Place for Things
What is a subtitle.
Hello there! I'm Dee.
DFTBA.
:)
»

foolished:

Do you ever just want to talk to someone and then you realize you’re not friends anymore? Yeah I really miss you. 

1 day ago on July 29th, 2014 |14,925 notes

"My response to the “I am not a feminist” internet phenomenon….

First of all, it’s clear you don’t know what feminism is. But I’m not going to explain it to you. You can google it. To quote an old friend, “I’m not the feminist babysitter.”

But here is what I think you should know.

You’re insulting every woman who was forcibly restrained in a jail cell with a feeding tube down her throat for your right to vote, less than 100 years ago.

You’re degrading every woman who has accessed a rape crisis center, which wouldn’t exist without the feminist movement.

You’re undermining every woman who fought to make marital rape a crime (it was legal until 1993).

You’re spitting on the legacy of every woman who fought for women to be allowed to own property (1848). For the abolition of slavery and the rise of the labor union. For the right to divorce. For women to be allowed to have access to birth control (Comstock laws). For middle and upper class women to be allowed to work outside the home (poor women have always worked outside the home). To make domestic violence a crime in the US (It is very much legal in many parts of the world). To make workplace sexual harassment a crime.

In short, you know not what you speak of. You reap the rewards of these women’s sacrifices every day of your life. When you grin with your cutsey sign about how you’re not a feminist, you ignorantly spit on the sacred struggle of the past 200 years. You bite the hand that has fed you freedom, safety, and a voice.

In short, kiss my ass, you ignorant little jerks.”

- Libby Anne (via newwavenova)

You don’t even have to do much in terms of “activism” to call yourself a feminist. If you believe in equality among all people, especially for women, who have suffered from sexism, then you are a feminist.

1 day ago on July 29th, 2014 |77,786 notes

peterchayward:

fishingboatproceeds:

Earlier today, I met with several students at Addis Ababa University to discuss the opportunities and challenges they face in their academic and professional lives.

One of the biggest challenges we have here on the Internet is hearing…

1 day ago on July 29th, 2014 |5,203 notes
mypocketshurt90:

clarrissssa:

waiting-for-gallifrey:

kaorijoy:

hexcodewhite:

princess-potterheadxo:

did she get a haircut

does it make anyone else uncomfortable that they changed her entire race because she went out with Ron in their sixth year
isn’t that what happened???
they changed a character’s entire race because she as a character became important and relevant for a short amount of time

Wow.

Umm, no. They did not change her entire race simply because she dated Ron. Actually think about it. Up until the sixth book, she was a background character that was only ever mentioned in passing, so she wasn’t given a physical description. Then in the sixth book, Lavender was finally described, as having ‘pale skin and dirty blonde hair’. Well, the first few Harry Potter movies came out before the Half-Blood Prince book did, so the casting directors did what they wanted with the character. 
Another thing, the Lavender Brown from the first few movies only appeared in the first few movies. Lavender didn’t even appear in the 4th and 5th movies, because again, she was a background character, and wasn’t vital to the story. The only reason her race was changed was because a physical description was finally in the books, and it didn’t fit what the directors had, so they had to recast her. It was not because she dated Ron.

Somebody spread this shit because I refuse to have this turn into some social justice bullshit


Lavender’s looks weren’t vital to anything though, not like child Lily’s eye fail.  Why did that even happen?  Daniel couldn’t tolerate contacts for eight movies, not sure why she couldn’t for a few scenes.  Also, Harry’s and Hermione’s hair were far off.  Just really not buying into the director’s sudden concern for accurate book-described looks….but I digress. They could have kept the first Lavender so long as she could play an awkward, infatuated teenager.

Also the fact that I don’t think Lavender is described like that. I think that poster was thinking of Luna’s description? Regardless, they should have been consistent.

mypocketshurt90:

clarrissssa:

waiting-for-gallifrey:

kaorijoy:

hexcodewhite:

princess-potterheadxo:

did she get a haircut

does it make anyone else uncomfortable that they changed her entire race because she went out with Ron in their sixth year

isn’t that what happened???

they changed a character’s entire race because she as a character became important and relevant for a short amount of time

Wow.

Umm, no. They did not change her entire race simply because she dated Ron. Actually think about it. Up until the sixth book, she was a background character that was only ever mentioned in passing, so she wasn’t given a physical description. Then in the sixth book, Lavender was finally described, as having ‘pale skin and dirty blonde hair’. Well, the first few Harry Potter movies came out before the Half-Blood Prince book did, so the casting directors did what they wanted with the character. 

Another thing, the Lavender Brown from the first few movies only appeared in the first few movies. Lavender didn’t even appear in the 4th and 5th movies, because again, she was a background character, and wasn’t vital to the story. The only reason her race was changed was because a physical description was finally in the books, and it didn’t fit what the directors had, so they had to recast her. It was not because she dated Ron.

Somebody spread this shit because I refuse to have this turn into some social justice bullshit

Lavender’s looks weren’t vital to anything though, not like child Lily’s eye fail. Why did that even happen? Daniel couldn’t tolerate contacts for eight movies, not sure why she couldn’t for a few scenes. Also, Harry’s and Hermione’s hair were far off. Just really not buying into the director’s sudden concern for accurate book-described looks….but I digress. They could have kept the first Lavender so long as she could play an awkward, infatuated teenager.

Also the fact that I don’t think Lavender is described like that. I think that poster was thinking of Luna’s description? Regardless, they should have been consistent.

2 days ago on July 29th, 2014 |347,754 notes
demibloods:

why aren’t we talking about this more.

demibloods:

why aren’t we talking about this more.

2 days ago on July 29th, 2014 |135,205 notes

megjinsunmi:

You guys, I feel like Alex Knightley read this blog post and he was like “Oh God, I’m so mad at her, but she’s wearing sweatpants, I drove her to hoodies.”

Get Alex Knightley a GoPro, stat.

2 days ago on July 29th, 2014 |16 notes

emmaapprovedmoments:

Head canon: Next episode, after Emma makes up with Maddy and the latter leaves, Emma is sitting silently in her office when Harriet intercoms her, hesitantly asking, “Emma?… Alex is here. Should I let him in?” And meanwhile Alex is listening in as Harriet intercoms Emma, his heart breaking because he was never refrained from seeing Emma before, and the hesitance in Harriet’s voice makes him realize how much damage he has done to the most important person in his life. 

2 days ago on July 28th, 2014 |70 notes

YOU’RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO LISTEN (x)

3 days ago on July 27th, 2014 |26,162 notes

julieidk:

if someone tells you that you are not good enough, do not listen to them because you are 100% good enough

3 days ago on July 27th, 2014 |167,531 notes

airgeatlamh:

JK Rowling said she would have made Seamus/Dean canon but she felt it would be distracting from the main trio

Literally how much space do you need to have a line about Dean asking Seamus to the Yule ball

Look, I’ll try

"Parvati had tried to ask Dean to the ball, but he told her he was going with Seamus instead."

DONE

3 days ago on July 27th, 2014 |27,318 notes