#(dean would strongly disagree) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mariacallous · 9 months

Text

Last month, as they sought details on what happened in a failed hiring effort, members of the Texas A&M University Faculty Senate suspected they weren’t getting the full story from top administrators.

President Kathy Banks pleaded ignorance in the hiring debacle surrounding Kathleen McElroy, telling faculty members she was unsure what led to McElroy’s claims that Texas A&M offered her a position—with tenure—in a newly formed journalism department only to change the terms of the deal due to concerns over her race (Black), her research and her past work at The New York Times.

Banks, over and over again, claimed to have no knowledge of a change in the contract. But by the time she left the online meeting, faculty members felt strongly the president wasn’t providing straight answers.

“We’re being lied to on a lot of fronts,” one professor said in the July 19 meeting.

“It cries out that we’re not being told a straight story,” another faculty member said.

A day later, on July 20, Banks retired abruptly, citing “negative press” over the hiring spectacle. She made no mention of the distrust expressed by faculty members or the pushback she had faced.

By July 21, the faculty’s concerns had been validated in a report from the Texas A&M system’s Office of the General Counsel that showed Banks’s direct involvement in the McElroy case, with the president’s fingerprints all over the decision to yank the offer and replace it with a nontenured option. The report spelled out, in clear facts, that Banks—under pressure from legislators and regents to drive Texas A&M in a conservative direction—was the architect of the failed hire.

(Banks did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.)

Even on its own, the dishonesty Banks displayed in the McElroy case would have likely sunk any presidency. But for Banks, the McElroy situation came two years into a contentious term, marked by clashes with professors and a top-down leadership style that eroded support from constituents across campus.

At the campus level, the story can be taken as one of hubris and dramatic missteps, but zooming out, the Banks tenure reflects the perils of the modern presidency amid increasing politicization of higher education, especially in red states where skepticism of academe is high.

Two Years of Tensions

Banks assumed the presidency in June 2021 after nine years at the helm of the engineering department. Banks had joined Texas A&M in 2012, coming over from Purdue University.

As dean of the College of Engineering at Texas A&M, Banks was celebrated.

“I must state that initially, when she was named president, I was very optimistic,” Raymundo Arróyave, a Texas A&M materials science and engineering professor, said by email. “In balance, despite the fact that I disagreed with some of the policies that she implemented as dean (this is usual, faculty do not agree with administration 100 percent of the time), I thought that she had been a transformational dean. Our college doubled in the number of students, faculty, footprint, etc. So, she was very effective at elevating the college and had similar hopes for the university.”

But, he added, “Dr. Banks quickly made it clear that her presidency was going to be [one] of dramatic changes. Many of those changes were poorly justified and poorly communicated (lack of effective communication was a common shortcoming of her tenure as dean, by the way).”

The first controversy of the Banks presidency began behind closed doors. Early in her presidency, Banks sought to establish her vision and introduce sweeping changes at Texas A&M. Those changes came in the form of recommendations from MGT Consulting in fall 2021 that included academic consolidation and reorganization, restructuring of certain administrative positions, and various programmatic changes.

But some with direct knowledge of those conversations suggest the recommendations from MGT Consulting were largely dictated by Banks. The president saw the recommendation process as a way to put forth her own ideas and let MGT Consulting take the heat when those proposals were met with resistance, said a source who served in the president’s cabinet.

“She said, ‘Our job is to tell them what we want to do, they’ll write it up in a report, and then, when there’s public criticism, we’ll say we’re following the advice of the consultants,’” the former cabinet member said, speaking anonymously due to concerns about career repercussions.

In conversations in the summer of 2021, senior leaders allegedly dictated to MGT Consulting the recommendations that the firm would later put forth as their own ideas, the source alleges.

“President Banks directly said, ‘Let’s put some things in there that we know the faculty will not like. And then we can reject them so it will look like we’re listening to them.’ The whole process was a PR sham to begin with,” the former cabinet member told Inside Higher Ed, noting that they were unsure of what poison pills were inserted since they did not work on faculty issues.

(MGT Consulting did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.)

Blowback to the MGT Consulting recommendations was immediate. Faculty raised concerns about combining the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Science and the College of Geosciences into a new College of Arts and Sciences. While the university offered little public rationale for the change, recent public documents released by Texas A&M related to the McElroy scandal indicate that—according to a text message from Jay Graham, a member of the Board of Regents—Banks had said the academic consolidation was “to control the liberal nature that those professors brought to campus.” (Neither Graham nor system officials responded to questions about that claim.)

Plans to eliminate tenure for librarians also prompted objections from faculty, particularly as administrators refused to explain the rationale for months before eventually making the argument that a reorganization of the library was needed to streamline and simplify operations to emphasize student needs. Despite the objections of faculty, nearly 30 librarians lost tenure or tenure-track status last year. Others decamped to different departments to maintain tenure.

Outside of the controversy generated by the MGT Consulting report, Banks also stirred anger on campus by announcing plans to kill the print edition of the student newspaper in February 2022 before backing away from that decision. Two months later, Banks defunded Draggieland, an annual drag show run by student organizations in partnership with the university. That decision, made with no initial explanation, prompted outcry from students and LGBTQ+ organizers. Officials would later assert that Draggieland was self-supporting due to ticket sales.

Last July brought changes to Texas A&M Qatar, an overseas outpost operated in conjunction with the Gulf nation’s government. Texas A&M reorganized the Qatar campus, eliminating rolling contracts for faculty in favor of fixed-term deals while consolidating power under one dean and limiting research activities for professors in non-degree-granting units, as outlined in a Banks memo.

Faculty members decried the top-down decision-making, arguing that the elimination of rolling contracts would undercut recruiting efforts and academic freedom at A&M Qatar. As these changes played out, faculty members on the main campus accused Banks of ignoring shared governance and leaving them out of important decisions as she pursued her own agenda.

A Faculty Senate resolution last August accused Banks of a “lack of commitment to meaningful shared governance” that was “promulgating a mistrust of future administrative decisions.” The “absence of shared governance” was “exacerbated by a lack of transparency,” the resolution stated.

As discontent with Banks continued, Karen Wooley, a distinguished professor in the department of chemistry, wrote a letter to Banks in December accusing her of “causing substantial disruptions and threatening the integrity” of Texas A&M, according to various media reports.

In January, Banks announced efforts to increase communication and provide more face time for faculty and staff with university administrators as well as the formation of two new committees to “improve our continuous evaluation and feedback” led by senior administrators, among other changes.

But the January olive branch from Banks did little to settle faculty concerns. By April of this year, frustration with the president’s top-down management style had reached a boiling point. A poll of members of the Council of Principal Investigators, a group of faculty members who help guide research efforts at Texas A&M, found “widespread discontent” and alleged that administrators had created an environment rife with fear and intimidation, The Texas Tribune reported. The poll, inspired by Wooley’s letter, found 89 percent of CPI members had similar concerns.

A Faculty Senate Showdown

By the time Banks met with the Faculty Senate on July 19, tensions on campus were high. The story of how McElroy’s hiring fell through was opaque at the time, and the faculty wanted answers. Instead, Banks deflected their concerns, downplaying her role in and knowledge of the hiring debacle.

Arróyave, the materials science professor, pressed Banks with hard questions, later telling Inside Higher Ed that there was “too much confusion as to who wrote the offer letters, who modified them, who was aware of the additional contract negotiations, etc.” Based on his experience with Banks as engineering dean, Arróyave said he “found it difficult to believe that she was not aware of the contract negotiations.”

The distrust of Banks by faculty members in the meeting was palpable.

Concerns swirled about the influence of outside organizations such as the Rudder Association, a powerful conservative alumni group, and others who were celebrating the failed hire. What faculty didn’t know at the time was that Banks had worked with José Luis Bermúdez, interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, to restructure McElroy’s offer. Bermúdez—who resigned amid the scandal—schemed with Banks on the plan to change the role McElroy was stepping into, as demonstrated in documents later released by the Texas A&M system.

