:eyes:
Tag: nice
I’m Catholic. My dad has been a stay at home dad. My mom has been a working mother. We turned out fine. Our family is not suffering, our family is not godless, our family is not falling apart because Mom is not a stay at home mom.
If my mother was never working, we never would have moved out of New York. She’s a nurse. We moved out of New York because Kentucky has some of the greatest nursing wages and laws. Mom and dad were both able to negotiate and achieve their dreams.
Stay at home mothers are wonderful. They do the most important work. But my family is not less, my mother is not a sinner, and my father is not weak because he was the stay at home dad while mom worked.
Each family is different. Each family has different needs.
Imagine Ben Steel as a ghost following Juno around and tearing his hair out at some of the situations Juno gets himself into
I thought of a beyond two souls au once where Ben gets to be a sarcastic little poltergeist to Juno.
He fucking slams the door on Juno the night he tries to leave Nureyev. Juno tries to have scotch and leftover French fries for breakfast and gets nailed in the back of the head with an apple. Just some brotherly love from beyond the grave
Okay, I have been waffling so much about what’s the best place to write this and what’s the most interpersonally responsible way to voice a criticism of what’s ultimately a widespread community ideology, but.
I think ultimately I just need to say this as its own post and not a response that would get distracted from the actual point by coming inherently framed by a preexisting statement.
Asserting that someone can’t be aromantic (and instead has to identify as some other type of aro-related label) because they “experience” any amount/type/frequency of “romantic attraction” is gatekeeping, counterproductive amatonormativity.
It’s saying that involuntary, nebulous and personal and poorly-defined emotions – regardless of frequency, interpretation, context, or significance to the person in question – ultimately override any other concerns that a person may have, in how they want to contextualise themself internally and socially-structurally, via identifying with a given label.
And when it comes particularly to romance, and this concept we’ve created of romantic orientation, that is extraordinarily dangerous, and extraordinarily reinforcing of the notion that romance is not only more significant than other relationships to others and oneself, but also organically real instead of socially constructed. Whether you “feel romantic attraction” or not – why is this the defining factor? What is “romantic attraction”, but another form of the idea that romance, is, again, biological rather than cultural? What exactly makes something “romantic attraction” when you feel things that another person might call that, but that you actively refuse to contextualise as being “romantic” at all? Why is this supposed to be more important than, for example, how amatonormativity has shaped one’s life and understanding of relationships and sense of self, and how one wants to push back against that network of ideas? And so pushing people out of one identity, essentially saying “even in this community where the point is that romance is not essential or the most important, the fact that you are in some fashion `closer’ to the ideal of a person acceptable to amatonormativity, means you have to take on an identity specifically highlighting that greater degree of closeness” – that is not okay.
Identities that blur the boundaries between being alloromantic and aromantic are extremely valuable, clearly useful to so many people, and philosophically important in weakening the notion that romance is a single unit of feeling and action, something you either have or don’t have and that is easily understood and defined. But defining them in part by whether one merely experiences an emotion, and positing no choice for whether people want to conceptualise themselves and said emotions in that way as opposed to in some way that would make simply “aromantic” more sensible or appealing, is not how to build a strong sense of what aromanticism and anti-amatonormativity even is.
A note on labels
As I am sure any cat owner will be able to tell you, someone else putting you in a box is entirely different from getting into a box yourself.
This is the most brilliant, concise, cute, and disarming response to the “but laaaaaaaabels are baaaaaaad” argument that gets used against people trying to self-identify as something as a way of making sure their boundaries are understood and respected.
that is a very good analogy
there’s tons of momo redesigns out there and i love them, but i thought i should tackle one that gets brushed over way more: hagakure! she’s fifteen and fighting criminals and yet no one thought “hey maybe her being actually naked isnt the best course of action here”
credit to @tenya for the new hero name!
main points:
- it’s made of her dna similarly to how mirio’s is made of his, meaning it can turn invisible with her
- the panel tracks her vitals, so if she goes unconscious it makes her costume visible so her teammates can find her, as well as giving them a log of what’s injured and what her status is. there’s some specific exceptions to this, but i’ll put those under the cut to avoid clogging dashes!
Sometimes I just ignore anon hate because theres a proverb I learnt in a Nigerian movie that said.
‘You cannot run naked after a mad man in the street after he has taken your clothes away from you because the public will not know who is the mad person between the two of you’I feel like this proverb was based on firsthand experience.
The Nine Hecks
Site Title 