#sorry if i sound mean ;-;

[akiiame-blog]

Hi, just to be clear, Lou is Mario and Peach's kid.

He is not Luigi's child.

I got some really dumb comments in my last post so that's gone lmao. I ain't dealing with that shit.

There is no "Peach cheated on Mario for Luigi" bullshit going on, please fuck off.

[reining-disaster]

not sure if im a fan of trans identity male anatomy

[Not sure if I care. Hope this helps.]

[rosecorcoranwrites]

(Sorry for taking so long)

Some of the magisterial documents that concern me:

Catechism of Trent, Rerum Novarum 20,36,42,, Quadragesimo Anno 71, casti conubii 120, Pius XII speech to Catholic female organizations (on April 24, 1952) etc

These documents seem to treat women working as a concession rather than as something that should be strived for (usage of the words “should”, “like it or not” etc) 

Which on one hand, yes, I don’t think the modern feminist notion of “women have to be like men in order to contribute” is good, and corporate work culture and such isn’t really good for anyone, and of course there are differences between men and women that should be respected. 

But on the other hand, because of my overthinking brain, I get to wondering if God thinks people working outside of their usual role/men and women who don’t fit their “role” is just something like Old Testament laws we consider unfortunate today, something God “tolerates/tolerated” rather than something He “wants”

It’s probably more of a me problem

No worries about taking long. I am also super busy, so it’s hard for me to find time to focus on things. Anywho, I couldn’t find the text for the Pope Pius XII’ 1952 speech, which wouldn’t be magisterial, as it is just a speech and not an encycliacal or what have you, so we can set it to one side. As for the rest:

The Catechism of Trent:

To train up their children in the practice of virtue, and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns, should also be especial objects of [wives’] attention and study. Unless compelled by necessity to go abroad, they should also cheerfully remain at home ; and should never leave home without the permission of their husbands.

I’ve read some people’s take on this that their husband’s permission can be understood to implicit rather than explicit. For example, when my mom was a stay-at-home-mom, we would go hiking and shopping and picketing when I was little, but my dad knew we were doing that and wouldn’t have asked us not to.

I have my own take on the passage. The Catechism of Trent was written in 1566, so ��home” might not mean a literal house, but more likely a farm or village. Neither spouse should run off to the next village without letting their spouse know, and it’s not unreasonable for a husband to say, “Yeah, don’t go to the next village, because I need you here to help with the (insert myriad duties that weren’t automated at the time).” Running a household back in the day was far more than only child-rearing, and was essentially a job in itself, with cooking, mending clothes, and—if the family owned a shop or farm—helping to run that.

Bringing this perspective to modern day, I think we can agree it is better for families, in general, to “settle down” in one location and build a life there. When children are young, it makes sense for the mother to be the one to stay at home (ie, the hometown) while her husband’s work may require travel. Obviously this is not to say the family can’t take vacations, and necessity (sick relatives, or important speaking engagements on the wife’s part, etc) would allow for the wife’s traveling.   

Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor

I assume the concerning passages are:

20. “Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age.”

This actually proves that the Church is fine with women working, as it implies that there is work—paid work, by an employer, which is suited to the different sexes.

It is also important, just above this line, that it says, “the employer is bound to see that the worker […] be not led away to neglect his home and family.” This applies to both men and women. Context is important for all of these passages, as the document itself concerns treating workers justly so as to have a just society. If society makes it such that work outside the home interferes with family life—for both men and women—than it’s an unjust society (spoiler alert: we’re living in such a society).

36. “…if circumstances were such as that among the working class the ties of family life were relaxed; […] if in workshops and factories there were danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; […] if health were endangered by excessive labor, or by work unsuited to sex or age - in such cases, there can be no question but that, within certain limits, it would be right to invoke the aid and authority of the law.”

The church is saying that the law should step in if family life becomes untenable due to work or if a woman’s health is endangered by her work. I don’t see a problem with this. Now that middle clause about mixing the sexes might sound startling, but read it carefully: "IF in workshops and factories THERE WERE danger to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; […] it WOULD BE right to invoke the aid and authority of the law.” It’s not saying that there will be immorality do to the mixing of the sexes but that if there is, the law has to step in. Which secular society agrees with. It’s why we have sexual harassment laws.

Notice, too, that merely by mentioning men and women working in workshops and factories and women being endangered by excessive labor, the Church is acknowledging that women do and can have jobs.

