think very many people have that trajectory.
i think the thing to remember is that in addition to just general usamerican exceptionalism (which truly cannot be understated), the things we teach and how we teach it are very much still influenced by suppositions and standards that were shaped by cold war attitudes where the whole point of education was to prepare u.s. kids to grow up and beat the soviets. from the 1940s through at least the late 80s, politicians were very, very explicit about the purpose of education being to create good patriots and good future workers to make the u.s. prosperous and strong and defeat worldwide communism. this faded out of explicit rhetoric for most people from the "the end of history" 90s through the 2010s, but it's coming up again with the moral panics over things like critical race theory, low birth rates, and the rise of china.
when i was a kid, even in my very middle class environment, there was little or no expectation that when you grow up, you might visit other countries. most usamericans have never had a passport. what did you need to learn about the rest of the world for? it has no affect on you. the u.s. shapes the world, not the other way around. (i genuinely wonder how many u.s.americans knew where afghanistan was before 9/11. the ones who did probably only knew because of our other gulf wars in the 90s.)
i am overstating somewhat. the intensity of this varied from place to place and was certainly much stronger in poorer/more southern/more rural/more religious areas. but the u.s. education system, which can be very good in some specific areas (STEM stuff, mostly), is incredibly lacking in other ways. ways that are just embarrassing. from the many states that still teach abstinence-only sex education to the ones that never teach students how taxes work or have them learn a non-english language.
and don't even GET ME STARTED on what the "no child left behind" policy has done to education. the focus is teaching to the test (the a.c.t. or s.a.t.), college admission rates, and on containing behavioral problems that are caused by other systems (racism, mass incarceration, and poverty in particular). and then there's the way that rightwing reactionaries have presented teachers' unions as the enemy and have made the relationship between parents and teachers a combative one in many cases. school budgets have been shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. there's also the increasing power of rightwing christians who think that education exists only for indoctrination and are convinced it should be THEIR indoctrination. i think it's safe to say that the u.s. social system does not care very much about education in general, and i feel VERY safe saying that the system doesn't care about producing good global citizens.
the sucky part is: we have many incredible, dedicated, knowledgeable teachers. but they are hamstrung by so much stupidity, political/religious intervention, and lack of resources.
(This is in regards to a post about time zones/hemispheres and my bafflement in the tags about how the USA does not teach geography)
This ask opened my eyes about how the USA is self-centric to levels I did NOT clock until now! It explains a LOT about some american's behaviors - so the country really TEACHES (at least to some level) its citizens to be self-centered and to believe the USA is the best in every aspect. I'm still baffled.
I believe many of your points about current education is not exclusive to the USA - brazilian public educational system is great on paper (technically), we have a solid national core curriculum, but we are also very understaffed and underfunded, specially in the poorer regions. And the rise of evangelic/protestant denominations in the last decade is also hindering many efforts we had about mking education more inclusive (in sexual health and gender studies specially).
In most of the country, the private vs public gap in education is astounding! In fact, the billionaire private educational sector here grew in response to the decaying quality of the public system (and to separate the rich from the poor, of course). It's very common to have lower middle class families paying so their children can go to private schools (that range from ok-ish to very very good). My case included - when I was graduating from (public) pre-school, my teacher called my parents and advised them to try to get me into one of two of the best elementary schools in the city, and if not possible, to try to send me to a private one. I couldn't get into the good public schools - in one you had to be picked in a draw and in the other you had to live closer to it. Growing up beside my cousins, who all went to public school (despite my aunts and uncles having the means to send them to private ones if they really wanted), the difference was baffling - one of my cousins didnt have a proper math teacher for a whole year in high school, just substitute ones not trained to teach math. My educational setting gave me the confidence to pursue a competitive degree many students from public schools would not feel qualified enough to even try. I had the opportunity to thank that teacher for talking to my parents after I got into medical school and we both cried! Teachers really are angels.
Again about geography - it's such a core discipline, how did you guys decided to just scrap it off?? I don't know if this is just a brazilian thing, because the country is deeply miscegenated, but we learn about so many countries and cultures since so very young! Also the physical aspect of geography (that I always hated and sucked at it) - I remember being very young and being lectured about meridians and parallels, time zones, land topography, how the Earth movements affect the seasons in the hemispheres, etc.
This talk prompted me to look at what the hell I was learning in geography in elementary school, and thanks to my mom who still hoards my school quizzes like I am going to need to prove any day about really knowing this stuff, I could get some examples! Circa 2004/2005 (second and third grade):
Land topography and cardinal directions, specifically
My handwriting didnt improve much since then, tbh
I would love to hear more about teacher's opinions on this topic! I know the pitt fandom has a bunch of them
Sooooo many of my problems with Robby would go poof if he was just another attending. He would feel so much less pressure and would probably take that out on his coworkers less. Like, I don't think he would immediately become a nurturing mentor to Samira or whatever, but I bet the intensity would lessen. He's clearly a very good doctor to his patients, and most of my problems with him relate to how he treats the residents and medical students. I can't help thinking he would be happier and healthier if he could just be a doctor. And Baran clearly has much more respect for bureaucracy and navigating it--she's the kind of person who understands all the "stakeholders" (I hate the way that word gets used, but it can be a useful label!) and knows how to navigate working with them. And Robby and Abbot would still be there to perhaps push her when she needs to push back against admin, which needs to happen. But she would get SO much further with admin, be so much more effective, than Robby or Abbot ever could be. They'd listen to her in a way that they don't listen to Robby. Like, most of the time I think Robby's right when he pushes back with Gloria, but he does it in the least helpful way, the way that's going to ensure that the highers-up do not listen or take him seriously!