Emails and text messages between university officials, including Banks, indicate that McElroy’s past as a Black woman who worked for The New York Times and researched diversity, equity and inclusion issues was a potential headache for Texas A&M. Banks stressed that it was important to slow-walk the hire until after the end of the legislative session in May, and Bermúdez told a subordinate that it would be “poor optics” to hire McElroy with DEI under fire in Texas. (Lawmakers implemented sweeping restrictions on college DEI offices and work last session.)

As administrators deliberately delayed the process, McElroy dropped out of the running.

“I believe that KM has pulled out. Department just got query from Texas Tribune. I’ll make sure that everything is referred over to Kelly,” Bermúdez texted Banks on July 10, seemingly referring to Kelly Brown, associate vice president of marketing and communications at A&M.

In the exchange that followed, Banks would go on to call McElroy an “awful person” for going to the press and noted, “we have a lot of skeptics about the whole concept of journalism,” while directing Bermúdez to pause the search for a director of the nascent program.

Text messages between regents, released as part of Texas A&M’s internal review, demonstrated that board members also seemed to be exerting influence over the departmental hiring decision.

“Please tell me this isn’t true,” Graham texted Banks and system chancellor John Sharp about plans to hire McElroy. “But since it’s not April Fools Day, I assume it is. I thought the purpose of us starting a journalism program was to get high-quality Aggie journalist[s] with conservative values into the market. This won’t happen with someone like this leading the department.”

Another regent, Mike Hernandez, questioned McElroy’s résumé—calling The New York Times “biased and progressive leaning” and suggested tenure approval would be “a difficult sell.”

(Neither Graham nor Hernandez replied to requests for comment.)

Texas A&M would soon settle with McElroy for $1 million. (McElroy, who remains in her position as a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, did not respond to a request for comment.)

Outside Influence in Texas

The McElroy hiring controversy has since been followed by another scandal at Texas A&M in which opioid researcher Joy Alonzo was suspended by system officials and investigated for comments she allegedly made about Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, a powerful figure in Texas.

The investigation ultimately cleared Alonzo of wrongdoing, and system officials claim that all policies were followed appropriately. But the two controversies combined have raised lingering questions about the political influence exerted on Texas A&M by state lawmakers and others.

A spokesperson for the flagship campus largely deferred questions to system officials but emphasized, in response to an inquiry about outside political influence, that “Texas A&M prioritizes maintaining an environment that encourages academic freedom, critical thinking and intellectual diversity.”

A Texas A&M system spokesperson did not answer a list of detailed questions from Inside Higher Ed, instead sending a link to a news release summarizing the recent legislative session. Pressed for answers, system spokesperson Laylan Copelin deferred questions to the university.

In a recent editorial, however, Sharp discussed the dual scandals with McElroy and Alonzo.

“Regarding the events in Dr. McElroy’s hiring process, it is difficult to recognize the alma mater I dearly love and to which I owe so much. Texas A&M is far better than this!” Sharp wrote in an opinion piece for The Austin-American Statesman. “A few, however, forgot our Core Values.”

Sharp touched lightly on academic freedom concerns, defending his actions in the Alonzo controversy, and pointed to legislation to codify tenure in state law—after it came under attack from legislators—which he noted was a win for both “academic freedom and accountability.”

But some faculty members worry less about outside influence and more about what direction a politicized Board of Regents and university officials want to take the university and system.

“This is not outside influence. It is clear that (at least some of) the maximum authorities of the system would prefer a more conservative disposition by the faculty and university. Frankly, I think it is highly contradictory to denounce identity politics and then call for the production of ‘conservative journalists’ out of the new journalism school,” Arróyave said, noting broad concerns about the worrisome “interference of politics and ideology into academia.”

Since both the Alonzo and McElroy controversies, university and system officials have stressed the importance of academic freedom and resistance to outside influence on the institution. But as recent documents made clear, the pressure isn’t just from Texas lawmakers—it is also coming from the inside, with regents appointed by Republican governor Greg Abbott, many of whom donated generously to his campaign, intent on pushing Texas A&M in a conservative direction.

31 notes · View notes

betterpollsnatural · 2 months

Text

#spn #spn polls #supernatural #polls #dean winchester #jensen ackles

16 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 5 months

Text

Elise Stefanik’s viral line of questioning of an elite trio of university presidents last week over how to respond to calls for the genocide of Jews didn’t just spark bipartisan outrage and lead to a high-profile resignation. It settled a personal score the congresswoman had with her alma mater, which had all but disowned her in the wake of Jan. 6.

Back then, in 2021, the dean of Harvard University’s school of government said the New York congresswoman’s comments about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election had “no basis in evidence,” and the Harvard Institute of Politics removed Stefanik from its senior advisory committee. Stefanik at the time criticized what she described as “the ivory tower’s march toward a monoculture of like-minded, intolerant liberal views.”

Now, Stefanik’s high-profile turn assailing the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania is a real threat to those institutions. Penn president Liz Magill resigned in the wake of her testimony on Saturday, and Stefanik has made it clear she expects more: “One down. Two to go,” she posted to X, formerly known as Twitter.

More than achieving vindication, Stefanik opened a new front in the culture wars — all while scrambling the Democratic Party’s traditional coalition of well-educated voters and their institutions of higher education.

Mitch Daniels, the retired former president of Purdue University and a former Republican governor of Indiana, called it “higher ed’s Bud Light moment” — referring to the beermaker’s divisive ad campaign featuring a transgender influencer — “when people who hang out with only people who adhere to what has become prevailing and dominant ideologies on campuses and suddenly discover there’s a world of people out there who disagrees.”

Republicans, of course, have been the loudest voices defending Stefanik. Daniels, who has also testified before hostile lawmakers on behalf of his university, mocked that the administrators Stefanik questioned retained the white-shoe law firm WilmerHale to prepare.

“Were they unprepared?” Daniels said in an interview. “Yes, they were unprepared by a lifetime of being cloistered in an ideological bubble and groupthink.”

Speaking at an event Monday, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a graduate of Harvard Business School, told Bloomberg the contentious exchange on Capitol Hill marked a “cultural moment.” He added: “There is a tipping point, and we have to be clear on where that tipping point is. And extermination speech is clearly on the wrong side of that tipping point.”

But it is the movement against the university presidents from a chorus of Democrats that suggests a possible realignment of a traditional political alliance, one that could see bipartisan pushback against the elitism of the ivory tower.

“The president believes strongly that this is a moment to put your foot down and to ensure we have moral clarity,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said during a gaggle on Monday, as President Joe Biden headed to Pennsylvania for an unrelated event.

Josh Shapiro, the high-profile Jewish Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, called for Magill’s ouster.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss, a Massachusetts Democrat and an alum of both Harvard and MIT, said it’s “too soon to tell” whether the bipartisan backlash would become an issue in next year’s election. He attributed the larger cultural conflict to a “tension between individualism and identitarianism.”

“It’s fundamentally about hypocrisy,” said Auchincloss, whose great-grandparents fled the pogroms, emigrating to the U.S. around World War I. “And, at least for me, what I reacted to viscerally from the testimony was particularly Harvard, which has an abysmal track record on championing and incubating free and open speech — now, [they’re] into the First Amendment, when it’s about antisemitism? That was more striking to me.”

On the presidential campaign trail, the issue was finding new life.

“Finally, the veil has been lifted on the ugly underbelly of what’s going on in our culture, including in our universities and our educational institutions,” Vivek Ramaswamy, the biotech entrepreneur who authored “Woke, Inc.,” the 2021 book that railed against social justice, told POLITICO.

Prior to last week’s hearing, many candidates, including Ramaswamy, had largely relegated talk of wokeness to the back burner after finding it did not resonate with primary voters.

But that has changed for now, and Ramaswamy welcomed the new discourse. He called on universities to rewrite their speech codes to include antisemitism and said university presidents should be fired not just for their testimony, but for failing to “actually embrace free speech and open expression, embrace the true purpose of seeking knowledge as opposed to indoctrination.”

