lightsofyoureyes: diariesofaglaswegianoddity: halmablog: I’m going to keep reblogging this. YES YES YES YES ALL OF THIS YES YES. Shove this post down the throat of every single school board member and politician.  Absolutely. I think yes, we all need basics? And sometimes you don’t find out you even LIKE subjects without being forced to learn them. But I think the way they’re taught in school and teaching for tests and the arbitrary focus on subjects and homogenizing of students’ strengths and studying styles just BORES THE HELL out of kids and makes them hate themselves.
Zoom Info
lightsofyoureyes: diariesofaglaswegianoddity: halmablog: I’m going to keep reblogging this. YES YES YES YES ALL OF THIS YES YES. Shove this post down the throat of every single school board member and politician.  Absolutely. I think yes, we all need basics? And sometimes you don’t find out you even LIKE subjects without being forced to learn them. But I think the way they’re taught in school and teaching for tests and the arbitrary focus on subjects and homogenizing of students’ strengths and studying styles just BORES THE HELL out of kids and makes them hate themselves.
Zoom Info
lightsofyoureyes: diariesofaglaswegianoddity: halmablog: I’m going to keep reblogging this. YES YES YES YES ALL OF THIS YES YES. Shove this post down the throat of every single school board member and politician.  Absolutely. I think yes, we all need basics? And sometimes you don’t find out you even LIKE subjects without being forced to learn them. But I think the way they’re taught in school and teaching for tests and the arbitrary focus on subjects and homogenizing of students’ strengths and studying styles just BORES THE HELL out of kids and makes them hate themselves.
Zoom Info
lightsofyoureyes: diariesofaglaswegianoddity: halmablog: I’m going to keep reblogging this. YES YES YES YES ALL OF THIS YES YES. Shove this post down the throat of every single school board member and politician.  Absolutely. I think yes, we all need basics? And sometimes you don’t find out you even LIKE subjects without being forced to learn them. But I think the way they’re taught in school and teaching for tests and the arbitrary focus on subjects and homogenizing of students’ strengths and studying styles just BORES THE HELL out of kids and makes them hate themselves.
Zoom Info
lightsofyoureyes: diariesofaglaswegianoddity: halmablog: I’m going to keep reblogging this. YES YES YES YES ALL OF THIS YES YES. Shove this post down the throat of every single school board member and politician.  Absolutely. I think yes, we all need basics? And sometimes you don’t find out you even LIKE subjects without being forced to learn them. But I think the way they’re taught in school and teaching for tests and the arbitrary focus on subjects and homogenizing of students’ strengths and studying styles just BORES THE HELL out of kids and makes them hate themselves.
Zoom Info
lightsofyoureyes: diariesofaglaswegianoddity: halmablog: I’m going to keep reblogging this. YES YES YES YES ALL OF THIS YES YES. Shove this post down the throat of every single school board member and politician.  Absolutely. I think yes, we all need basics? And sometimes you don’t find out you even LIKE subjects without being forced to learn them. But I think the way they’re taught in school and teaching for tests and the arbitrary focus on subjects and homogenizing of students’ strengths and studying styles just BORES THE HELL out of kids and makes them hate themselves.
Zoom Info
lightsofyoureyes: diariesofaglaswegianoddity: halmablog: I’m going to keep reblogging this. YES YES YES YES ALL OF THIS YES YES. Shove this post down the throat of every single school board member and politician.  Absolutely. I think yes, we all need basics? And sometimes you don’t find out you even LIKE subjects without being forced to learn them. But I think the way they’re taught in school and teaching for tests and the arbitrary focus on subjects and homogenizing of students’ strengths and studying styles just BORES THE HELL out of kids and makes them hate themselves.
Zoom Info
lightsofyoureyes: diariesofaglaswegianoddity: halmablog: I’m going to keep reblogging this. YES YES YES YES ALL OF THIS YES YES. Shove this post down the throat of every single school board member and politician.  Absolutely. I think yes, we all need basics? And sometimes you don’t find out you even LIKE subjects without being forced to learn them. But I think the way they’re taught in school and teaching for tests and the arbitrary focus on subjects and homogenizing of students’ strengths and studying styles just BORES THE HELL out of kids and makes them hate themselves.
Zoom Info

lightsofyoureyes:

diariesofaglaswegianoddity:

halmablog:

I’m going to keep reblogging this.

