Some of you guys need to twig that while Rose is portrayed as poor, Dan is portrayed as living in actual cannot afford food poverty.
Rose is frustrated with her life because she recognises her circumstances and lack of finances mean she's lacking in opportunities to do something more with her life. Her main complaint is she's bored and she could be better than this.
Dan literally can't afford food. That thing that is necessary for survival. Rose is portrayed as poor, Dan is showing modern day poverty. He is, also, incidentally, also bristling at his own lack of opportunities as much as Rose.
If you're gonna bitch at Dan for not wanting to do his plastering job because he wants to be a tour guide and saying it's his own fault he's in this situation, have a bitch at Rose for not wanting to do her boring retail jobs because she wants better things out of life than her circumstances will allow.
These are the same thing.
Dan is, however, Much more poor than Rose ever was and this is without even mentioning how Shockingly expensive it is to live in London compared to other England post codes, and that if Rose losing her job wasn't an absolute terrifying crisis to her and Jackie, that they can afford to live on just Jackie's money. In London. Dan does not live in London and can't feed himself, and as we learn, he had a house but.. really not anything else, no food no luxuries and it looks like he's not got any heat either. And then he doesn't even have a house.
Dan is strictly speaking, homeless, his whole run as a companion. He is in poverty. The show is making a point by having his journey say 'i am all of these things and I am still worth living, my life is worth something, it is a life worth living'.
And while Rose's story pointing out the unfairness of the lack of opportunity afforded to the working class is obviously something that needs to be said, Dan's story portraying a homeless person in poverty as an important and worthy human being deserving of both respect and help is utterly vital.
Having the doctor magically fix his poverty would literally negate the importance of the message.
Dan returns home realising he has worth and will accept the help of others, the type of help he always offers others himself. His arc does not change his circumstance, it changes how he views himself and how he responds to others.
But really. Dan's arc is Rose's with the kid gloves removed, both of these stories exist perfectly harmoniously and point out different yet the same facets of a serious issue. And slamming Dan's only to point out how great Rose's is just comes across as... potentially troubling for a variety of reasons. Why is it acceptable to root for the poor person only when they’re not Gallingly poor? Dan’s arc is saying Dan has worth as a person, a homeless person. Have you seen the way the world treats those without homes? This is vital.
250 notes
·
View notes
5 year anniversary of the miette post \o/
75K notes
·
View notes
we're having sex and you pull out at the end to discover your cock is entirely gone, dissolved (ive digested it like a pitcher plant). bye!
116K notes
·
View notes
they should invent a being in your twenties in which you do not feel your life is unsalvageable and ruined
79K notes
·
View notes
Telling young zoomers to "just switch to linux" is nuts some of these ipad kids have never even heard of a cmd.exe or BIOS you're throwing them to the wolves
60K notes
·
View notes