At least for now, Stefanik’s criticism has wrenched open whole lines of attack in the campaign.

“I’m gratified that I think people have opened their minds on both sides to the arguments that I was making back then,” Ramaswamy said.

#nunyas news #they were asked if antisemitism had a home on their campuses #and they said it depends

18 notes · View notes

scoobydoodean · 2 months

Note

5x13 is a very interesting episode for all of the characters…

like you’ve got cas refusing to consider killing sam bc he wants to idk prove himself to dean

you’ve got mary and john being mad about raising kids to hunt and sam defending john

you’ve got sam’s rewriting of john: like he tells young john that his dad died trying to protect him, but dudeee john told dean he might have to kill you on his death bed

you’ve got dean trying to protect mary from the truth but ultimately realizing she deserves it (i love this one bc dean is consistently about people being honest with him)

you’ve got sam being honestly kinda cruel when telling mary to leave john so she doesn’t curse her kids, which there’s some truth to that but that is NOT the right way to say it sam (i genuinely don’t know how people think sam is good at like “therapy”)

you’ve got michael being creepy with dean and saying he doesn’t want to fight lucifer but still disagreeing about following a father’s orders and destiny and the advent of team free will

you’ve got sam starting to believe that maybe this is their destiny and dean strongly denying it (hot take but sometimes i really think sam and michael are the stronger parallel)

omgosh anyway sorry for the long recap but i guess i’m just wondering if there’s anything you would have done differently with this episode? specifically regarding how these themes were shown

Regarding Cas:

I don't think Cas wants to prove himself to Dean. I don't think he needs to, and I don't think he thinks he needs to right now. (In fact in 5.02 he suggested that Dean owes him). Everything Cas is doing is born of mutual solidarity with Dean in rebellion against heaven. If they don't succeed, they're all going to die—and so will everyone else. Cas has the entire host of heaven after him. Even fellow rebels like Anna and Gabriel dislike him. Gabriel resents Cas for his hopeless quest to find their father, and Anna hates him because he betrayed her in 4.21 and made no efforts to help her.

The only person Cas has in the world right now—the only person he can lean on or count on in any way—is Dean (see: 5.03). By extension, because of their shared love for Dean, Cas also has the people with whom Dean associates (Bobby, Sam, Ellen, Jo). There is protection and shelter through loyalty—through the found family. Cas calls Sam his friend in 5.13, but they haven't really had any bonding experiences on screen the way Dean and Cas have. I think for Cas, it's as simple as Dean is Cas's friend -> Anyone Dean cares about is also Cas's friend and worthy of his protection.

I also don't doubt that Cas is aware that Dean's well-being is tied to the family's well-being and the family's well-being is tied to Dean's well-being. I also don't think he's unaware of the fact that Dean can't weather more harm to their cobbled-together family. Sam and Dean's relationship is deeply scarred and trying to recover (but we see in 5.05 and 5.12 that Dean is struggling with it, and Cas specifically knows this from 5.03 when Dean opened up to him about it). Bobby is dealing with being recently paralyzed and is suicidal (and Dean's outright told Bobby that he can't handle losing him). Ellen and Jo just died a few episodes before. We're about to be reminded again how badly Dean is cracking open in 5.14.

Cas's actions with Anna are cold and calculated—ruthless—because he can't risk any further harm to the family unit—especially not any that might risk rupturing their heart (Dean). In that regard, Cas's actions toward Anna in 5.13, while ruthless, are in character (Also see: wanting to kill Jesse, torturing Donatello, plotting to kill Kelly, working with Sam to use The Book of the Damned).

Regarding Sam rewriting John:

I think the truth is that Sam doesn't care that John told Dean to save him or kill him. I mean—a part of him definitely was traumatized by it—but in 2.11, Sam says John was "right to say it" and he continues to push that narrative through season 2. I think the thing that really makes Sam angry is that it was kept from him. But the stuff related to Stanford and being raised a hunter—Sam forgives John for all of that, and we've known that for a while. We saw Sam start to soften and empathize with John's desire for revenge by 1.02. Then there was 1.08, 1.20, 2.02, 4.19.

Sam's lack of sugar-coating:

We can make note of this one also in 4.19 with Adam, in 4.20 with Jimmy, and in 5.06 with Jesse (though Sam does try harder with Jesse). I don't think he intends to be cruel to Mary, but by this point, Sam has kind of made a name for himself telling people their futures are fucked. This also feeds into your last note about Sam believing in destiny. Of course, Dean also jumps to say that Sam is right and Mary should just not have kids.

I don't know if there's anything I would have necessarily done differently, besides motivate Anna a little better. Her actions are rational, but they don't feel true to her character from season 4. By this I specifically mean her plotting to trick Sam and Dean into a trap, when they (especially Dean) had risked their lives for her in 4.09 and 4.10. She actually uses Dean's loyalty to try and trick him into meeting her, and the only reason it doesn't work is that Cas doesn't trust her and refuses to let Sam and Dean go to meet her. Given that the lack of loyalty and love among the angels was a primary motivation for Anna's fall, I would have appreciated further explanation behind her betraying Dean in this way—through his loyalty to her. I am likely meant to infer that her stay in prison included brainwashing that created this effect, but I don't know... it just feels off.

#mail #anna #ruthless cas #5.13 #season 5 #castiels moral compass #and cas is my best friend #dean the narrative heart #time to think for yourself #the flannel business #ellen #jo #do i look like a ditchable prom date to you?

7 notes · View notes

compo67 · 2 months

Note

Hello My Friend!

Hope this ask finds you well. Wishing you all the best on your scholarly endeavors...I know you'll crush it.

I just read the ask about the Strong Coffee fic, it's a great fic, one of my faves.

When you have the opportunity I strongly recommend a re read....

My Friend, I hope you realize what an amazing talent you have as a story teller. Your fics invoke so many emotions and are so comforting.

I feel your older fics don't get the love/attention they deserve or have they? I hope you got lots of kudos and lovely comments.

I must respectfully disagree with the other person about that nick name Jayby....it's sleazy...used by a sleazy person....lol

Thank you for the latest installment of TCV....it was fun!

Take care. ✌

Hello hello, dear one!

It's always wonderful to have you pop up in my inbox. <3

School is... well, it's going along. We're about to start a new class tomorrow, this one is going to be about Talent Acquisition and Retention, so I hope it's going to be more interesting than Strategic Management. T_T

It is still tough for me to recognize my own skills and talents. I am terrible at talking about myself or "selling" myself to others. I would love to be on more rec lists in the wincest community, but idk how to go about doing that. All I do is exist in my little sphere and eat up feedback from wonderful folks like yourself.

My older fics are buried in my archive. That's what happens when you write 2 million words. Something is bound to get lost in the shuffle. I will pull out one or two and make a post about them. Is there any you'd like to see make its rounds again?

Aww, but Jayby is such a cute nickname! You gotta brush off the fact that Ace says it lol. It'll sound better coming from someone not trashy or manipulative. Like, what if Photo Op Jensen says it to Jared? I think it'd be worth it to see what it sounds like from a positive character. :D

I am so glad to hear you enjoyed the latest TCV! I was happy to write some jealous!Dean and paddling. I just went to the city this weekend, so I have some inspiration now for TCV. But I need to work on Photo Op first.

