At least in the circles I was subjected to growing up (presbyterian/PCA), that one passage is one of (if not) the primary foundation for the christain justification of the patriarchal household.

This makes children having agency quite literally a threat to parents (well, fathers).

The child's value is the perceived value to their parent. Even the threat of a failed future isn't for the child's sake, but the parents.

What always gets to me about this is that the "threat" of a child having agency is never really about the safety or wellbeing of the child. It always comes back to what that child could supposedly take away from parents if they were given agency.

I was gonna say, this ep managed to be even more directly topical than they already typically are (which I suppose is predictable at this point but sucks).

She did, and I love Wuk Lamat so much! Wuk Lamat reminded me of what I like about a shonen protagonist (relentless positivity/caring about others) but fem and they actually challenge her views in interesting ways.

This is exciting to hear because I was already doing exactly this.

This is one of the reasons why I balk at the idea that men are afraid to be perceived as abusive. In many cases, that perception is actually key to their success, because other people strive to make excuses for their behavior, deny it, redeem them, and elevate them in the process.

A game about supposedly choosing to let go and grieve literally never lets Maelle (or any of the women) make that choice, it just assumes she’ll do it wrong and forces her to go live with her abusive family.

“Children and women should have to submit to the father figure because they don’t know how to grieve right”

The game not only denies the oppressed group(s) agency it shames them for wanting agency.