[ SECRET POST #3135 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3135 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Supernatural]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Floraverse]

__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Star Trek: The Next Generation]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.
[Bryan Cranston: Breaking Bad vs. Malcolm in the Middle]

__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #448.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

In this specific case I think it's utterly harmless. There are instances of sexism against men that are very harmful, but in this case it's more like "I don't smile at blonds, only brunettes."

They're not leaving negative feedback, they're not telling other people not to read them, they're not saying they're worse, they're just saying they personally don't read them. And that's equated to an attack.

What's interesting is that it ties into studies that show many people do not assume that neutral is the default for women. If a girl chooses to continue not dating someone, even after he asks her out, that's an act of aggression towards him and he may be justified in retaliating with physical violence because she 'hurt him' and made him want to hurt her back.

But it's very fascinating that everyone here generally made two big assumptions, one that the secret writer was female, and that she was somehow doing something by... continuing in the state of having not read a book for whatever reason. I'm wondering if there would be the same sort of controversy if someone said something like "I don't read any book with a cover title in comic sans or papyrus"

[(Anonymous)]

In this specific case I think it's utterly harmless

In this specific case I think you're right. :)

they're just saying they personally don't read them. And that's equated to an attack.

Yeah, I do see that as a disproportionate and inappropriate reaction to OP's secret. I do not personally see OP's gendered fiction preference an attack. I have also not at any point in my comment(s) presumed OP is female. Although I admit I did presume it to myself, because yes, it did strike me as unlikely that a man would profess a strong preference for female novelists - and yes, that is down to sexism (which is a bit ironic, because I'm the anon from above who's father vastly prefers female novelists, lol).

I think OP has every right to her(?) preferences. I also think that the way she expressed her preference was reasonable. I do, however, think it's important to keep in mind that if the preferred authorial gender had been reverse, people would likely have been all over it about how sexist it was. And in the end I would have to disagree with those hypothetical people. Because though that other hypothetical secret would more than likely have come from a place of sexism, the OP would still have been merely expressing their preference. If we don't assume that OP's preference for female authors comes from a place of sexism, I don't believe we'd be right to assume a preference for male authors comes from a place of sexism either (even though, let's be real here, it probably does).

I gues I'm saying...hmmm. I guess I'm saying I don't believe in stacking the deck in favor of women within the sphere of feminism, despite the fact that the deck is stacked against us outside the sphere of feminism. Maybe that's overly conscientious of me, IDK; I just don't want feminism to start looking like it promises as "here's to the old boss, same as the new boss" outcome.