Thank you, my dear. I hope you are well and in good spirits. Take care, too! <333

#cal answers #lovely anon is lovely

4 notes · View notes

peachraindrops · 2 years

Note

Beth Married Dean for security and stability and not for love

strongly agree | agree | neutral | disagree | strongly disagree

strooongly agree here, m'kay? based on the limited amount we know of her upbringing, and what she was portrayed as being content in s1e1 with, she liked the security and the nuclear family that he provided her with.

i also think she just didn't know and/or didn't let herself know of any other world or option she might have had other than one that finally included security. i think this meant she never really knew what love was in that way, or at least she thought she did with dean until she really experienced it and realized she didn't at all. i think back to my first boyfriend, where i was 10000% in love with him. now, at age 32, i have no idea how i could have possibly thought that. lol. so maybe something similar to this. i think back to her argument w/ ruby and the conversation over beyonce and who ruby would bring and beth saying she's never even felt what ruby feels for stan when her and dean were good.

it's super easy to fool yourself into thinking you're "in love" just to be in a content relationship. i also think beth had love for dean, without being in love with him.

it's super ironic she married dean for security and stability (imo) and how little of that he actually provided her with. but isn't that the actual plot of good girls?

i will say on my recent rewatch (i'm in s4) i decided while dean's a dumbass, he initially probably had good intentions and i do think he was a good father (his kids clearly love him and he does get visibly happier when they visit him in jail). i'd say i've come 923904 miles from where i once was because some might say i've viewed dean w/ a bias of blind hatred before lmao.

but at the end of the day, he's always gonna be dumbass in my book.

sorry i think i forgot what the original question was hahaha

send me your fandom opinions too!

#ask game #dean boland #nbc good girls #beth boland

20 notes · View notes

spaceandfiction · 1 year

Note

ooh ok 1, 13, 18, 22. hope i got those right lmao. also for spn obvs

Oh my beloved mutual!!! Thank you for playing the game haha. And ofc spn I would be honored <3

the character everyone gets wrong

Hot take in a show written the same way the ship of theseus was built there IS not a great way to consistently and strongly characterize our main three. There is so much contradictory information ofc I think I have pruned the weeds and know those guys are but I really find it hard to get too mad about interpretations of Sam, Dean, or Cas that I disagree with because the show is sooo wobbly and long anyway. But I do still see and feel very painfully the way they make Cas perfect or pick out the WRONG flaws to get mad at him for sometimes in fandom. But, really I can only see "clear" character profiles for side characters and I think the Gabriel fandom interpretation has to be the wildest because they killed him and then brought him back like a decade later having gotten a fandom personality graft. Hilarious. They even put a little cheeky sabriel I mean? Who else has done that?

13. worst blorboficiation

I think the prev. answer kind of goes into one of them but I'm actually going to say Dean instead. I know. I know I said there's no way to consistently blah blah blah. I contain multitudes. I think the issue stems from the show so myopically agreeing with Dean at all times that even the canon makes him something else but like. Yeah

18. it's absolutely criminal that the fandom has been sleeping on...

Kevin, I guess? In my day (I am a post-s8 hop on) Kevin was everywhere. Now because he's been dead for so long obviously a lot of fic doesn't have him in it, but I miss Kevin. If we all just stopped caring about who is dead in this show we could have more fics like this GENIUS one where Kevin is back and the dynamics between him Dean, Cas, Jack, and etc are soooooo good. Oh, and per my own fan fic, Hael from 9x01 she's one of the only angels who describes herself as creating something! Angels really get whittled away to just bureaucrats and soldiers in this show but she's an indication that at least some were tasked with aesthetic and creative aims despite not being allowed to feel anything towards them and I find that FASCINATING.

22. your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

Okay I went digging through my mental archives. I'm going to say something that maybe more people explore and I just don't see it a lot but I know the show forgot. Cas possessed Claire. I just personally think she should have vague memories of the moment, feeling like her head was split open and seeing from 20 different directions at once and seeing souls and feeling the flow of life all around her etc etc ya know. Horror shit

#spn stuff #txtpst #ilse i looooove you thanks!!#supernatural

3 notes · View notes

becomingpart2 · 4 months

Note

i do agree there was a grain of truth that most stories have a relationship that is central to it, although candy’s wrong about it always being m/f romantic tobin. the funny thing is she did kind of acknowledge that platonic relationships can be central core relationships, but she still insisted that they were always m/f platonic relationships, like the examples she gave were leslie/ron on parks and rec, and eleanor/michael on the good place, she said that these shows had platonic tobin. the thing is she completely disregarded the idea that they could be driven by m/m or f/f relationships. like for example I’d say that parks and rec was actually driven by leslie/ann more than leslie/ron. she also said that certain shows were following romantic Tobin structure when they were pretty explicitly based on f/f platonic relationships. like she said gilmore girls was centred around luke/lorelai when imo the show was always centred around rory/lorelai and to a lesser extent lorelai/rory/emily. again i do think she made some valid points about luke/lorelai in that the ship never would have been so big with the genders reversed, that it was largely centred around Luke’s feelings and disregarded lorelai’s, but i still strongly disagree it was the shows main relationship. she also said charmed was centred around piper/leo and that pretty little liars was centred around ezria, when charmed was pretty explicitly about prue/piper/phoebe and later piper/phoebe/paige and pretty little liars was about aria/spencer/emily/hanna. i haven’t seen supernatural, but from what I’ve seen of the show the main relationship seems to be the brotherly relationship between sam and dean, I’d say that that is the core relationship, although destiel seems to be the most popular ship, so maybe that ends up being on of the core relationships too.

So I'm gonna answer all of these together.

Yes, I agree that there are shows in which the core dynamics are between female characters or a platonic one like the scoobies in btvs. But I also think that with female-led shows romance ends up taking a central role in the story. Mostly because misogyny and sexism; this idea that the most important thing that can happen to a woman is finding the "right man", that that's all we really want and need.

I believe that's what writers/producers think the target audience of these shows want to see and that's what care about the most, and sometimes it is, mostly because of the way girls are socialized since birth.

So yeah, I do think candy has a point in arguing that in most shows led by women, romance does end up being central to the story and what the fans probably care about the most. And I don't think there's anything inherentely wrong with fans caring about the romance.

I also think she isn't wrong in pointing out that m/f relationships hold more "value" in the eyes of writers/producers because we do live in a homophobic society and if a gay ship ends up becoming popular is usually by accident.

Candy is wrong, however, in thinking all shows are secretly about romance and attributing more value to secondary m/f relationships that they have in the story. Romance never takes up that much space in male-led shows where the female love interests are usually only there to further their stories and aren't as well-developed.

I don't disagree with candy about bangel being one of the most important relationships in btvs because it was essential to develop buffy's character and yes, take the show to "new heights" or whatever she would say. But that doesn't mean the show stopped being about Buffy or the angel is secretly the main character lol

I do believe it's possible to write female-led stories that include romance as a big part of their journey while still being said female character's story. TVD was a romance from the beginning, the whole premise is centered around who will Elena choose, but I don't think the show stopped being about her until much later.

TVD is also an example of when the romantic storyline can take a misogynistic turn and became all about servicing the male character in the ship, which I believe it isn't rare because yeah we do live in a misogynistic world. That happened in btvs later on and I'm sure it probably happened in lot of other shows too.

Candy is also wrong in dismissing how huge m/m and f/f pairings are in fandom, especially m/m. So much so that they can significantly influence the way fans interact with the show, and that as a result can also end up reflecting on the show e.g. supernatural and destiel becoming canon.

So yeah, sometimes in fandom gay ships have even more power and are much more popular than the show's intended and canon m/f pairing and that cannot be disregarded if you wanna talk about fandom behavior.

All this to say that yeah I do think that while in some female-led stories the core dynamic is platonic, the romance might end up getting a lot of attention from the show or from the fans because that's what it's expected for women. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. In a similar way, male-led tv shows are allowed to be about so much more and while they may feature romance, if the show is not explicitly about relationships, then the romance aspect is never really that important to their story and the female love interests don't get the best treatment because you know, misogyny.