YES YES YES YES ALL OF THIS YES YES.

Shove this post down the throat of every single school board member and politician. 

Absolutely. I think yes, we all need basics? And sometimes you don’t find out you even LIKE subjects without being forced to learn them. But I think the way they’re taught in school and teaching for tests and the arbitrary focus on subjects and homogenizing of students’ strengths and studying styles just BORES THE HELL out of kids and makes them hate themselves.

(via ifoncebymindthentwicebyheart)

Source: garfys

Dear tumblr staff:

I realize yahoo thinks that direct, as opposed to indirect, branding and monetization is a great way to snag the interest of the young folk etc etc etc, and frankly as long as the overall culture of the site stays the same i don’t CARE,

but it is IRRESPONSIBLE to use strobing gifs in sponsored ads that we cannot choose to get off our dashes, unless you’re also going to tag as such so that browser addons can take care of that for us.

You claim to care about the safety of your users, so actually act on it.

killthefez: sonicdreams: I remember that speech very well. #SHE JUST TEARS DOWN THE IDEA OF A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR THE AUDIENCE   #WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY REMAINING A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR JOEL   #YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WANT THEM TO COME TOGETHER AGAIN    Reblogging for commentary, not because I necessarily care one way or the other whether they end up together, I think you could argue that both ways - but because I MASSIVELY agree with the MPDG assessment. I get a little irritated at people who use this scene to attest that Clementine isn’t a manic pixie dream girl. THE TEXT SAYS SHE’S NOT! Well, no, it’s more complex than that. The story isn’t told from Clementine’s perspective, and that’s for a reason. Summer (500 Days of Summer) and Clementine are nearly the same in that regard, even though Summer doesn’t quite say THIS clearly that she’s a real person who Tom’s making into a fantasy. (Whether we LIKE the characters — or the actresses that play them, which matters a lot more than you think it does — is not a factor in that. Hell, we SHOULD fall in love with Clementine. Joel does. And he’s the one literally creating reality.) Just because someone is aware of their own objectification doesn’t mean that they’re not being objectified. And in Eternal Sunshine, self awareness has a lot of layers! It also begs the question of how we talk about Manic Pixie Dream Girls. The phrase is a term about WRITING. We so often don’t talk about the writers as if they have any involvement, as if these characters just exist on their own and they better be real or they suck. The characters themselves are people. EVERY character is a person. The writers are the ones choosing how to represent that, choosing specific points of view and/or choosing whether to use opportunities to subvert the text. Like - I love her and I enjoy the movie, but Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim (the movie version, haven’t read the comic) totally is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She’s not written with much depth, her relationships are glossed over including one of the most interesting twists in the story, she is despite being more interesting than half the cast completely passive, and in the end she puts up with Scott’s jealous crap only to tell Scott TO HIS FACE TEXTUALLY that he needs to have some self confidence to stop being a dick to everyone he knows. There are opportunities for her to contradict the point of view but most of them are dealt with by “DO WE HAVE TO— FINE OKAY HERE’S YOUR PLOT DEVELOPMENT”. I would argue that Natalie Portman’s character in Garden State is similarly ignored. Again, it’s (no surprise) from Zach Braff’s character’s POV, but there’s no effort whatsoever to confront or develop her beyond what he needs. But that’s just not always the case. And then of course there are lots of female characters who aren’t viewed by their male counterparts as life-changing dream girls, but that would be too perfect.
Zoom Info
killthefez: sonicdreams: I remember that speech very well. #SHE JUST TEARS DOWN THE IDEA OF A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR THE AUDIENCE   #WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY REMAINING A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR JOEL   #YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WANT THEM TO COME TOGETHER AGAIN    Reblogging for commentary, not because I necessarily care one way or the other whether they end up together, I think you could argue that both ways - but because I MASSIVELY agree with the MPDG assessment. I get a little irritated at people who use this scene to attest that Clementine isn’t a manic pixie dream girl. THE TEXT SAYS SHE’S NOT! Well, no, it’s more complex