42. “Finally, work which is quite suitable for a strong man cannot rightly be required from a woman or a child. […] Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family.”

I don’t see a problem with this, either. There are jobs which, frankly, don’t suit women. Dangerous jobs, jobs which require back breaking labor, or jobs which require heavy lifting in a pinch come to mind. The Church is saying don’t force women into hard labor. As for our nature being “fitted to home-work”, that doesn’t mean we can do nothing else. There are plenty of jobs which are not back breaking and that do preserve modesty—medicine, teaching, office work, and so on. So long as those jobs don’t interfere with the the family, there’s no reason a woman shouldn’t pursue them.

Quadragesimo Anno 71

71. “That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children

Many things to note here. First, the acknowledgement that wives can help run farms and shops (which they always have done), and that this is not considered an occupation outside the home. Onto the part about mothers, again, notice the language: “to abuse the years of childhood”  “intolerable abuse […] for mothers […] to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children.

This does not mean that mothers cannot have jobs, hobbies, or interests. Mothers of children should not be forced to work because their husbands are not granted a living wage. Mothers of children ought to stay home with their kids. Again, “staying home with your kids” does not mean you can’t also pursue your own interests and hobbies. It just means that your job is to take care of the kids. Once your kids are more grown, and that may mean being school aged or teenagers—that’s probably a matter of prudential judgement—feel free to go back to a paid job.

Casti Connubbii:

120. if even the mother of the family to the great harm of the home, is compelled to go forth and seek a living by her own labor; […] it is patent to all to what an extent married people may lose heart, and how home life and the observance of God's commands are rendered difficult for them”

Again, this isn’t saying women can’t work, it’s just saying they should not be compelled to do so, and that it would be better if they could focus on homemaking.

TLDR:

I would not say that documents “treat women working as a concession”,  though they do treat mothers of young children working as such (note that there are many mothers of older children and people like me: unmarried women). I do agree that they don’t treat mothers working as “something that should be strived for”, but so what?

I’m gonna get on my soapbox here. You yourself said “corporate work culture and such isn’t really good for anyone” Correct. So stop buying into it. Lose the capitalist notion that a person’s worth comes from their paid occupation. Lose the notion that to “do anything” means to be paid to do it. Christians should not be striving to get a job; we should be striving to become saints. The same goes for men and women. It’s frankly toxic to see a person’s worth as centered in their career. To do so leads people to despair when they lose their jobs or cannot get the one’s they want.

God doesn’t care what job you have, he cares about if you love Him and the people around you. If you can love and serve your family while holding down a job, great. The odds are that you probably can’t do that while raising young children. So make the sacrifice and stop working outside the home for a few years. Your family—and you—will be better for it. Then, when your kids are older—maybe in grade school, or maybe older than that—go back to work if you feel like it. The fact there are women saints with jobs proves that God is fine with women working. And as for men working, I wouldn't say that's something God wants, as the reason we even have to labor is because of the Fall, but I digress....

I don’t think you’re overthinking it, I think you’re buying into a combo of feminist and capitalist rhetoric that says a woman’s worth (a man’s) comes from their place a cog in the capitalist machine, and that the goal of life is to have a fulfilling job. It's not. The goal of life for married people is to create a healthy and holy family. Yes, women's role in this usually involves childrearing while men's involves earning a living wage, but how is that unfortunate? You cannot claim to respect mothers while acting like what they are doing is not as worthy as having a career. And, I'll say it again, nothing about being a mother precludes one from having a career so long as your kids come first.

[evidently-endless]

i think we should remind musicians they can absolutely make up little stories for their songs btw. it doesn’t have to be about them at all. you can invent a guy and put him in situations to music. time honoured tradition in fact.

[affricative--collective]

your oðer options.

[hunterwritesstuff]

Reminder for everyone who follows this blog.

I WILL NOT DRAW YOUR OCS IF I DO NOT KNOW YOU WELL.

I have it in my rules, but it seems that despite this being a writing blog, you're ILLITERATE.

I will not give you free art of your ocs if I DO NOT KNOW YOU. READ THE FUCKING RULES.