#sorry if this is a mess lol #anonymous #answered

0 notes

castielmacleod · 3 years

Text

I wanted to say that while I am obviously very strong in my personal belief that both Cas and Crowley are gay men, there’s nothing wrong with interpreting them as bi either and if I see ANYONE being rude about bi people or bothering anyone for interpreting either of the characters as bi, especially if it’s Cas, I will start swinging

#I was looking at some old posts of mine where I think I came off kinda harsh without meaning to #Plus some things I reblogged without thinking #So I just kinda wanted to say sorry? Nobody got upset with me or anything but yeah #I wasn’t thinking about how I sounded #I truly could never see either of them liking women but that is completely a personal me thing #Same goes for gay Dean honestly- I 100% see him as bi but there’s nothing wrong with seeing him as gay imo #Like I strongly disagree but that doesn’t make it wrong #What it comes down to is that none of these characters have canon stated sexualities and all the really matters #Is that we know and agree that they are mlm or wlw in some way!#Obvious exceptions to like Charlie or Max Banes or Chuck who say their sexualities outright #(or as outright as the cw would let them)#Or very very very heavily gay coded characters like Claire and Kaia #But otherwise it’s all up to interpretation! That’s what I think #My posts

9 notes · View notes

ridiasfangirlings · 2 years

Note

I teach at a university, and I always wonder what it'd be like to have Munakata as fellow faculty. I don't think he'd be insufferable (lol) but I could see him easily volunteering to be Department Chair, join the Academic Senate, and such. Not sure if he'd want to be admin and be Associate Dean, Dean, or President of the university. I feel like he'd fight for faculty governance and academic freedom? But he'd be so good as a Dean as well. I can't decide what's best.

I could see him being very well-liked by his students and even some of his colleagues but his superiors find him insufferable XD Munakata would definitely jump into the role whole-heartedly, I feel like Munakata is the sort of person who commits completely to the job he's chosen. In this case I could see him eventually aiming to be President of the university -- which doesn't preclude fighting for faculty rights and academic freedom, of course, Munakata would definitely go into this job with the idea of how he wants to transform this university to match his ideals and then focus on climbing the ranks in order to succeed at that. Like he starts as just a young assistant professor, probably working with a professor who he has great respect for (maybe some older teacher who's close to retiring and sees Munakata as his successor). He then becomes a proper professor and quickly becomes one of the most popular professors in the school, though I imagine as a teacher he'd be the type where either students love him and want to take all his classes or they find him way too difficult to deal with and drop his class early.

I think he'd be popular with other professors on the same level as him, especially the younger professors who think Munakata has great ideas and dislike how the older more entrenched professors are really set in their ways (I imagine Munakata would dislike the older professors who are more interested in publishing papers than teaching students, he feels very strongly about Education and Inspiring the Youth and all that). The older faculty hate him though, they see him as this young upstart with grand ideas who wants to change the way they've always done things because he's arrogant and thinks he knows best. When dealing with those people Munakata either wins them over to his side with his charisma or he just goes right over them and basically ignores their complaints, once he's higher than them he says they are welcome to try out his new ways or retire early. In general I think with the rest of the faculty those who agree with Munakata or are won over by him really look up to him and admire him, and those who disagree with him find him to be incredibly irritating.

#Munakata REisi #Talking K #all right no Captain no this time Captain yes #the thing with Munakata is he's only insufferable when you disagree with him XD #I think he'd be popular among the younger professors especially ones without tenure #anyone who's frustrated with the status quo #while the old guard who like the status quo don't like this young guy waltzing in with big plans to change things #and they like even less the fact that he's actually driven to do so and doesn't give up when faced with opposition #and he can't be bribed and he can't be bought he has Ideals

16 notes · View notes

cornflowershade · 3 years

Text

I’m gonna attempt to be as articulate here as possible, though I have a lot of varying thoughts—so bear with me. :) Either way, in light of all the recent SPN *d r a m a* I just wanted to share a couple notes that I feel are important for us to keep in mind. Whether you feel yourself agreeing or not, I do hope you’ll at least give this a read through and some genuine consideration. I’m talking about this because I feel we’re at a point where the ‘Destiel + actors’ situation could get much worse, not better for the fans, if handled without due nuance.

Getting right to it, it’s extremely important that anger be directed in the right places, and be directed with defined/achievable goals (not just being hateful). I say this because, blaming someone who didn’t mean any harm will only cause them to close up more. There’s a line between someone who thinks ill of you, and someone who disagrees with you, and although it can be difficult to lay off the latter—especially when we’ve been through so much—that’s a line that’s important to observe. We should be mad about homophobia. 100%. What we should not be, however, is mad that someone doesn’t agree with us the way we want, or ship something as hard as we want, or interpret characters in the exact way we wish they did. Yes, I’m talking about the difference between Jared and Jensen at the recent con.

A lot of people wanted a more straightforward response from Jensen, less ‘this love is so beautiful and complete and angelic that it’s beyond comprehension’ (which is what he essential said. I think it’s actually a fairly sweet sentiment, especially considering that Jensen has always seemed to headcanon angels as having emotions that are above human comprehension, and considering that Cas is in fact an angel who perceives and feels so much more that humans likely can, and considering that this is not a new thought process that he just made up in order to respond about Destiel, rather a framework he was answering from) and more ‘this love is gay.’ / But here’s the thing... whereas Jared was so obviously talking from a place of not giving a sh*t about Destiel (either out of the need to be homophobic, or out of spite for Jensen, or just in order to suck up to his bosses idk) Jensen was not. Jensen cares about the characters. Just look at the transcript of him in the autograph line, literally ducking his head and smiling, agreeing sweetly that “yeah,” Dean & Cas are the only “Dean & Cas in all the universes.” This is not the agreeing response of a man who hates our ship. Does he talk about it or interpret it the way all of us want him to? Maybe not. But he doesn’t hate our ship. On stage, however, he was stuck in a very no-win situation the second Jared started his big speech. What he did in that circumstance was pull the conversation to a slightly better place, following an absolute train wreck. Now, did he speak up and say “okay Jared you’re wrong”? No. But we know they weren’t getting along at the con. We know they were overheard in a ‘heated argument’. We know they’re having a rough patch. And Jensen is well aware that we know. The Internet was blowing up just recently about a J2 Fallout, and guess what? He’s probably not allowed to let whatever fallout or argument they’re going through show on stage. Because where the fans are concerned, he needs to project the “we are brothers in real life” idea. He’s not gonna confront Jared or strongly oppose him on stage in front to the fans. Especially considering the weirdly positive response Jared’s rant was getting from the audience. Which is the other thing... the audience didn’t seem upset. Should they have been miffed? Personally, I think so, yeah. Did they seem to be? No. So Jared got cheers. [Which is why yeah, of course his mic wasn’t cut. Because the audience seemed to be taking his words well (how, I will never know) and because if Creation cut a cast member’s mic every time they said something stupid, there would never be an uninterrupted panel lol. But back to the point—] Between trying to seem like he’s not too at odds with Jared, and the audience’s literal reaction, of course Jensen didn’t speak up more. Again, what he did do was reel things in a bit, when he was finally given a second to actually get a sentence out.

Now as I mentioned earlier, I think what Jensen said is a part of a much broader way that he interprets parts of SPN, its angels, etc, which unfortunately had be highly interrupted and also come after Jared’s preface. But Jensen's response is not grounds to start pinning your hate on him (again, difference between someone having an ill opinion of you and someone's interpretation not completely aligning with yours.) NOW HERE IS THE PART I’VE REALLY BEEN WORKING UP TO. As we know, Jensen is shy and he doesn’t like the spotlight. And yet, he was part of a history-making scene in media, that out-trended the literal U.S. election. And in addition to probable NDAs and behind-the-scenes-cw-sniper + cast-and-crew nonsense, it’s not surprising that it’s taken him until now to say pretty much anything about Destiel at all (read: sexy silence). But lets think about this from his POV: He finally answers (or tries to answer, despite getting distracted and derailed by a costar) a question about Destiel. In fact, he even shares a bit of his own interpretation, which is what people say they want from him. And the second he does, everyone hates him. What do you think this is gonna lead to? No, it’s not gonna lead to him waking up tomorrow and agreeing with another viewpoint 100%. It’s gonna lead to him feeling like he should’t have opened his mouth about Destiel. It’s going to lead to him avoiding questions about it in the future, letting others answer for him [even if that other is Jared] or just being even more vague in his responses, in hopes that the less he says, the less upset people will be.

