fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2751 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2751 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #393.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - tar fields, I assume. No more linking after this. If you want to play a character, do it in the Games thread or a roleplay community, please ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

They're actually missing a very specific thing. Whether that's bothersome, however, is wholly up the individuals in question.

That depends on what you call "missing". Do you miss things you have no desire for, or that you decided not to pursue?

Under the same logic, I'm also missing owning livestock, a career as a lawyer, or a motorcycle.

The thing is I never aspired to have those things, so I doubt one could truly call it "missing". Fact is some choices in life rule out others, but that doesn't mean you're actively missing all the roads not taken.

This so much. I don't want kids. I'm not missing anything in choosing not to have kids.

Well said!

This.

I mean missing as in there is a lack of child and all the experiences that come with it. The rest of my post pretty much sums of the rest of yours, which is that maybe lacking a small human and those experiences doesn't bother you in the slightest -- or in fact may greatly please you -- and that's A-OK.

The word "lack" is rather loaded.

Oh, whatever.

Really? I find it much less loaded than "missing", which to me implies that something is supposed to be there but isn't. "Lack" is much more neutral to me.

Which term is more loaded than which ends up sounding like the debate between "Childless" and "Childfree" to me.

(I have spent time on CF comms. I know the reasonings. I don't disagree with them either.)

Yeah, this.

God, this is the sort of comment that makes people bash academics and perpetuate the falsehood that being elite at something is bad. Because for fuck's sake there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that post if you don't go analyzing six ways from sunday to find the one way that somebody with too much goddamn time on their hands could interpret it poorly instead of taking the most logical meaning behind it.

BTW, that comment was fucking funny. "You're not missing anything if you don't have a kid!" Just....a kid.

I honestly don't get your link with academics.

My point is that nobody has everything in life, everyone is "missing" something. So, at which point do we just stop calling it missing and just see it as a normal part of the human condition. And why are people more prone to use the word missing for kids than for a mansion. Because hey, I feel like I miss a mansion a whole lot more.

Literally, this whole comment is what I'm talking about. It's academic to turn dancing_clown's comment into commentary on the human condition and "when do we start seeing something as being missing?" when this context literally just means it's absent.

The problem is words do have meaning and connotations.

"Missing" is generally used to describe something that one once had but was lost, or something that is desired but lacking, or perceived as such. If you saw a man with one eye you could say he was missing an eye, but you probably wouldn't say he was "missing" a mustache unless this was a man who typically had facial hair and now doesn't.

The thing there is that everyone is assumed to have two eyes, wile not everyone's assumed to have a mustache. A lot of the language and rhetoric around having kids assumes having kids as default, and that certainly is a mentality that should be questioned, especially in this world.

Being described as "missing" children is unfortunately something that is very common for childless or childfree people. So you know, in some cases it IS good to question wording. You read the comment as a joke, I didn't. I didn't read it as malignant, either, but sometimes re-evaluating word use is interesting in very practical, non-acedemic ways.

This sort of turned out longer than intended, but yeah...

This. There is nothing wrong with simply saying that one doesn't have children instead of using the word "missing." That's actually exactly why the term "childfree" came about as opposed to "childless" - because the "-less" portion of the word implies that you are missing or lacking something by not having children, which isn't the case for those who have decided not to have kids. There's an important distinction to be drawn between childless people who would like to have children but can't or don't for whatever reason and people who don't want them at all.

Thanks for explaining the distinction so elegantly.

English is full of this kind of nuance. Look at all those English adjectives that have come to exceptionality simply because that's how they're typically used. "Spry" is only ever used to describe people that you wouldn't EXPECT to be spry (e.g. 90-year-olds - how often have you heard of spry toddlers?), and it seems to me that (more insidiously) "articulate" is often used in the same way.

all you people need to get the fuck over yourselves. the language ain't perfect. there's no way it's ever going to be. just take people for what they mean and stop assuming the worst out of everything.

(no subject)

kallanda_lee - 2014-07-16 21:01 (UTC) - Expand

Well said. The heart of the matter is "missing" implies (and not all too subtly at that) "less than complete", as if a woman NEEDS to have a child in order to be initiated into "full" womanhood. The funny thing is, you rarely, if ever, hear a man being defined that way.

Oh shit, sorry that words have meaning and people react to them? "miss" is a peculiar choice, specially considering people often condescendingly tell women they'll miss out by not having children.

You don't see a Jonathan Brandis icon too often these days! I was in an episode of SeaQuest way back when. He used to party with us even though he was a few years older.

Neat! I'm always glad to hear good things about JB. Seemed like a good guy.

They're actually missing a very specific thing.

LOL, I see what you did there.

Thank you anon. I make a joke and come back to find the thread has shit itself in self-righteousness.

Nobody can take a joke anymore. THE INTERNET IS SRS BSNS OMG