case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2016-02-21 03:55 pm

[ SECRET POST #3336 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3336 ⌋

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, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #477.
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.
blitzwing: (Default)

[personal profile] blitzwing 2016-02-21 11:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Shit, I meant "biological essentialist". That's what I get for using auto-correct.

Now I'm kind of curious if there are any actual biological existentialists...

(Anonymous) 2016-02-22 12:01 am (UTC)(link)
They're biological essentialists, too. You're genderqueer, right? To them you'd either be a female at birth gender traitor, or a male at birth trying to sneak onto their side, nothing in between.

That IS taking feminism and gender equality to an extreme, making it out to be a zero-sum game of two genders only which are always in a competition where women must 'beat' men to achieve equality due to men historically being the winners, instead of working at cooperation for the future.
blitzwing: ([magi] drakon)

[personal profile] blitzwing 2016-02-22 12:04 am (UTC)(link)
I'm familiar with how the TERFs view me, yes XD

That IS taking feminism and gender equality to an extreme, making it out to be a zero-sum game of two genders only which are always in a competition where women must 'beat' men to achieve equality due to men historically being the winners, instead of working at cooperation for the future.

I went into this more in my reply to diet_poison, but basically I see gender essentialist beliefs as so common, and hardly distinct to feminism, that I find it hard to view that as an example of feminist extremism in itself. Religious fundamentalists and Redpillers have the same gender essentialist views, and those views aren't taken as an example of extreme feminism in them, so why would it be the case for radfems?

(Anonymous) 2016-02-22 12:06 am (UTC)(link)
That IS taking feminism and gender equality to an extreme, making it out to be a zero-sum game of two genders only which are always in a competition where women must 'beat' men to achieve equality due to men historically being the winners, instead of working at cooperation for the future.

Emphasis mine.

That's why it's feminist extremism, it's all about gender equality taken to an extreme. Gender equality is a feminist fundamental.
blitzwing: ([magi] drakon)

[personal profile] blitzwing 2016-02-22 01:16 am (UTC)(link)
The belief that there are two genders, one of which has been historically oppressed, and must fight to take a dominant role in society if they ever want to be equal, just doesn't seem that intrinsically extreme to me.

When you factor in that extremist is also a term that has the qualifier "especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action." it's even less so.

"Eliminate the patriarchy" = not that extreme. "Eliminate the patriarchy by neglecting male babies" = extreme.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-22 12:14 am (UTC)(link)
SA

I thought of an example I'm sure you're familiar with.

"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other [and vote for Hillary Clinton]."

Qualifies as a radical feminist statement, as it reduces a presidental race into a single point: gender. Above all else.

Feminists all over the political spectrum decried that remark until Albright apologized and Hillary tellingly didn't.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-22 12:26 am (UTC)(link)
Why would Hillary apologize for something she didn't say?

(Anonymous) 2016-02-22 12:29 am (UTC)(link)
Because she had the person on stage to speak for her and was laughing and clapping approvingly afterward.

Taking the responsibility to say "these weren't my remarks but I apologize for them having been said" would have done wonders for her respectability. She told feminists that they were too easily offended, instead.
diet_poison: (Default)

[personal profile] diet_poison 2016-02-22 06:59 pm (UTC)(link)
Did not know that Hillary was applauding that speech. Dang.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-23 07:14 am (UTC)(link)
Wow, so did Hillary help Monica Lewinsky recover from being used by her husband Bill and being pilloried worldwide?! Or did she just ignore Monica and pretend she didn't exist?!


...I'll wait.
diet_poison: (Default)

[personal profile] diet_poison 2016-02-22 06:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Shit, I meant "biological essentialist".

Thanks for clarifying. (Not being sarcastic. I was really confused by "biological existentialist")