than that. The story isn’t told from Clementine’s perspective, and that’s for a reason. Summer (500 Days of Summer) and Clementine are nearly the same in that regard, even though Summer doesn’t quite say THIS clearly that she’s a real person who Tom’s making into a fantasy. (Whether we LIKE the characters — or the actresses that play them, which matters a lot more than you think it does — is not a factor in that. Hell, we SHOULD fall in love with Clementine. Joel does. And he’s the one literally creating reality.) Just because someone is aware of their own objectification doesn’t mean that they’re not being objectified. And in Eternal Sunshine, self awareness has a lot of layers! It also begs the question of how we talk about Manic Pixie Dream Girls. The phrase is a term about WRITING. We so often don’t talk about the writers as if they have any involvement, as if these characters just exist on their own and they better be real or they suck. The characters themselves are people. EVERY character is a person. The writers are the ones choosing how to represent that, choosing specific points of view and/or choosing whether to use opportunities to subvert the text. Like - I love her and I enjoy the movie, but Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim (the movie version, haven’t read the comic) totally is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She’s not written with much depth, her relationships are glossed over including one of the most interesting twists in the story, she is despite being more interesting than half the cast completely passive, and in the end she puts up with Scott’s jealous crap only to tell Scott TO HIS FACE TEXTUALLY that he needs to have some self confidence to stop being a dick to everyone he knows. There are opportunities for her to contradict the point of view but most of them are dealt with by “DO WE HAVE TO— FINE OKAY HERE’S YOUR PLOT DEVELOPMENT”. I would argue that Natalie Portman’s character in Garden State is similarly ignored. Again, it’s (no surprise) from Zach Braff’s character’s POV, but there’s no effort whatsoever to confront or develop her beyond what he needs. But that’s just not always the case. And then of course there are lots of female characters who aren’t viewed by their male counterparts as life-changing dream girls, but that would be too perfect.
Zoom Info
killthefez: sonicdreams: I remember that speech very well. #SHE JUST TEARS DOWN THE IDEA OF A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR THE AUDIENCE   #WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY REMAINING A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR JOEL   #YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WANT THEM TO COME TOGETHER AGAIN    Reblogging for commentary, not because I necessarily care one way or the other whether they end up together, I think you could argue that both ways - but because I MASSIVELY agree with the MPDG assessment. I get a little irritated at people who use this scene to attest that Clementine isn’t a manic pixie dream girl. THE TEXT SAYS SHE’S NOT! Well, no, it’s more complex than that. The story isn’t told from Clementine’s perspective, and that’s for a reason. Summer (500 Days of Summer) and Clementine are nearly the same in that regard, even though Summer doesn’t quite say THIS clearly that she’s a real person who Tom’s making into a fantasy. (Whether we LIKE the characters — or the actresses that play them, which matters a lot more than you think it does — is not a factor in that. Hell, we SHOULD fall in love with Clementine. Joel does. And he’s the one literally creating reality.) Just because someone is aware of their own objectification doesn’t mean that they’re not being objectified. And in Eternal Sunshine, self awareness has a lot of layers! It also begs the question of how we talk about Manic Pixie Dream Girls. The phrase is a term about WRITING. We so often don’t talk about the writers as if they have any involvement, as if these characters just exist on their own and they better be real or they suck. The characters themselves are people. EVERY character is a person. The writers are the ones choosing how to represent that, choosing specific points of view and/or choosing whether to use opportunities to subvert the text. Like - I love her and I enjoy the movie, but Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim (the movie version, haven’t read the comic) totally is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She’s not written with much depth, her relationships are glossed over including one of the most interesting twists in the story, she is despite being more interesting than half the cast completely passive, and in the end she puts up with Scott’s jealous crap only to tell Scott TO HIS FACE TEXTUALLY that he needs to have some self confidence to stop being a dick to everyone he knows. There are opportunities for her to contradict the point of view but most of them are dealt with by “DO WE HAVE TO— FINE OKAY HERE’S YOUR PLOT DEVELOPMENT”. I would argue that Natalie Portman’s character in Garden State is similarly ignored. Again, it’s (no surprise) from Zach Braff’s character’s POV, but there’s no effort whatsoever to confront or develop her beyond what he needs. But that’s just not always the case. And then of course there are lots of female characters who aren’t viewed by their male counterparts as life-changing dream girls, but that would be too perfect.
