[ SECRET POST #3451 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3451 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Sherlock Holmes]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 20 secrets from Secret Submission Post #493.
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)]

I suspect some people simply have a bad reaction to images of choking, not to "a villain being BAD." I don't think people would take issue with it being depicted in the movie, but they don't like it on a billboard where everybody has to see it whether or not they want to see the movie. And of course you don't see her kick his ass afterward on the billboard.

[(Anonymous)]

That's the logical response I've been looking for!

[(Anonymous)]

+1000000 thank you!!!!

So much ignorance in these comments

[(Anonymous)]

+1

I don't want to have to see this every day on my damn commute.

[(Anonymous)]

If the choking was the issue, then people wouldn't make it about how dare a woman be threatened

[(Anonymous)]

Reading this thread made me connect this with the reaction to Sansa getting raped in Game of Thrones. I really do think the comment up there is right -- the negative reaction mostly comes from a place of "I find imagery/scenes like this really unpleasant to watch, I didn't ask for this, please don't shove it in my eyeballs thanks" but is justified with language of "doing this in general (having a female character raped; choosing a woman being choked to advertise your film) is obviously wrong and unfeminist", but then that rationale breaks down because (in the case of GOT) it was okay when it happened off-screen to a character of same age, gender, amount of innocence, which is what happened in the books?? And (in the case of X-men) it's okay when it actually happens in film, though (I'm assuming it does, although I haven't watched the film -- if it doesn't, then I agree with the WTF), just don't use it in the marketing??

I think people have a valid argument here (those being: rape scenes ARE much more unpleasant for women when they happen on-screen to beloved POV characters, and seeing billboards like this where a woman is choked out of context IS much more unpleasant than watching a film where the exact same happens in the context of a fight scene, where the woman can respond with some ass-whupping -- these differences are NOT trivial) but people are not quite hitting the nail on the head in most of their post-hoc explanations that do not directly address the above "why this feels worse" reasons. Instead, by saying violence against women [for the purpose of marketing] is always bad, they trap themselves in a where a lot of storylines they've held up as good in the past which also feature violence against women (in the context, e.g., of that woman being a superhero, doing her job well) now can't be justified.

Which isn't to say there isn't also a good point in here about how people should really take a hard look at the way male-gaze-y violence against women is used in storylines or in advertising for basically an exploitative emotional thrill. But I'm not sure that's what's happening here.

[(Anonymous)]

That's what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around. Mystique is one person. She's not All Women Everywhere, and it's dehumanizing to view an individual woman as a stand-in for her entire gender.