anonymous said:

Biologically impossible, but the guys producing (miraculously) children with human women always appealed to me, especially when the child appears more human-like rather than mutant-turtle. I've always wanted to write fanfiction on it, but was never quite sure how any of them would respond or what the later ramifications would be in that hypothetical situation. I was curious what would your personal opinion for the boys would be.

I see you anon’d this at darthempress as well, ARE MY METAS NOT ALSO THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD ANON, HUH? lol jk ;) ;) ;)

Okay the way I see it…

Raphael has no particular desire to have a child but if he found himself a father then he would step up and do his best at the job, both in terms of providing for them and being there for them. He does not have a lot of faith in his paternal capacity however. He would be a supportive and loving father and would encourage his child’s independence. I think he would be a great father, tbh, though he would question himself constantly. He would always be there.

Michelangelo would absolutely adore having children and would cheerfully be a stay at home dad. It would be a dream come true for him and definitely something he desires to round out his life. He would relish the opportunity and hope for a partner who shared his desire. He would be an adoring and doting dad, probably not disciplined enough though.

Leonardo would like to have children but only in a planned context within a committed relationship, after they had discussed it. He would not consider his life incomplete without children but he thinks they would enhance it, even as they would amp up his protective and obsessive instincts to all new levels. He would be very loving but extremely demanding - probably too disciplined.

Donatello I don’t see as having any particular desire for children though ultimately that might depend on who he’s with and how serious the relationship becomes. He wouldn’t want any surprises though he would take responsibility in that instance (I feel they all would, ultimately?). I think he would provide the most balance in terms of stability and would definitely be caring and gentle, but could run the same problems as always of getting caught up in his work and neglecting himself and those around him. 

As for potential ramifications, gosh that would depend on so many factors. What verse is it in, what the environment is, who the mother is, how old they are and so on and so forth.  I mean you have to place them in context and go from there.

the real-life ramifications of joking about straight people being gay:

  • ……

the real-life ramifications of homophobia:

  • higher rates of homelessness
  • highest rates of homelessness in teens
  • higher rates of mental illness
  • higher rates of suicide
  • higher rates of murdered youth
  • higher rates of drug addiction
  • higher rates of working in the sex industry
  • higher rates of physical abuse
  • higher rates of sexual abuse

Just, in case, you know, anyone was ever confused.

rosaleedonovan said: Jesus Christ. These people make me want to throw up. (Much like Ward makes Skye want to throw up.)

Well, I have feelings even more intense than wanting to throw up because the second quote comes from the person who made that post celebrating my harassment so that everybody in the SWW could cheer, what a shining example of humanity. But yeah, disgust and horror are the main things.

Mainly I feel sad for all of us, because the real world ramifications of this line of thought are very obvious. Sounds like an argument you would hear in a court to discredit a rape victim (it reminds me of an actual case near my hometown, some years ago), that if the guy had many opportunities to rape her and hadn’t before then she was safe from him forever. What ignorant bullshit.

surauvers said:

1/2 In my US History class the Professor went into talking about Histrocism and into how Christopher Columbus and other people who conquered around the world weren't really bad by the standards of the times they lived in since it was common place, he seemed to atleast be able to acknowledge the ramifications of slavery and colonialism but something about "everyone was doing it then so nobody thought it was wrong" bothered me. It seems like it lumps everyone together into a hive mind and that--

2/2 just doesn’t seem right. He also made it out that just like they thought it was right we think it was wrong because those morals were ingrained in us as normal. But I believe as long as there has been oppression there has been opposition and as long as there has been status-quo and normalcy there has been deviation just like today. So couldn’t we agree that everyone then didn’t think the same and agree that everyone can disagree with anything? Or is it closer to what the professor said?

I’m kind of blown away by this, just because I’m not sure who your professor is theoretically surveying for opinions here. Because I am pretty fricking sure that if you asked the people being murdered and/or enslaved, they would say yeah, it’s pretty bad.

If we are limiting ~opinions on genocide and colonialism~ to Europeans, well. First of all, the idea of something being “normal” wasn’t actually a thing yet, and wouldn’t be for some time. At least, not the way we think of it today.

If we limit out “opinion survey” ONLY to Europeans directly involved with colonizing, there are a ton of examples that demonstrate acknowledgement of what we could call abnormal levels of violence that were routinely happening as a direct result of colonization. One of the notorious Captain Cook’s own men described his behavior as “irrationally violent," and desertions were pretty rampant. When Prince William Ansa Sasraku was sold into enslavement rather than being transported to England for English instruction, the novel written about it was quite popular. You don’t write a novel about something if it’s not an unusual occurrence. I’m not even going to get into stuff like King Leopold in the Congo because I will literally throw up. NO ONE thought that was “normal”.

I could give endless examples, but the real problem here is

1. the normalization NOW of violence in “the past”

2. apologism.

What we have here is a near-terminal case of “Things Were Just Like That Back Then”. There is a enormous cultural concept of the past as a cesspit of bloody-minded violence, oppression, exploitation, and nonstop existential horror that was supposedly so commonplace that no one would bat an eyelash at seeing their neighbors rent limb from limb as a matter of course on a Wednesday morning.

The thing I find so frustrating is that shaking people loose from the idea that history is a line graph that goes “things were really bad, then became better!” is almost impossible. I’m not just talking about non-academics, either…academics and historians can be even worse about it. It just isn’t true. Depending on what societies and eras you’re trying to draw comparisons to, violence is much more “normalized” NOW than it was in the past.

*takes a deep breath*

Anyways. What is a more fruitful line of thought is to consider why people try to serve up this kind of apologism for colonialism, genocide, and enslavement. It’s excruciatingly obvious that your professor is trying the line of “well, it wasn’t that bad because ____.” Apologism comes in all your classic white supremacist flavors: “Africa already had slavery”, “Native Americans were already at war with each other”, and of course, “Violence was just how things were back then so blah blah Social Darwinism.”

^^^ All of that nonsense is meant to justify how things are now, like white supremacy and gun violence in American culture, institutionalized racism, sexism, classism, and a bunch of other crap that so many facets of our history education are tailored to maintain. Exaggerating violence in the past is a way of making the present seem “less bad”, which is supposed to make us more okay with the violence and oppression that surrounds us. And the idea that even IF violence was normalized in the past in popular opinion, that it somehow is subject to some kind of moral relativism that we should all observe with “objectivity” is a moral failure in itself.