Zoom Info
killthefez: sonicdreams: I remember that speech very well. #SHE JUST TEARS DOWN THE IDEA OF A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR THE AUDIENCE   #WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY REMAINING A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR JOEL   #YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WANT THEM TO COME TOGETHER AGAIN    Reblogging for commentary, not because I necessarily care one way or the other whether they end up together, I think you could argue that both ways - but because I MASSIVELY agree with the MPDG assessment. I get a little irritated at people who use this scene to attest that Clementine isn’t a manic pixie dream girl. THE TEXT SAYS SHE’S NOT! Well, no, it’s more complex than that. The story isn’t told from Clementine’s perspective, and that’s for a reason. Summer (500 Days of Summer) and Clementine are nearly the same in that regard, even though Summer doesn’t quite say THIS clearly that she’s a real person who Tom’s making into a fantasy. (Whether we LIKE the characters — or the actresses that play them, which matters a lot more than you think it does — is not a factor in that. Hell, we SHOULD fall in love with Clementine. Joel does. And he’s the one literally creating reality.) Just because someone is aware of their own objectification doesn’t mean that they’re not being objectified. And in Eternal Sunshine, self awareness has a lot of layers! It also begs the question of how we talk about Manic Pixie Dream Girls. The phrase is a term about WRITING. We so often don’t talk about the writers as if they have any involvement, as if these characters just exist on their own and they better be real or they suck. The characters themselves are people. EVERY character is a person. The writers are the ones choosing how to represent that, choosing specific points of view and/or choosing whether to use opportunities to subvert the text. Like - I love her and I enjoy the movie, but Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim (the movie version, haven’t read the comic) totally is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She’s not written with much depth, her relationships are glossed over including one of the most interesting twists in the story, she is despite being more interesting than half the cast completely passive, and in the end she puts up with Scott’s jealous crap only to tell Scott TO HIS FACE TEXTUALLY that he needs to have some self confidence to stop being a dick to everyone he knows. There are opportunities for her to contradict the point of view but most of them are dealt with by “DO WE HAVE TO— FINE OKAY HERE’S YOUR PLOT DEVELOPMENT”. I would argue that Natalie Portman’s character in Garden State is similarly ignored. Again, it’s (no surprise) from Zach Braff’s character’s POV, but there’s no effort whatsoever to confront or develop her beyond what he needs. But that’s just not always the case. And then of course there are lots of female characters who aren’t viewed by their male counterparts as life-changing dream girls, but that would be too perfect.
Zoom Info
killthefez: sonicdreams: I remember that speech very well. #SHE JUST TEARS DOWN THE IDEA OF A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR THE AUDIENCE   #WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY REMAINING A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR JOEL   #YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WANT THEM TO COME TOGETHER AGAIN    Reblogging for commentary, not because I necessarily care one way or the other whether they end up together, I think you could argue that both ways - but because I MASSIVELY agree with the MPDG assessment. I get a little irritated at people who use this scene to attest that Clementine isn’t a manic pixie dream girl. THE TEXT SAYS SHE’S NOT! Well, no, it’s more complex than that. The story isn’t told from Clementine’s perspective, and that’s for a reason. Summer (500 Days of Summer) and Clementine are nearly the same in that regard, even though Summer doesn’t quite say THIS clearly that she’s a real person who Tom’s making into a fantasy. (Whether we LIKE the characters — or the actresses that play them, which matters a lot more than you think it does — is not a factor in that. Hell, we SHOULD fall in love with Clementine. Joel does. And he’s the one literally creating reality.) Just because