[Sidenote: if they notice a lot of hate, this is a prime situation for other cast members starting to feel they have to pick sides—a friend or the shippers—which would not be great.]

Now, we know the confession scene meant a lot to Jensen. He literally had the filming of it recorded on his cell phone. And I would also say that, other proofs aside... knowing how deeply Jensen respects Misha?? It’s safe to assume that he genuinely does respect Misha’s interpretation of his own character that he played. And we know what Misha’s interpretation is, of course. [So Jensen, perhaps not in agreement on everything we wish he was, but still someone who values that we ship it and find meaning in it, which he’s said time and again. And that, that is important. That is support that means something, at least to me.]

I also think it’s worth adding that if Jensen personally likes a softer interpretation, that may be less about Cas and more about keeping things ambiguous with Dean, because the more you imply about Cas the more you bring up about Dean. And he identifies deeply with Dean. So inadvertently implying things about Dean might be uncomfortable for him, but not because queer people make him uncomfortable (x). Rather—especially if he’s straight, and for argument’s sake I’m going with that atm—he struggles with toxic masculinity and loves that he can identify with a character who is a straight guy [wow that's hard to write as someone who loves bi dean] who can be soft and sweet and everything that Dean is, that’s still so beloved and respected as a character. (ie Dean might comfort him in a ‘you don’t have to be gay to be non-toxically masculine and have that be okay’ way.) This sidetone is not to say he is actively trying to be vague about Destiel (because again I think his answer was based on previous headcanons) but rather to point out that yeah, he has his own interpretations that are meaningful to him, which is okay, and despite his own interpretations he is still supportive of other readings of the text. But anyway, if he likes to let people know that multiple interpretations are okay—this is likely why.

ANYWAY, ALL THIS SAID, we run the risk here of making one out of two actors who were actually involved in Destiel shutting up about the ship for good, and NO, even if you don’t like what he has to say, that’s not a good thing. I love the Heller community, but for people who claim to want the ability to have open Destiel discourse, we certainly love to censor the heck out of people who talk about it in ways we don’t personally love. If Jensen were an anti, then yeah, that’d a be different issue. But seeing as he’s not, I feel like it’d be better for the fandom if we put down the pitchforks.

#destiel #deancas #jensen ackles #spn #spndenver #tldr be disappointed all you want but hate and blaming Jensen is not gonna fix this--it's gonna make it worse #mine

35 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 1 year

Text

PALO ALTO, Calif. (KRON) — Stanford University’s star athlete, Katie Meyer, was found dead inside her dorm room the morning after the university threatened her with expulsion, according to a wrongful death lawsuit filed last week and obtained by KRON4.

A coroner ruled Meyer’s death a suicide after she was found dead on March 1. The night before, on February 28, she received a distressing email from Stanford’s Office of Community Standards informing Meyer that she was facing a formal disciplinary charge, according to the lawsuit filed on behalf Meyer’s parents in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The charge stemmed from an incident in which Meyer poured coffee on a football player after he kissed one of Meyer’s soccer teammates without consent, the suit states.

Meyer, 22, was a “perfectionist,” captain of the women’s soccer team, held a 3.84 GPA, and was just a few months shy from graduating, according to the suit.

The prestigious university’s office ordered Meyer to appear for a disciplinary hearing to potentially face “removal from the university,” attorneys with Justice Law Collaborative wrote.

According to Gina and Steven Meyer, their daughter had “an acute stress reaction that impulsively led her” to die by suicide, attorneys wrote. “The actions that led to the death of Katie Meyer began and ended with Stanford University.”

The young athlete’s sudden death sent shockwaves of grief through Stanford’s campus and the sport of soccer nationwide.

Stanford University officials called the lawsuit’s allegations “false and misleading.” Stanford soccer star Katie Meyer dies by suicide

“The Stanford community continues to grieve Katie’s tragic death and we sympathize with her family for the unimaginable pain that Katie’s passing has caused them. However, we strongly disagree with any assertion that the university is responsible for her death,” Stanford officials wrote in a statement.

The statement continued, “Stanford’s Office of Community Standards (OCS) received a complaint regarding alleged behavior by Katie that resulted in physical injury, and as is the practice of the office, it launched a review of that allegation. After extensive factfinding and the opportunity for both sides to provide information, it was found that the high threshold was met for the matter to proceed to a hearing. However, it is important to emphasize that we are committed to supporting students through the student judicial process under OCS, and we did so in this case. In particular, the university offered Katie an advisor to work with her throughout the process and told her she could have a support person of her choosing with her in any meeting or conversation with OCS. The allegation that OCS did not communicate with Katie prior to February 28 is also incorrect. Several days earlier, the head of OCS had informed Katie that a decision would be made by February 28 whether to proceed to a hearing.”

The unnamed football player never wanted the school to take disciplinary actions against Katie Meyer, and he did not file a complaint with the OCS. Instead, Dean of Residential Education Lisa Caldera filed the complaint, according to the lawsuit.

The letter that Katie Meyer received on the evening of her death was sent by Assistant Dean Tiffany Gabrielson, and contained threatening language regarding sanctions, the suit claims.

The coffee-spilling incident happened on Aug. 28, 2021, but formal charge letter was not sent until the evening of Feb. 28, 2022.

Katie Meyer immediately responded to the email expressing how “shocked and distraught” she was over being charged. That evening, she was sitting alone in her dorm room and feeling terrified that her future would be destroyed, the lawsuit claims.

Earlier that same day, Katie Meyer was happily making plans for spring break and booking plane tickets, attorneys wrote. She attended classes, went to soccer practice, met up with friends, and FaceTimed with her mother and sister.

“Everyone she interacted with has advised she was well, in good spirits and the usual Katie,” the lawsuit states. Her death “was completed without planning and solely in response to the shocking and deeply distressing information she received from Stanford while alone.”

Katie Meyer was a fiercely competitive and passionate student-athlete. She led her team to an NCAA women’s soccer championship in 2019.

Stanford University “used” Katie Meyer as the face of its outstanding athletic teams, yet failed to support her mental well-being, legal expert Paula Canny told KRON4.

The lawsuit is an “indictment on Stanford’s disciplinary system,” Canny said. “It sure sounds like they did do something wrong.”

Stanford alumni who founded the Student Justice Project criticized the university for denying responsibility in connection to Meyer’s death.

“Katie Meyer was a beloved member of our community,” said alum Bob Ottilie. “It is unfair for Stanford to suggest she bears sole responsibility for her death; Stanford has to candidly assess the role they played here.”

The Student Justice Project, founded by five Stanford alumni in 2012, conducted case studies in 2012 and 2013 that found the university’s disciplinary process was “extreme.”

“Our extensive investigation from a decade ago indisputably demonstrated that Stanford University used draconian tactics to negatively impact the lives of its own students,” Ottilie said.

Ottilie has represented students accused of misconduct by the university in dozens of cases. He said Katie Meyer’s matter “would have been the least significant student disciplinary issue I had ever addressed at a college or university. It does not appear to have been a big deal at all,” Ottilie said of the charge against Katie Meyer.

If you or someone you know may need suicide prevention support, you can contact The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, available 24 hours a day, by calling 800-273-8255. To learn more about the National Suicide Prevention Lineline click here.

#nunyas news #hmmmmm

11 notes · View notes

starlingflight · 3 years

Link

@thisismegz as requested, the missing scenes from Everything I Wanted of Ginny dealing with her guilt over how things went between her and Dean.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sun felt especially bright contrasted as it was by nearly a full day in the dungeons with no one but Snape for company. Harry savoured the way the light summer breeze tickled his uncovered arms and the way Ginny’s hand felt in his as they made their way out into the grounds.

