[ SECRET POST #3354 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3354 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Yu-Gi-Oh]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09. [ warning for homophobia / transphobia / misogyny take your pick, people seem to be divided on this one ]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 009 secrets from Secret Submission Post #479.
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

Re: Mansplaining

[(Anonymous)]

I personally find it illuminating to read this anecdote, which correlates with the time where "mansplaining" was coined as a term (from Wikipedia):

"The neologism showed up simultaneously in multiple places, so its origin is difficult to establish. In an essay titled Men Explain Things to Me, Solnit told an anecdote about a man at a party who said he had heard she had written some books. She began to talk about her most recent book at the time, on Eadweard Muybridge, whereupon the man cut her off and asked if she had "heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year" – not considering that it might be (as, in fact, it was) Solnit's book."

I always took that as a baseline, so to me "mansplaining" means a man explaining something to a woman without even considering she might know as much or even more about a topic as he does.

So based on that, I would say that person who commented on the trailer was probably shitposting, and is safe to ignore.

Re: Mansplaining

[(Anonymous)]

Based on that I think the trailer counts. He just assumed that him, the dump eye candy, was the only person to reach the conclusion that "We* need to do something about these ghosts" and that he was giving this brilliant insight to the 4 super geniuses who have spent their lives studying the paranormal and have just hired him as a receptionist in their ghost busting business.

*Never mind that the thinks he's a part of the team. He answers the phones and makes the fucking coffee. But of course he has to consider himself as the action-taker. He has to be involved at a vital level in the business owned and run by women, even though he's the dumbest person in the room and lacks any qualifications.

That's all mansplaining as you define it.

Re: Mansplaining

[(Anonymous)]

Oh. Yeah, you're right, actually. I read the OP's post wrong, I thought the commenter was complaining about the movie mansplaining to the audience or something with that line. But it is indeed a joke about a man not knowing what he's talking about. It's probably more a joke in the vein of "stating something when it's too late", but I think it would count. Yeah.

Re: Mansplaining

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe I need more context, but why would a statement that simple imply that he thinks he's giving new insight? Sometimes people just say what they're thinking. It's very common to state the obvious in urgent situations for your own peace of mind. If a building's on fire, someone's probably going to say "We need to get out of here!" and I would hope nobody's cynical enough to assume that person is "mansplaining" to everyone else because they assume no one else knows they need to get out.

I will also do my best not to assume you're implying that I'm stupid because I also make coffee and answer phones. But just so you know, good employers value their receptionists' input and don't tell them to shut up and let the smart people talk.