someone is aware of their own objectification doesn’t mean that they’re not being objectified. And in Eternal Sunshine, self awareness has a lot of layers! It also begs the question of how we talk about Manic Pixie Dream Girls. The phrase is a term about WRITING. We so often don’t talk about the writers as if they have any involvement, as if these characters just exist on their own and they better be real or they suck. The characters themselves are people. EVERY character is a person. The writers are the ones choosing how to represent that, choosing specific points of view and/or choosing whether to use opportunities to subvert the text. Like - I love her and I enjoy the movie, but Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim (the movie version, haven’t read the comic) totally is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She’s not written with much depth, her relationships are glossed over including one of the most interesting twists in the story, she is despite being more interesting than half the cast completely passive, and in the end she puts up with Scott’s jealous crap only to tell Scott TO HIS FACE TEXTUALLY that he needs to have some self confidence to stop being a dick to everyone he knows. There are opportunities for her to contradict the point of view but most of them are dealt with by “DO WE HAVE TO— FINE OKAY HERE’S YOUR PLOT DEVELOPMENT”. I would argue that Natalie Portman’s character in Garden State is similarly ignored. Again, it’s (no surprise) from Zach Braff’s character’s POV, but there’s no effort whatsoever to confront or develop her beyond what he needs. But that’s just not always the case. And then of course there are lots of female characters who aren’t viewed by their male counterparts as life-changing dream girls, but that would be too perfect.
Zoom Info
killthefez: sonicdreams: I remember that speech very well. #SHE JUST TEARS DOWN THE IDEA OF A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR THE AUDIENCE   #WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY REMAINING A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR JOEL   #YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WANT THEM TO COME TOGETHER AGAIN    Reblogging for commentary, not because I necessarily care one way or the other whether they end up together, I think you could argue that both ways - but because I MASSIVELY agree with the MPDG assessment. I get a little irritated at people who use this scene to attest that Clementine isn’t a manic pixie dream girl. THE TEXT SAYS SHE’S NOT! Well, no, it’s more complex than that. The story isn’t told from Clementine’s perspective, and that’s for a reason. Summer (500 Days of Summer) and Clementine are nearly the same in that regard, even though Summer doesn’t quite say THIS clearly that she’s a real person who Tom’s making into a fantasy. (Whether we LIKE the characters — or the actresses that play them, which matters a lot more than you think it does — is not a factor in that. Hell, we SHOULD fall in love with Clementine. Joel does. And he’s the one literally creating reality.) Just because someone is aware of their own objectification doesn’t mean that they’re not being objectified. And in Eternal Sunshine, self awareness has a lot of layers! It also begs the question of how we talk about Manic Pixie Dream Girls. The phrase is a term about WRITING. We so often don’t talk about the writers as if they have any involvement, as if these characters just exist on their own and they better be real or they suck. The characters themselves are people. EVERY character is a person. The writers are the ones choosing how to represent that, choosing specific points of view and/or choosing whether to use opportunities to subvert the text. Like - I love her and I enjoy the movie, but Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim (the movie version, haven’t read the comic) totally is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She’s not written with much depth, her relationships are glossed over including one of the most interesting twists in the story, she is despite being more interesting than half the cast completely passive, and in the end she puts up with Scott’s jealous crap only to tell Scott TO HIS FACE TEXTUALLY that he needs to have some self confidence to stop being a dick to everyone he knows. There are opportunities for her to contradict the point of view but most of them are dealt with by “DO WE HAVE TO— FINE OKAY HERE’S YOUR PLOT DEVELOPMENT”. I would argue that Natalie Portman’s character in Garden State is similarly ignored. Again, it’s (no surprise) from Zach Braff’s character’s POV, but there’s no effort whatsoever to confront or develop her beyond what he needs. But that’s just not always the case. And then of course there are lots of female characters who aren’t viewed by their male counterparts as life-changing dream girls, but that would be too perfect.
Zoom Info