It seemed the majority of Hogwarts’ population had decided to take advantage of the good weather, for the lawn beside the lake was crowded with huddles of students. Their usual tree was already taken by a noisy group of fourth-year girls and so Ginny led him to a free patch of grass not far from the lake's stony shore. She sat cross-legged on the ground, pulling Harry with her.

He went to position himself beside her but Ginny clearly had other ideas, she shuffled slightly, placing her hands on his shoulders and smoothly guided Harry’s head into her lap so that he was lying on the soft grass with Ginny above him, her fingers tracing lightly across his forehead.

“If your brother sees this he’s going to lose his mind,” Harry warned, though in truth he was finding it difficult to care. The headache that had been building behind his eyes, caused by a long day in the dark, stuffy dungeon was receding with every stroke of Ginny’s fingers over his skin.

Unsurprisingly, Ginny seemed to care even less about Ron’s reaction than Harry did. Her only response to his warning was to gently slide his glasses off and place them carefully on the grass beside them, making it easier for her fingers to trace the features of his face without obstruction.

Neither of them said anything for a while, Ginny was now little more than a blur of creamy skin and striking red hair above him. Eventually, Harry let his eyes slowly drift closed, revelling in the feel of her fingers on his face and the sweet, floral smell of her shampoo drifting to him on the summer breeze.

Snape became nought but a distant memory under Ginny’s careful attention and Harry was vaguely considering that there was a strong chance he was going to fall asleep, warm and content as he was, when Ginny broke the silence between them.

“I think I'm going to apologise to Dean," She declared.

It took Harry a moment to register what she’d said, his brain felt fuzzy from the heat. When his wits finally caught up with him, Harry almost asked her why but he immediately realised he didn’t need to.

He’d seen the guilt on Ginny’s face last night and he’d felt the same thing himself. They’d both admitted they’d been in denial about their feelings for each other for a while and maybe that was no one’s fault but it didn’t change the fact that Dean had been caught up in it.

“If I tell you I think it’s a bad idea are you going to think it’s because I’m jealous or threatened or something?”

Ginny's fingers were still stroking lightly across his cheeks, over the bridge of his nose, across his forehead and Harry found that it was almost impossible to feel jealous given his current situation.

“No,” She said mildly. “I’m going to ask you why you think that, though.”

He’d rather she didn’t but if Harry was being honest with himself, he knew her better than to expect Ginny to blindly accept what he was saying. “I’ve been in his position. I watched you with him for months, and I didn’t expect you to break up or begrudge either of you your happiness or anything but…”

Harry trailed off, still not used to telling anyone his deepest feelings and still not entirely comfortable with it.

"But?" Ginny prompted, one of her hands working its way up into Harry's hair, massaging his scalp. He felt himself relax immediately.

"But there isn't anything you could have said to me to make me feel better about the situation, to make me not want you."

Ginny's hands didn't stop their slow exploration of his hair for even a second. "It's not the same thing," She said without missing a beat.

"How isn't it?"

"It was never like this with Dean," Ginny unwound one of her hands from his hair in order to gesture between the two of them before quickly returning it, much to Harry's delight. "I was never this happy, not even at the start. The thing that you were waiting for is so much better than what Dean lost."

Secretly, Harry wholeheartedly disagreed with this. The thing that he'd been waiting for, the thing that Dean lost, was Ginny and there were no words on the planet that could ease the devastating blow that Harry already knew would come from ever losing her.

"You really want to talk to him?" Harry asked, knowing it was pointless to argue with her when she'd already made her mind up.

“I really do,” Ginny responded and Harry knew the matter was settled.

“Okay,” He agreed. “Did you want to go now?” He added reluctantly, he could quite happily stay in this spot for the rest of his life.

“No,” Ginny said quickly, leaning forward and placing a soft kiss to Harry’s lips. “I’ve been waiting all day for you to get out of detention, you’re staying right where you are.”

Ginny and Dean did not cross paths for the rest of the weekend. Nor was he anywhere to be seen at breakfast or lunch on Monday. Ginny was beginning to strongly suspect that he was avoiding her when she quite literally walked into him on her way out of Ancient Runes on Monday afternoon.

“Sorry - oh!” Dean’s apologetic smile faltered as he took Ginny in.

“I’ve been looking for you!” Ginny said with as much enthusiasm as she could muster, though Dean still didn’t look cheered at her pronouncement.

“Er, have you?”

“Yeah, do you mind if we go somewhere and talk?”

Dean’s eyes narrowed suspiciously in a way that made Ginny’s heart sink. They’d been friends for years, they’d been close since the first D.A. meeting and now the two of them had reached a point where the prospect of holding a conversation was enough to set Dean on edge.

“It’ll be really quick, I promise.” Ginny tried again, hoping her face held as much sincerity as she currently felt.

“Alright,” Dean said reluctantly, gesturing for Ginny to lead the way.

There was a low wooden bench halfway down the corridor, under a row of mullioned windows which revealed the sweeping vistas of the Hogwarts grounds and the lake. If nothing else, at least the view would be pleasant.

Ginny took a seat on the bench and Dean followed her lead; she couldn’t help but note he was sitting as far away from her as physically possible. One good shove and he’d topple over onto the castle’s stone floor.

“How have you been?” She began cautiously.

“Fine,” Dean responded. Ginny raised a sceptical eyebrow. Dean had always been forthcoming with his feelings, one-word answers weren’t his style at all. “I’ve been good, Ginny. I’ve been working on my art - I’ve had a lot of emotion to channel into my drawings, I think I’ve got some really good ones for my portfolio.”

Ginny nodded, trying not to think too hard about what emotions Dean may have been using to fuel his creative pursuits. “You were always very talented.”

It was Dean’s turn to raise a dubious eyebrow at Ginny now. “Is that what you wanted to say to me? You like my drawings?”

“No, I wanted to apologise,” She said slowly, half-expecting Dean to shut her down before she’d explained herself. When he said nothing, but continued to look at her expectantly Ginny took a deep breath before continuing. “I should have ended things between us long before I did. I knew your feelings were stronger than mine and I shouldn’t have kept stringing you along.”

Dean listened patiently as Ginny spoke, but he began to shake his head in disagreement as she finished. “That wasn’t what bothered me. It was that I could clearly see where things were going between the two of you, but you were so adamant that I was seeing things that weren’t there. It was frustrating.”

Ginny began to fiddle nervously with the ends of her hair, slipping the long strands between the ends of her fingers. “You’re right,” She said quietly, looking not at Dean but out of the window where she could just make out the Giant Squid’s tentacles rising out of the water in the distance. “I know it probably doesn’t help, but I hope you know I wasn’t lying to you on purpose - I really believed our banter and joking was innocent, it was unbelievable to me that Harry might actually have liked me.”

Dean made a noise halfway between a snort and a chuckle; Ginny looked back from the window to find that he was smiling at her. “Of course he liked you, have you seen you?”

“Stop it!” Ginny exclaimed, reaching out and shoving Dean lightly enough that he didn’t fall off the bench as she’d been worried he might earlier. “I’m trying to have a serious conversation with you!”

“You stop it!” Dean argued through a laugh. “Serious conversations don’t suit you at all!”

Ginny grinned, it had been so long since they’d joked with one another. Even in the weeks before they’d broken up all they’d done was argue. “Does that mean we can be friends?”

“Honestly, I think friends will suit us better than a relationship ever did,” Dean said sincerely. “No offence, but I didn’t find the constant fighting particularly enjoyable and I don’t think you did either.”

Ginny chose not to answer, there was no point in going over their old fights now. When she looked back on her time with Dean it was as though she was remembering something from a different lifetime. Instead, she pushed herself up from the bench and waited for Dean to join her. “Come on, let’s go and set the Hogwarts rumour mill alight by walking into dinner together.”

Dean fell into step beside Ginny without protest, the cautious, guarded look that had been upon his face at the beginning of the conversation was no longer in sight.

