[ SECRET POST #3329 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3329 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #476.
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

[loracarol]

Personally, I found her True Grit video to be incredibly sexist, with her claim that there's only one good way (tm) for a female character to be good/feminist, and that Mattie, buy not acting in a stereotypical feminine fashion* was not a good feminist character.

Um.

What.

* Full quote, "In my feminist vision, part of what makes a character feminist is watching her struggle with prioritizing values such as cooperation, empathy, compassion, and non violent conflict resolution in a world largely hostile to those values."

It just comes off like she puts women in one box, and says that feminist characters are only good if they fit that box, and any women who acts outside of their box, is wrong, no matter the context of the movie.

Further, I found Anita's claims that "Feminist characters should, like feminists in real life, push beyond the societal norms, challenge gender roles and the institutions that actively work to maintain them." followed by her dismissing Mattie to be kind of silly? Like, sure, she doesn't super break a lot of our current cultural norms (I mean, I'd argue she does to an extent, but that's neither here nor there), but if you take her in the context of the film, being set in the 1800? That's literally exactly what she does.

Someone in the comments for that video put it better than me,

So, what I’m getting here (and I may be misinterpreting you on this one), is that being emotionally inexpressive, having the need for domination or competition, & using violence as a form of conflict resolution are traits that are primarily male. That it’s wrong, or acting too male for a woman to conceal her emotions, striving for or desiring competition, or even being violent (although I would say non-violence is certainly the way I lead my life). How exactly? Women are competitive. Women can hide how they’re feeling. And women have been violent. Why does that mean they are adopting so called “male values”? Why can’t women behave that way, and still be considered to be behaving as women? You made competition and emotional distance sound negative. Why? What is so wrong about those traits? In excess, sure, but if someone wishes to be more reserved or enjoys being competitive, what is so wrong with that?

(Also the idea that a young girl in the 1800s should be "questioning capital punishment ie. the death penalty or really considering any other potential forms of justice. " makes me go ???

She's a teenage girl in the 1800 going after her father's murderer? She's getting a story arc that a lot of guys get? And that's bad, somehow?