fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2704 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2704 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 022 secrets from Secret Submission Post #386.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

so now every woman who takes a chance on any man is a fucking idiot? every woman who takes a chance on any man is crazy? every woman who takes a chance on any man is suicidal?

nope. that analogy also sucks.

None of that is implied with that analogy. It's a response to NotAllMen, to explain why some women might be wary against men in general.

Well, you see, my head is not somebody else's head. And when somebody else uses stupid analogies to try to illustrate their wariness of men, it looks to my head like condemnation of the entire male sex.

Which the wary ones don't want to acknowledge - that what sounds like a wonderful explanation to them sounds irrational to other people.

The wary one would be better off to say simply that many women have reason to be nervous/anxious/etc. about men. Call it a phobia. Call it PTSD. Instead of trying to illustrate it with stupid analogies.

Sometimes simply stating things go on deaf ears, sometimes a simple visual helps someone to understand better. A phobia would be a poor choice in my opinion, since it implies irrational fear. Many women avoid men because they have been sexually abused, physically abused, or have been harassed.

The white analogy, for example, does not fit here. As white people's aversion to people of color stems from systematic racism or class biases. An irrational hatred. Women who avoid these situations do so often for their own safety. Because their voices are often silenced or dismissed, because it's more common to see a young woman be blamed for her own assault than her perpetrator(s). Rape is more often perpetrated by a man the woman knows than a stranger. They put their trust into these men and were repaid in a heinous manner. It can be hard to trust again after something like this happens to you.

Many have tried to explain this, and it usually falls short. This is why some attempt to explain via analogy. Some may not be as effective as others, but neither is shouting, "Not all men!", when the conversation is about women.

Try this.

A person was savaged by a dog. They survived. No matter how much you reassure this person that most dogs are perfectly tame and safe, that doesn't make their experiences vanish. They are still going to be wary of dogs.

See? No poisoned candy, no racism, no reference to a moronic "game" (which reference, by its very nature, implies that any woman who takes a chance with any man is fucking stupid/crazy.)

In the same vein one could say that implying all men are dogs implies men are not human. See? Arguing over semantics detracts from the purpose of the analogy in the first place, which is to give a visual aid to a topic that is extremely complex.

When the visual aid creates inflammatory visions in the minds of the people you're trying to explain things to, it doesn't help your cause.

If you want people to understand by using analogy, you're going to have to make a comparison. And an animal attack and a "man" attack have more in common than the hypothetical poison candy and a "man" attack.

Also, it's something that people are more likely to grasp, simply because a lot of people will have known someone who doesn't auto-trust dogs (or it might be cats, or even bees) because of a bad childhood experience with a bad dog.

This analogy is one of many things created from the YesAllWomen hashtag, which is seen as inflammatory by certain men in general, not just because of candy. When your first assumption is to start shouting about men in a conversation about women, then it isn't the candies that are the issue. It is akin to a white person shouting that not all Caucasians are racist in a conversation about PoC's experiences under an establishment stacked against them. It simply derails from the message, to placate the feelings of those in a position of power.

I'm not shouting about any person, I'm shouting about inept analogies that just make things worse.

I don't believe the dog thing is an inapt as the M&M one or the (good lord) Russian roulette one.

There is no analogy that can calm the hurt fee-fees of a group of people who will never know what it's like to look for a college and have to cross check rape statistics, or be shamed every which way for their own sexuality.

Wahhwahh, men feel insulted and left out of a movement about women's personal stories with sexism. We must derail the conversation, that isn't about males in general, to comfort them. Because when women talk about their own rape stories or sexual harassment, the thing that should be taken away is, Buhh wuh abuut manzzz!

You sound just like my ex, Anon. However, I don't think he has a DW account, nor is he into fandom. But reading your comments is making me ever so grateful that I finally dumped his ass. Five years was too long to live with someone like you.

That just drives home the point that not all dogs will savage you.

Kinda funny how that dumb metaphor allowed people to start arguing about it, instead of focusing on the actual issue? How about just dropping it.

[ SECRET POST #2704 ]

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms

Re: muh M&Ms