[ SECRET POST #3398 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3398 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.



__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 118 secrets from Secret Submission Post #486.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, so going by what you've just written, I'd say the statement from the so-called "rad-fem" is pretty accurate. Eddie Berganza is a serial abuser of women (if you equate harassment with abuse. If he physically touched the women then yes, that's abuse). And he's kept his job? Yeah, that's very sucky, from Vertigo's pov and sounds like they are 'bending over backwards' for this guy. I say this, particularly from the perspective that most businesses would fire a known harasser. IDK about the USA but here in Australia, there are pretty strong laws, in regards to sexual harassment in the workplace.

Someone writing stating this does not make them a 'radfem' or even a "feminist" IMO, it's just someone stating (albeit clearly pretty angrily) their perspective as to what's occurring, in that situation.

I have a friend who identifies as a "radical feminist" and when they talk from their perspective, it's pretty obvious that they are more from the "radical" side of things.

In other words, you can't go around making assumptions of people, based on one sentence they wrote on an internet page. I know people do this a lot but it seriously just irritates me.

[insanenoodlyguy]

But we actually have an anon here known as Radfem?

DA

[(Anonymous)]

But, uh yeah. That doesn't take anything away from the argument above yours. DC fucked up.