[lovelybee666]

Genuine question

Why are there fanfics where they specify that the reader is black? I say this because in those same fanfics there is 0 relevance or difference so I don't see the point of specifying it

[ylissebian]

WOMEN ARE MY FAVORITE GUY 💥

[pickled-flowers]

Sex positivity is also about not calling Ace people prude and using virgin as an insult 👍 hope that helps

[bloodfreakpropaganda]

read a fic where steve was a stuttering mess as eddie's friends made fun of him, rolled my eyes so hard that they saw the insides of my head.

he was king steve! the regina george of hawkins! he is a bitch and was best friends with the meanest kids in town! he can take an insult and fire back! he can defend himself from a couple of nerds!

i know you want to write eddie protecting and defending steve, but you can do that without making steve... not steve.

because, in a mlm relationship, both man can be strong and equal!

[nagitosstolenhand]

i don't like the growing opinion that people are being 'too hard' on deku for his failing to save shigaraki.

i've seen quite a few people complaining that a lot of the bnha-critical crowd are being too mean to deku for getting tomura killed, arguing that it isn't really his fault, and that hes a 16 year old child soldier who's been failed by almost every adult in his life, why should we be putting all of this on his shoulders? hes just a kid after all?

and the truth is, they're right. deku IS a 16 year old boy whos had the fate of the world thrust on his shoulders. but the story itself just plainly refuses to acknowledge this.

the narrative doesn't acknowledge how fucked up having a school that trains literal children how to be combo cop-celebrities is. it only tentatively acknowledges the fact that a universe having combo cop-celebrities is fucked up, and even then the only people who ever point this out are antagonists, who are portrayed and treated in-universe as untrustworthy. the narrative doesn't care how fucked up dekus circumstances are. the narrative treats deku like hes a fucking messiah here to touch the hearts of the evil depressed villains with his magical empathetic heart of gold before they get blown up or just sent to fucking superhell for daring to challenge the status quote.

deku isn't a person. he's barely even a fucking character at this point. he's a plot device, and a mouth piece for the objectively shitty themes bnha is trying to spout. the themes that tell you that if you're mistreated by society and want to do something about it, you're a villain. that disrupting the status quote and refusing to repent to some random teenage boy spouting empty platitudes at you means you deserve to get sent to fucking superhell. the themes that portray people fighting for civil change as mass murdering supervillains. the themes that look the audience dead in the eye and can call deku the greatest hero to ever live.

deku, who barely spared a second thought to lady nagant telling him the truth about the hero commission. who spouts meaningless platitudes about heroism and morality at nagant, and aoyama, and toga and shigaraki, when even the thought that he should question the world around him comes up. who's constantly talked about as this truly kind, empathetic person, but hasn't spared an empathetic thought to literally anyone who is classified as a villain. who listened to every authority figure around him except the ones who asked him to question his worldview. who saw la bravas tears, shigarakis various breakdowns, himikos plead for understanding, chisakis catatonic state, lady nagants truth, and barley batted a fucking eye. deku, who killed tomura shigaraki.

people don't criticize deku for failing shigaraki because they just hate deku. people criticize deku because of what he represents. because hes a mouthpiece for the atrocious morals and themes of this ideologically rotten manga. because any character he had was chopped up to bits in favor of the incomplete husk we have now. people criticize deku because hes the main character of my hero academia. theres nothing more damning then that.

[egophiliac]

Serious question.

Do you think we’ll see the parents/family of each of the guys???

Like, We’ve been TEASED with Ace’s brother, that I’m starting to think it’s just a reference to that Alice in Wonderland park character in Japan and nothing else….

Jack’s family, Ruggie’s grandma, Falena, Maleficia, Ms.Rosehearts, Just now Vil’s dad is in the picture which I am really happy but now I’m wondering about his mom, and so Deuce’s mom.

I mean, some HAVE a silhouette!! It could mean they do have a design in the making/ready to show. They could’ve shown us Falena in the Tamashina (hope I said that correctly) event, but didn’t (prolly to make Leona not so σ(▼□▼メ) and it’s understandable)

Anyhow, any idea/headcannon about this? Who do you want to see first?