Robinavitch got the role of chief attending put on his shoulders after Adamson's death, and for more than 5 years he got no support, no other attending to second him when needed (he hasn't taken any time off in years, as Abbot mentions). Adamson was his mentor in medicine, but I don't know how much he told him being chief attending involves, and Robinavitch wasn't ready for that. Yeah, not having to deal with the bureaucratic side of his job would have certainly helped him
Baran Al-Hashimi, on the other hand, is much more used to the intricacies of the role. She's also way more diplomatic, so dealing with the administrative side of being an attending comes way more naturally to her. She also seem to be more observant of the people around her, and finds the way to talk to them, even if it's not always right the first time
Robinavitch and Al-Hashimi aren't made to be the same kind of attending, and it's a good thing if he lets her deal with the responsibilities. Also he's the one worrying that she might have a crisis while working on a trauma, so if he can be full doctor, he will relieve her of that, while she relieve him of his own weakness. They could be complementary, if only he accepted to "surrender" his role of chief!
i could NOT agree more tht wesley is only interesting when he's with lilah.
See, the thing is, the MOST interesting Wesley ever has been in Angel the Series is '...I'll take away your bucket.'. That's just facts. High point of Wesley Wyndham-Pryce right there. And that's the sort of behaviour that's intricately tied into the arc when he was off on his own, in parallel with seeing Lilah. It's very Gone Girl speech re: 'the only time you ever liked yourself was when you were trying to be someone this c*nt might like', you know? [excuse the asterisk, I can't predict what this site will and won't refuse to post or hide from your dash lol]
The thing with Wesley as a character is, most of the time before Lilah and after Lilah, he suffers from 'I'm a Good Person Syndrome'. He THINKS he's a good person, ergo everything he does must already be good, and conversely, everyone he sees as an antagonist is (logically of course!), bad. This would be interesting, except unfortch the show's omniscient viewpoint SHARES that view. Wesley is a super special and polite boy who's smarter and nicer and cleverer than everyone, but no-one respects him, which is very unfair on this special widdle man, because he's SO charming, and he's British (which is very delightful in this context apparently) and he's SO right all the time, and he NEVER gets what he wants. Don't you just FEEL for him? Don't you just EMPATHISE? His personal goodness is also somehow inversely proportional to his sufferings: the inherent badness of his persecutors (the world's opinion of him, his father, demonic villains) - they are so obviously bad, and he's suffering from them, therefore he MUST, logically, be a good person. All he has to do is wake up in the morning and he's already sooooo special and good, job done. Having to enter into this viewpoint for the narrative to make sense is one of the major drags of a lot of his plots.
And then. AND THEN. for a brief arc, he let all that go! and it was GLORIOUS. Because it wasn't an 'oh I'm evil now' arc like Faith had, or a sudden/temporary turn like Angel/Angelus, where they twirl their little evil moustaches and get their evil leather pants out and go nuts with the eyeliner, where afterwards they have an Evil Hangover when they turn good again and have to go on a redemption binge/fast cycle. Oh no, Wesley took a much more simple approach: he just sort of forgot to hate himself for a bit*, and became suddenly a PERSON and I was RIVETED. He kept someone strategically-important to the plot chained in a closet! He told Lilah exactly what he thought of her, as he was thinking it, without reservation to how that made him look! He stopped trying to appear clever, and was just smart. He was the most effective demon-hunting investigator he's EVER BEEN, because he spent all his time just getting the job done, instead of 40% of his (and the show's and my attention's) energy setting up how lovely and put-upon and polite and British and hard-done-by he was. Anyway, it was great while it lasted.
(*I stole this from The Long Kiss Goodnight, 1996, where Samuel L Jackson's character accuses the extremely awesome Gina Davis' character of this when she gets amnesia and briefly becomes a functional human being, instead of a badass-spy-violent-unpredictable-disaster-person. It's a work of immortal genius, obviously)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Return of the Thief will be released on October 10, 2024 and there will be TWO matched sets of all six books! Wahooo!
you sure do reblog a lot of kingdon for someone who doesn't even go here! lol!!!!
oh my god, i know! i did watch the first two episodes of season one when they initially dropped last year, but i never progressed past that point? i guess with these two idiotic nerds [and their various associates], i just prefer curated micro-doses from those i trust - such as yourself!
to be fair, too, i followed a similar route with the rookie as well! i was fully okay with fandom absorption until lucy got buried in that barrel and tim found her because of her damn ring and then gave her cpr and stayed with her all night reading articles about bts in the hospital. after that? SO NOT CASUAL.
should kingdon have an event of similar catastrophic proportions, perhaps my theoretical viewing will transition to reality?
🔥 for star wars eu
My unpopular opinion for this is that I don't like Luke/Mara and never have - which among SW EU readers is basically heresy! I love Mara Jade as a character but I didn't buy into Luke/Mara as a kid and I didn't vibe with it as an adult either when I was rereading the books. I just don't like it for either of them and am not interested in seeing more of it, and as a kid I stopped reading EU books past the point where they got together and it was very focused on their romance. I started reading a lot more of the side quests and pre-OT/post-PT books once that happened!
(I was actually afraid, back in the early ST days, that if they brought Mara Jade back they would do so to establish Luke/Mara in the movies, but then Bigger Worse Things happened and Disney just didn't seem interested in rescuing women from the EU books, only men.)