case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2014-10-15 06:53 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry

[ SECRET POST #2843 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2843 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #406.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(Anonymous) 2014-10-16 01:45 am (UTC)(link)
I used to feel that way, too. But reconsidering her story- she's just shifted from one heavy duty to another. Unless, of course, you think healers are nothing.

Anyone who's fought and defeated an incredible evil and nearly died from the poisoning from it is entitled to put down the sword and shield and pick up something life affirming. She doesn't need to prove herself anymore.

(Anonymous) 2014-10-16 05:13 am (UTC)(link)
No, but I do think healers are coded as the steroetypical feminine role because ~women are nurturers~. Look at RPGs. most healers or white mages are women.

As well, it shouldn't have been about proving herself, ever. It should have been entirely about her wanting to be a warrior.
ext_18500: My non-fandom OC Oraania. She's crazy. (Default)

[identity profile] mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com 2014-10-16 05:57 am (UTC)(link)
And she was a warrior. Then the war ended, what was she going to fight?

(Anonymous) 2014-10-16 06:27 am (UTC)(link)
I got news for you: Women are nurturers. There is a reason why the healing and nurturing was a female thing in most cultures (even those that had no cultural connection) and it probably wasn't because of sexism.

(Anonymous) 2014-10-16 01:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Most cultures also had women be subservient and a property of men. I suppose you're going to tell me now that that too had a deep very improtant reason, that isn't sexism.

(Anonymous) 2014-10-16 05:25 pm (UTC)(link)
So basically, you're saying that no cultural deveolpment could ever have made sense for a different reason than sexism? Cute.

You're one of those people who think "they forbade the consumption of pork because they hated pigs", I guess.

(Anonymous) 2014-10-16 05:21 pm (UTC)(link)
Women are generally potential or actual childbearers. Nurturing is a completely different matter. Methinks you are equating a culturally-enforced social role with a personality trait, and baby, it's just not so.

(Anonymous) 2014-10-16 07:18 pm (UTC)(link)
It's because of sexism. Sorry, but you're wrong. Women are seen as primarily vessels for children first and foremost in most cultures.

I say this as someone who lives with a history major who rants about this all the time.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only