I'm wondering if everyone might eventually get a travel event? like they've now introduced with Vil's that it doesn't have to be specifically hometowns, so that opens things up a lot! (especially if they have to figure out how to do three separate Coral Sea visits) (how would that even work otherwise)

but yeah, I hope everyone gets a chance! there's a lot of backstory characters I would LOVE to meet. :D :D :D though I do think some of them don't really suit the more light-hearted tone of the events (pretty sure you're right about that being why Falena wasn't in Tamashina-Mina, that would've just been. too much for Leona.) so like...we're probably not ever going to meet the Rosehearts. or Maleficia (although I maintain that this would be THE funniest possible way to introduce her outside of the main story, and actually I would love this a lot, can we please Twst) (I need to see her to put Malleus in a froofy little outfit and tell him what a handsome boy he is). but they've sprung surprises like Kifaji on us, and honestly anyone who shows up and tells embarrassing stories about characters' childhoods is good in my book!

characters off the top of my head who I most want to meet: literally any of the Zigvolts, Azul's mom, Ace's brother, Che'nya's grandfather (<- I think he would be a good one for Riddle) (please just any non-terrible adult in his life), any member of Rook's family because I need to see how they managed to produce him, and...really just whoever they can come up with for Silver.

[iminmywritersdungeon]

Fr, totally get your point. In my mind though, it’s never been “they were just kids, and therefore no fault is on them” but rather “they were just kids, and it was on the adults to make things better”. It was on vander and Silco for not teaching those kids the proper consequences of their actions and for not helping them truly understand the situation. It was on Mel and heimerdinger and Cassandra fucking kiramman and the entire council to do better, to make it so that they could just be kids and nothing more, but they didn’t, and that’s why it’s such an awful tragedy to me, because this whole thing could have been prevented if someone stepped the fuck up and gave a shit.

Unfortunately, this is piltover and zaun, where everyone has buckets of trauma and capitalism hanging over their heads, and the people in power really don’t give a shit.

It's quite ironic how us arcane fans will use "they were just a kid!" to defend our favorites when the show directly shows us why that's bad.

Look at Jinx. As a child, Vi always shielded her from accountability because she wanted to protect her sister from rejection and wanted to boost her confidence. Whenever jinx is to blame for something, vi is the first person to comfort jinx and the first person to play off the mistake. While this was done with good intentions, it ends up establishing in Jinx's head that she can't really be held accountable, that nothing is really her fault. It also establishes a crippling self-doubt issue that Jinx suffers with for the rest of her life. The moment Vi turns around and goes "actually, this one is on you you fucked up", Jinx loses her shit.

Unfortunately for Jinx, her next caretaker does the exact same shit that Vi did. Silco is constantly protecting jinx from the negative opinions of others and is always giving her second chances that are undeserved. This reiterates to her that nothing she does is wrong, and this has a devastating impact on her. She has no regard for safety, she is completely unphased by death and violence, she completely disregards whatever silco says the majority of the time, and the only time she actually does hold herself accountable is for the times she's hurt those closest to her. This really isn't a good way of holding her accountable though, because all this is doing is torturing her.

You can't use "they're just a kid" rhetoric forever, because one day that kid will grow up, they won't be a kid anymore, but in their head they'll still regard themselves as a child because you never really let them grow up. There has to be a point where you say "no actually, you did know better and you shouldn't have done that. You need to reflect on that and hold yourself accountable."

[thedreadvampy]

Losing my shit about this article in which a transphobic Tory was so busy panicking about existing in the vicinity of a Trans that she almost certainly misheard "jeans" as "penis" and decided that not only was this a problem with the other woman, but also that the world must be informed of this pressing danger.

"a trans woman! I had to stand directly behind her....I thought, 'this is going well', I'm handling The Situation fine'..."

translated: I saw a tall woman with broad shoulders. How would I get out of this alive? I thought. she has a PENIS. PENIS PENIS PENIS. through some force of PENIS I mean will I managed to PENIS behave normally towards her. My hands were PENIS PENIS PENIS shaking as I tried to dry them. summoning up all my PENIS courage I said 'dryer's crap innit'. she turned to me and said " yeah I'm just goiPENIS PENIS PENIS"

It's been a week and I'm still shaking. This proves trans women are the problem and I'm not weird. I'm fine. It's fine. If you think about it I'm the hero hePENIS!!!!!

very this

[xxplastic-cubexx]

Hi!! Your Cherik is so good and gorgeous 🤩🤩 If you don't mind wanna try to draw some Fall of X Cherik please?

thank you so much !!

i have a couple of ideas relating to the fall of x period specifically since theres. A Lot i wanna play with, so i hope this lil thing may be a satisfactory start :]]

and the obligatory bonus: