fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3173 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3173 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Detroit Metal City]

__________________________________________________

06.

(Gravity Falls, Criminal Minds)

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for X-Files (new series)]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Sly Cooper 4: Thieves In Time]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 2]

__________________________________________________

11. [SPOILERS for Steven Universe]

__________________________________________________

12. [WARNING for sexual assault]

[Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders]

__________________________________________________

13. [WARNING for rape and assault]

[Hockey RPF]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #453.
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

I think the idea is that not only is he hurting people, which is always bad, but there's probably some prejudice mixed in there that adds to it. You're not obligated to find that argument compelling though. There's a big mess of conflicting negative ideas and reactions about and to women (like balancing acknowledging the dangers that are more common to women with not being condescending and acting like they're helpless here). Not everyone is going to be most bothered by the same ones.

I think this is it.

If someone's just harming members of one group, there's probably more going on there. I mean, we don't say "Ted Bundy murdered people," we say "Ted Bundy murdered women," because he *specifically murdered women* and had serious issues when it comes to women.

Ted Bundy murdered a whole lot of women because they were women, though.

Someone with a history of DV like Chris Brown isn't going after women because they're women, they're going after whoever they're in a relationship with. I think it's a little disingenuous to say that "Chris Brown hurts women," and more accurate to say "he is an abusive person." The women are incidental to his sexuality

SA

I meant to say "he is an abuser"* not only "abusive".

Chris Brown is straight. He's not going to be in a relationship with a man. He's in relationships with women. He beats women. He hurts women.

If there was someone in your friend group who consistently steals iPhones, and only iPhones, would you say, "No, he only steals iPhones because he likes iPhones. The iPhones are incidental to his stealing. He steals things."

AYRT

Absolutely. I'd say he's a thief who steals only the things he likes. But what he is, is a thief and a criminal.

Yes, but he's also a person who steals iPhones. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

AYRT

I'm not saying they are, but you asked what I'd call him and I answered I'd call him a thief. A thief is what he is and has no problems with being, and iPhones are what he steals. I wouldn't trust a person like that with any of my belongings, because who knows when he'll decide he wants something else?The important information to get across is that he is a thief, and focusing on the iPhone part dilutes that message in that scenario.

I don't agree that "he's a thief" is the only important information to get across. If you had an iPhone, wouldn't it be important information that this guy is a guy who steals only iPhones?

Similarly, if you are a woman, perhaps a woman with an abusive past (since they can be vulnerable targets), wouldn't it be important information to know "this guy specifically abuses women"? Yes, "he's an abuser" might be good enough, but it might also be too vague. I think the way to phrase things depends on your perspective.

Is he abusive to his male friends too?

Also I think if you're abusive in romantic relationships, it's definitely fair to say you hurt women if you only date women, or that you hurt men if you only date men...because it's only members of those groups that you're hurting.

AYRT

I've heard he's abusive in general.

Well okay, I think it's fair in that case to just say "he's an abuser."

But if someone only abuses their partners, and they're not bisexual, I think it's fair to say they abuse men or women.

No, sorry, DV survivor say it is absolutely not disingenuous to say straight male domestic abusers are usually misogynists. Abuse is tied to power imbalances, where one party does not respect the other, and serial abusers will specifically seek out people that fit a type that they abuse, nothing incidental about it. He isn't just punching random people on the street, he is seeking out women to abuse. He is hurting women, that isn't unfair to say.

AYRT

That's not what I was trying to get across. Sorry, if that's what it sound like. I mean, straight male domestic abusers definitely are misogynists too. In the comment I was only addressing the Ted Bundy example saying there's a difference between an misogynist abuser who preys on women, and someone who is sociopathic and has issues with women and goes after women for being women like Bundy

[ SECRET POST #3173 ]

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.

Re: Stupid questions.