#hinny #harry x ginny #dean thomas #hp fanfic #hbp missing moment

62 notes · View notes

finalgirlbrainrot · 3 years

Note

Dean very likely beat Sam when they were growing up. Notice how Sam was never surprised when Dean punched him on the show (you can see Sam expecting Dean to turn violent as early as in the Pilot - I'm talking about the bridge scene). Dean was definitely not the loving caretaker, sacrificing his own childhood and always standing up for Sam as the fandom likes to picture it.

strongly agree | agree | neutral | disagree | strongly disagree

I mean, even as children, we see dean verbally lashing out at sam and while that instance can be brushed aside as him being a kid, the fact that, like you said, sam wasn't surprised when dean got violent with him in the pilot and the fact that it kept happening over and over again over the course of the series, with sam rarely responding, clearly shows that it's a consistent pattern

and yeah, dean definitely wasn't the caretaker people make him out to be and sam's childhood wasn't wasn't all flowers and puppies. I mean, let's look at what we actually know about sam's childhood (this is gonna get a bit long, oops)

100% canon informations about sam's childhood and his life before stanford (and about dean as a caretaker):

- sam never had a normal childhood, his childhood was taken away from him when he was six months old (as opposed to dean who had a normal childhood until he was four)

- he never had a stable home (something that, again, dean had for four years)

- he was forced to move around from school to school every couple of weeks

- he never had a mom to cut the crusts off of his toast

- just as the level of information was damaging to dean, the level of secrecy was damaging to sam, because it left him unable to protect himself when he was left alone

- he almost got killed by a shtriga once

- he was often left alone in random motels at a very young age

- he was so lonely and neglected that he needed a zanna

- he was so lonely and neglected that he wanted to run away

- he was fourteen years old the first time someone asked him what he wanted to do with his life. no-one in his family had ever bothered to ask him what he wanted. dean was eighteen at the time, so it can't really be attributed to him being a child; the fact that he never asked sam what he wanted is proof enough that he wasn't the caretaker people make him out to be

- he was expected to blindly follow john and dean's obsession to avenge mary, but he's not even allowed to mention her

- dean supported and sided with john during the fight before sam left for stanford

- I don't know if people consider it as canon, but in john's diary, john said that dean almost hit sam before he left and he had to hold him back and he even said something about how he didn't expect dean to cut ties with sam (so for the people who claim john forced dean to chose or whatever: don't, it was 100% dean's choice to side with john)

- he was literally disowned for wanting to go to college

- in 1x08 dean victim blamed sam for john's abuse

- this convo from 1x08: "remind you of somebody?" "dad? dad never treated us like that" "well, dad never treated you like that. you were perfect. he was all over my case" "maybe he had to raise his voice, but sometimes you were out of line"

- "I remember that fight. in fact, I seem to recall a few choice phrases coming out of your mouth" yeah, sorry, but if my dad disowns me for wanting to go to college, I'm allowed to say a few "choice phrases"

- in 7x03 dean gave john the phone so he could guilt trip sam into exhausting himself doing research (yet people love to cling to the completely fanon "dean protected sam from john's abuse" bullshit)

- sam to amy: "my dad [has a temper] too. you don't want to see him when he's drinking" (yet people love to insist that dean was the only one who was physically abused)

- when he told john that he was afraid of the thing under his bed, he handed him a weapon. what a nice normal childhood

- he was so miserable with the life john and dean forced him into that his ~~~family was missing from his heaven. everyone loves to make sam's heaven in 5x16 about poor dean's ~~~feelings, but no-one stops to consider that, if these are sam's happiest memories, then he must be pretty fucking miserable

- he never even had a proper thanksgiving with his family

- dean was four, there's literally no way he was able to raise him

- he always felt unclean and impure even as a kid

- he was left for hours at pennywhistle's all by himself and developed a clown phobia as a result (a phobia that dean, as a full grown adult, mocks him for)

- people love to use the lucky charms incident to fuel their parentification fantasies but that's something literally any older sibling would do. I've also seen people use it as a proof that dean starved for sam or whatever and like,,, let me tell you something: literally no starving kid would throw away perfectly good food like that EVER

- john and dean made him feel like a freak because he wanted to go to school and live his life

- the ONLY time we ever see dean not taking john's side is in 1x21. and he wasn't taking sam's side either, he was just playing peacemaker

- sam thought that even if they found him, john wouldn't even want to see him

- even bobby said that john always pushed sam away

100% canon information about john's treatment of dean vs his treatment of sam:

- john literally died for dean and his last words were that he might have to kill sam

- dean saying that he always gets the extra cookie

- when john came back as a ghost, he gave dean a comforting pat on the shoulder and merely nodded at sam

- when they reunited in s1, john hugged dean, while barely acknowledging sam

- again, the convo from 1x08 I quoted above

BUT azazel said sam was john's favourite, so I guess that's more reliable than all the on screen evidence to the contrary

send me unpopular opinions

#Anonymous

216 notes · View notes

autisticandroids · 3 years

Note

(1)supernatural tma au takes that i want to share w you cus i was thinking about it cus of consumehimnatural and also i want your thoughts in case you have good insights or disagree or whateverrrr: the obvious thing would be to suggest that all major character serve the hunt (insatiable violent stalking of prey, no rest, relinquishing control over to base instincts) but also Cas, Sam, and Dean are extremely distinct and their fears and desires are therefore most interesting when subdivided into

(2) different camps. my hot take- Cas initially serves The Web (fate, predetermination, no free will, sinister intricate plots) and defects to The Corruption (love, consumption, self sacrifice, sublimation of the self to a greater whole, bees bees bees). It’s that classic Cas thing of like trading overt authoritarianism for a new master that he has chosen but is ultimately similarly controlling- one that is eating away at his core from the inside. Cas’s greatest wish is to consume and in turn be

(3) consumed- Sooooo Corruption. Also the very touch of you yadda yadda- and all that language and framing once cas falls that focuses on Cas as a dirty thing, a sullied thing. Sam serves The Stranger i think (the uncanny, those guys who replace you and no one notices)? There’s a really strong focus in his character about like the need for bodily autonomy, for assertion of the self, and his backstory yields a great deal of paranoia regarding how much of his Self is Him Really, which is great for

(4) The Stranger. Like Sam’s greatest fears align with this sense of a Self that is Not Himself whether that’s Lucifer or just something intrinsically unclean in him. It’s his greatest fear but crucially it’s something he is drawn to- this desire to cut loose and be that Other Self (bloodfreak!!!!) also ultimately he caves to the pressure from Dean to give up all sense of self- but rather than allowing himself to like be totally consumed by his relationship with dean by way of removing all sense

(5)personal distinction between himself and dean, Sam puts up a mask of acquiescence that he lets his true self wither behind. Stranger! And I feel like if any of them served The Hunt it would be Dean but really i think he serves The Buried (being trapped, claustrophobia) because to me his greatest fears and miseries seem to center on this sense that everything is another weight he must take on, which is crushing him. He has split his possible futures into “Hunting” and “Apple Pie, Picket Fence"

(6)and no matter where he falls he invariably feels trapped there. Also he is extremely controlling and abusive (don’t worry i love dean, this isnt hate, just an accurate statement) and he sort of draws ppl into his orbit and traps them in their lives with him. Also this bears out since 1. He was buried alive 2. The endgame for all his toxic relationships is to envelop him in a literal underground bunker and 3. He’s afraid of heights/airplanes aka the vast aka the polar opposite of the buried!

ok yes sorry that was all of it, i just have a lot of thoughts that ur thoughts have spurred in me, i hope this tma spn meta wasn't too out of the blue! love your writing, Your Mind is so Very Very. The most very!!!

this is a very insightful analysis, especially re: sam. i wish i had stronger opinions about the tma powers to agree or disagree in a strongly felt way. i do agree about cas and the corruption, though. i love thinking about cas in the context of tma the corruption, because cas is like. well. Top Ten Little Fictional Dudes Who Would Just Love To Be Eaten Alive By A Swarm Of Maggots That Love Him.

#spn #asks #anonymous

21 notes · View notes