[ SECRET POST #3324 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3324 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Dishonored]


__________________________________________________



04. [tb #3]
[One Piece]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Kung Fu Panda]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Music video: Poets of the Fall, "Daze" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di7NMssrqsE)]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Digimon Tri]


__________________________________________________



11.
(Pokémon)


__________________________________________________



12.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 039 secrets from Secret Submission Post #475.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 3 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[a_potato]

Three things:

First, I don't think we're necessarily talking about strength. We're talking about opportunity and power. The fact that women tend to not be as strong as men doesn't necessarily preclude them being leaders or having power in areas where strength is not an issue.

Second, I don't think we're necessarily talking about women being fighters. People take issue with the existing paradigm because it positions women as mothers, servants, homemakers, damsels in distress, and victims of violence and rape. A writer doesn't have to create an all- or mostly-female combat unit to avoid slotting female characters into those categories.

Third, I would ask why credibility and realism hinge on this. When it comes to fantasy, what is the dividing line?

[(Anonymous)]

It's not "the hinge" it's an aspect. I'd feel the same way if it were an entire ensemble of vegans or a squad of obese people. The dividing line is the shit ton of drastically unreal situations coupled with the treatment of lesser inaccuracies being treated as if they are accurate.

I'm not so sure what's so hard about the concept of "if you're going to ask me to believe X, don't also ask me to believe Y."

[a_potato]

What are these lesser inaccuracies?

Also, the problem with "if you're going to ask me to believe X, don't also ask me to believe Y" is that you seem to be saying, "don't ask me to believe that women can do things." I've noted how women are typically presented as mothers, servants, and victims, and you've not only declined to address that, but commented to the effect that it would seem as if it's difficult for you to believe women could be anything else.

[(Anonymous)]

And again, I say, if you're talking about an individual, THAT'S FINE. But I've stated my parameters as being when people complain that there aren't these big groups of women doing things that we don't typically see big groups of women doing in real life. There are no female firehouses. There are no female military units. That's what I see people complaining about. If it's not what you see, then we're having two separate, pointless conversations.

[a_potato]

Does there need to be a 100% female squad or firehouse for the notion of women being able to do those jobs to be valid? There are women firefighters, and there are women soldiers (Israel's Caracal Battalion is 70% female).

What of time? The American South is still affected by the Civil War, which happened 150 years ago. American blacks are still affected by slavery, which ended at the same time. Given that second wave feminism only arose during the late '60s and '70s, do you think that all of the discrepancies we currently see are due to innate abilities or tendencies, or do you think that they might perhaps have to do with lingering norms/mores/attitudes?

Also, what role does any of this play in fantasy? Why can you suspend disbelief when it comes to zoology but not when it comes to humans and gender? What makes a dragon more believable than an army of women, particularly considering that, in a fantasy realm, women wouldn't necessarily have the same biology as the women we know?

[(Anonymous)]

HOLY FUCK I'VE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING THAT WOMEN CAN DO THESE THINGS.

[a_potato]

Okay. But the secret says a woman (i.e. just one. ONE), and you responded to it with "I can only suspend my disbelief so far."

ETA: You also haven't said why an army of women, unrealistic as you think it may be, is more of an issue to you than dragons.

[(Anonymous)]

ou also haven't said why an army of women, unrealistic as you think it may be, is more of an issue to you than dragons.

Yes. I have. But I'm tired of trying to spell shit out to you when clearly you just want to be right and will ignore anything that might get in the way of your rightness. So I concede that you think you are right and know it all and arguing about it is pointless.

[a_potato]

Well, I don't know. The closest you've come is eluding to the idea that men, in the real world, are physically stronger than women in the real world. But men being physically stronger than women in the real world doesn't preclude women being more powerful in a fantasy world, or even being physically stronger in a fantasy world.

You've also said there are no big groups of women doing certain things in the real world, but there actually are big groups of women doing those things in the real world.

I'm honestly not trying to just be right. I disagree with your position and want to talk about it. If you don't want to, or if I'm coming off in a way that's frustrating to you, then that's okay, and I'm sorry if I upset or annoyed you, and I hope you have a good night.

[(Anonymous)]

It's frustrating because I flat-out said it was a different situation in a full-fantasy world, but that was ignored. I flat-out said that women do these things in the world, but THAT was ignored.

And yes, there are a lot of female cops and servicewomen and I presume firefighters. But you don't typically see them all in one place, all working together, which seems to me, personally, to be what a lot of people who make claims about unrealism are complaining about and what a lot of other people are advocating for when they say things like "It'd been better if they were all women!" about a lot of media that is typically full of men, because typically MORE men do those things because MORE men seem to be physically suited to those things. That doesn't mean there AREN'T women suited to them.

[a_potato]

Okay, I think I might know where the disconnect is coming from! To me, when people bring up this issue, they're talking about how women seem to always be threatened with rape, and seem to always be in a socially subservient position, and seem to always be discounted as possible combatants. A lot of people have a problem with that not only because it's not inevitable that women would wind up in such positions, but also because fantasy doesn't have to operate within real world paradigms. It seems like your issue is more with the idea of women being dominant in physically demanding areas. Does that hit the mark?

I haven't seen the kind of thing you're talking about (if I'm reading you right). I've more seen people saying, "but could we have some women over here, and could we have fewer women having X, Y, and Z done to them?"

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but wow, you're flipping out while still trying to argue because you DON'T SEE ALL TEH WOMEN ALWAYS DOING X it's UNREALISTIC TO SEE THEM DOING X. Like, you're not even making a sensible argument, everything you say is refutable. So quit tying your dick in knots about it.