fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3127 ]

[ SECRET POST #3127 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3127 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 046 secrets from Secret Submission Post #447.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - 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

08. http://i.imgur.com/gHOUSaU.jpg

I don't know who this is but she looks like she's trying to pee during a raging UTI.

I snorted so hard I sent powdered sugar all over my keyboard. Thanks a lot.

Okay...but did she actually cheat to get ahead?
Because if there's no proof that she did any of that and it's all accusations, than I don't really see what the point of this secret is. Other than, "lesbians can be mean too."

I've seen this show the show, and no, she didn't cheat. The judging is highly subjective because you're taste testing baked goods and they take into consideration past performances, mitigating circumstances, etc. In Ruby's case... well. She's a good baker, but she had some not-so-great results sometimes or results that didn't always measure up to the competition. During the original run of the show, she was criticized for tearing up rather easily out of frustration, and you know, the judges' hearts aren't made of stone. I do tend to think they gave her a break more than once because she was clearly so upset about something that hadn't gone well. She was also a bit of an Eeyore, always moaning about how bad her cake was or something, and then the judges would rush to reassure her. I can see why that would irritate people.

Is that the Bake-off show? I only watched it a few times and I find it quite fascinating that a show that has such a... homely style (for lack of better description) has such immense drama.

Well, no.

It might be because they don't like her baking, or what the fuck ever. But it's also because of misogyny.

Yo this.
No one would ever accuse a guy of "sleeping ahead" to further his goals or to cheat.
99.9% of the time, I've always seen it directed towards women.
I think you're way too deep in denial OP.

Believe me, I've seen guys accused of it. Hell, HR departments, which handle hiring and promotions in most companies, skew something like 80% female, and somehow the guys who get the executive promotions are always gym rats with good hair. Could be a coincidence, but I've heard plenty of people suggest otherwise.

One of the two judges is female, as are both presenters. Half the contestants were women. All the semifinalists were women, and of course, a woman won that series. Do you have a particular reason to believe that contestant was a victim of misogyny and not all the others?

I didn't say that she didn't win because of misogyny. What I said was that, if anyone said that she banged a dude to get ahead, or whatever, that was a misogynist accusation.

Please fucking read posts next time, instead of responding to some shit that I never said.

Wow, okay. I am asking how, given the success (and greater success in some cases) of the other female bakers, how they managed to escape similar accusations of banging someone to get ahead, but she did not. If you'll reread my comment, you'll note that nowhere did I say you suggested that not winning = misogyny.

In any case, perhaps switching to decaf...?

Presumably they escaped the accusations because the audience thought they merited their success in the competition.

But - and follow me closely here - the part that's misogynistic is not the part where someone thinks she didn't merit a place in the finals. The part that's misogynistic is where you jump to "So obviously, she banged a dude instead." That's the misogynist thing about it.

DA

Are you just being willfully obtuse? Anon above was being pretty clear about what they meant. Just because other females were not accused of the same thing doesn't mean that that the accusation could not possibly have come from a misogynistic place. It's not hard to understand.

DA Yes. Horrible, horrible things were said about Ruby, in particular, because she was young and female and Paul kept sleazing on her. I felt really sorry for her, even though her constant crying was really annoying. No-one was saying the *show* was misogynist, we're saying the public reaction to Ruby was.

Who is this person and why should we care?

You could ask that for every single secret that doesn't interest you, but why go out of your way to be a dick?

Because I'm bored and have nothing better to do.

I'm genuinely sorry your life isn't more fulfilling, but... there are a lot more productive things you (and all the other trolls, for that matter) could do with your time. You'd likely end up feeling so much better about yourself and it'd be more satisfying than the ugly little thrill people get out of anonymous trolling.

NAYRT

Wow, condescending much?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-28 00:07 (UTC) - Expand

Not knowing who a a person is in a secret is = trolling.

Uhhhh your logic doesn't quite make sense.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-28 00:06 (UTC) - Expand

I think the bored but easy-going anon is probably having a better time on here than you, given how you're sounding.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-28 00:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-28 00:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-28 03:11 (UTC) - Expand

I know nothing about this case but it bugs me that people are always saying "it's not misogyny (or whatever other prejudice), its [sensible explanation, a different prejudice, etc]". Why can't it be a little of each? Something like this is going to be more complex than just having a single cause you can point to. And when you have a lot of people all saying the same basic thing, why assume they all have the same thought process behind it?

It always amuses me just how sure people seem to be about the quality of food they haven't tasted :)

I love that tweet of hers.

She really did have to put up with a lot of stupid bullshit from people who weren't even there but were relying solely on the broadcast of a constructed reality TV show.

I always thought Ruby did amazingly well considering her own kitchen had basically no equipment and she had very little money for practice ingredients. Sure, her output was patchy sometimes, but so were most of the contestants.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only