killthefez:

sonicdreams:

I remember that speech very well.

#SHE JUST TEARS DOWN THE IDEA OF A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR THE AUDIENCE   #WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY REMAINING A MANIC PIXIE DREAM GIRL FOR JOEL   #YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WANT THEM TO COME TOGETHER AGAIN   

Reblogging for commentary, not because I necessarily care one way or the other whether they end up together, I think you could argue that both ways - but because I MASSIVELY agree with the MPDG assessment.

I get a little irritated at people who use this scene to attest that Clementine isn’t a manic pixie dream girl. THE TEXT SAYS SHE’S NOT! Well, no, it’s more complex than that. The story isn’t told from Clementine’s perspective, and that’s for a reason. Summer (500 Days of Summer) and Clementine are nearly the same in that regard, even though Summer doesn’t quite say THIS clearly that she’s a real person who Tom’s making into a fantasy. (Whether we LIKE the characters — or the actresses that play them, which matters a lot more than you think it does — is not a factor in that. Hell, we SHOULD fall in love with Clementine. Joel does. And he’s the one literally creating reality.) Just because someone is aware of their own objectification doesn’t mean that they’re not being objectified. And in Eternal Sunshine, self awareness has a lot of layers!

It also begs the question of how we talk about Manic Pixie Dream Girls. The phrase is a term about WRITING. We so often don’t talk about the writers as if they have any involvement, as if these characters just exist on their own and they better be real or they suck. The characters themselves are people. EVERY character is a person. The writers are the ones choosing how to represent that, choosing specific points of view and/or choosing whether to use opportunities to subvert the text.

Like - I love her and I enjoy the movie, but Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim (the movie version, haven’t read the comic) totally is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She’s not written with much depth, her relationships are glossed over including one of the most interesting twists in the story, she is despite being more interesting than half the cast completely passive, and in the end she puts up with Scott’s jealous crap only to tell Scott TO HIS FACE TEXTUALLY that he needs to have some self confidence to stop being a dick to everyone he knows. There are opportunities for her to contradict the point of view but most of them are dealt with by “DO WE HAVE TO— FINE OKAY HERE’S YOUR PLOT DEVELOPMENT”. I would argue that Natalie Portman’s character in Garden State is similarly ignored. Again, it’s (no surprise) from Zach Braff’s character’s POV, but there’s no effort whatsoever to confront or develop her beyond what he needs. But that’s just not always the case.

And then of course there are lots of female characters who aren’t viewed by their male counterparts as life-changing dream girls, but that would be too perfect.

Source: sonicdreams

foxynonsense: lipstickndynamite: One of the best mom moments in TV history. I wish more parents knew how important it is to validate their children’s feelings. omg this is like the best way in the world to handle sadness.  Aw, this is absolutely the way kids’ feelings should be treated. When I was little I didn’t really appreciate/enjoy the humor of the Simpsons and I think I actually missed out on a lot of very good moments.
Zoom Info
foxynonsense: lipstickndynamite: One of the best mom moments in TV history. I wish more parents knew how important it is to validate their children’s feelings. omg this is like the best way in the world to handle sadness.  Aw, this is absolutely the way kids’ feelings should be treated. When I was little I didn’t really appreciate/enjoy the humor of the Simpsons and I think I actually missed out on a lot of very good moments.
Zoom Info
foxynonsense: lipstickndynamite: One of the best mom moments in TV history. I wish more parents knew how important it is to validate their children’s feelings. omg this is like the best way in the world to handle sadness.  Aw, this is absolutely the way kids’ feelings should be treated. When I was little I didn’t really appreciate/enjoy the humor of the Simpsons and I think I actually missed out on a lot of very good moments.
Zoom Info
foxynonsense: lipstickndynamite: One of the best mom moments in TV history. I wish more parents knew how important it is to validate their children’s feelings. omg this is like the best way in the world to handle sadness.  Aw, this is absolutely the way kids’ feelings should be treated. When I was little I didn’t really appreciate/enjoy the humor of the Simpsons and I think I actually missed out on a lot of very good moments.
Zoom Info

foxynonsense:

lipstickndynamite:

One of the best mom moments in TV history. I wish more parents knew how important it is to validate their children’s feelings.

omg this is like the best way in the world to handle sadness. 

Aw, this is absolutely the way kids’ feelings should be treated. When I was little I didn’t really appreciate/enjoy the humor of the Simpsons and I think I actually missed out on a lot of very good moments.

(via lexiconcarne)

Source: forgofamilyforgofriends