fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3466 ]

[ SECRET POST #3466 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3466 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[BRÅVES- "Lovely Bones" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiTx4qufF2g)]

__________________________________________________

03.

[The Doctor Blake Mysteries]

__________________________________________________

04.

[fault milestone one]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09. http://i.imgur.com/XFAoKt9.png
[linked for porn, animated]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 09 secrets from Secret Submission Post #495.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

...if you're a feminist?

If you're working to avoid feminism's historical racism/be helpful in general at all then yes

You're not obligated. Nothing makes you obligated to do anything.

You do run the risk of looking like a narrow minded fool if you refuse to consider it though.

If you want to be an actually helpful/useful feminist, yeah. Otherwise your feminism is pretty much pointless and ineffective.

But you don't have an obligation to do anything just in order to identify as a feminist. There's no feminism police (and by police, I mean people with ACTUAL POWER TO CURTAIL YOUR RIGHTS, not people who poke their nose everywhere to waft disapproval around) to enforce any sort of obligations.

See here's where I'm worried about intersectionality, at the moment we cover everyone. Literally everyone who is not a straight white male can claim some entitlement to feminist considerations, and sure there are a lot of people being shit on, but that's spreading ourselves rather thin.

And we've all seen what the MRM is like, really how long is it untill they start pushing for white men to be considered? And then, when literally everyone of any stripe has the right to talk as part of a feminist movement, don't we then run the risk of women being silenced but the white men who pushed their way in?

Like at a certain point isn't compartmentalisation a good thing?

Why shouldn't straight white men be considered though? The patriarchy is still harmful to them in a lot of ways.

MRM probably wouldn't even be such a thing if more feminism decided to embrace that and include everyone instead of being exclusionary because some groups have more privilege than others.

...

I just can even

da

Errrr...you obviously have no idea what feminism is. Feminism is about the equality of women and men. It's not "men have cooties don't let them touch."

Why not? Why can't you even? Do you still think the correct course of action is to say, "No, you don't matter." to ...say... fathers who are fighting for court custody of their kids? Do you think that feminism doesn't go both ways?

Do you actually think performative masculinity doesn't hurt men, and that the patriarchy is 100% good times for everyone who is male identified?

Because see, that's where intersectionality comes in.

Not that I don't agree with your overall point, but the example of the court custody thing is a really bad one. It's something the MRM uses as a wedge issue or example of how men are discriminated against, but statistically speaking, men are actually more likely to get custody of their kids if they ask for it. Most men don't ask. This has been true since at least the 90s, so going on 30 years now.

Infuriatingly enough, one study found that one of the chief biases at play for judges' justifications of preferring the father for custody when he sought it was their (mis)perception that men are unduly discriminated against in family courts.

Like I said, I don't disagree with your overall point, but "women have an unfair advantage in custody hearings" is a outright myth that shouldn't be perpetuated. Shared custody is default unless one parent is unfit, and judges are more likely to believe fathers who declare mothers unfit than the other way around - to the detriment of the children, it would seem, in some rather infamous cases in BC of a judge simply assuming the mother was lying about abuse in order to get custody, then the father murdering the kids as soon as he gets them.

Consider this:

I couldn't be assed to think of a better example for someone who is 90% likely to be a troll.

Re: Do you have an obligation to be intersectional...

ariakas - 2016-07-01 00:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Do you have an obligation to be intersectional...

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-01 11:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Do you have an obligation to be intersectional...

herpymcderp - 2016-07-01 20:01 (UTC) - Expand

you act as if MRM actually give a shit about men's rights, they don't. they care that their privileges are being eroded, and try to pretend as if it has anything to do with the actual harm that comes to men due to the patriarchy. feminism's purpose implicitly includes everyone since its results benefit everyone, concessions don't have to be made to men. not to mention... most feminist groups are welcoming of men– a handful of people on tumblr or elsewhere are not indicative of the majority of groups.

MRM would exist even if feminists rolled out the welcome mats for men, because MRM is fueled by paranoid delusions that because men and women are becoming more equal, that it's an attack on "manhood." they claim to care about men, but rail against movies like "The Mask We Live In"- a movie that specifically focuses on men harmed by patriarchy because it supports "pussification" and "feminazism."

What the fuck are you on about?

I never said any of that, my dear radfem.

I'm trans so the radfem accusation is particularly gross, thanks. I've cogently explained myself, feel free to respond or don't.

Re: Do you have an obligation to be intersectional...

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-02 10:17 (UTC) - Expand

Look around Nonny: Feminists DO make the claim that all the problems men complain about at actually rooted in misogyny and Arthur really all about women. So this this concept you're trying to drum up fear for isn't a "soon" thing. It's already here and women are the ones who brought it.

Signed, a feminist sick of anti-men Radfem trolls (or other trolls pretending to be such.)

can you name a "sexist" problem men endure that isn't due to some brand of misogyny? circumcision is the only one I can think of, and that's mostly religion-based.

DA
Circumcision is hardly religion based in the US anymore. It's much more commonly an aestethic choice fucked up parents make for their infant boys.

And seriously? There a re a lot of male centric problems that could probably with some reaching always be traced back to "misogyny", but just because something may have had a root in misogyny some 50-100 years ago doesn't mean it's still and issue that is, at heart, all about misogyny.

Why? I didn't disagree with anything.

My understanding of intersectionality applied to feminism is that it means being inclusive of everyone who is a woman. Feminism is also supposed to be about making things better for everyone, including straight white cis men. But men aren't the main focus, and that includes men who aren't straight/white/cis.

Obviously. It gives you more opportunities to play the victim card.

No.

Absolutely. Feminism that isn't intersectional often supports racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc., whether directly or indirectly.

I honestly think we'd better off if feminists didn't try to be "intersectional" because all too often that means spouting off authoritatively about marginalized group's they don't belong to.

I'm not one of those people that thinks you shouldn't be allowed to do activism for groups you don't belong to, but I think the push to be intersectional all too often makes people feel obligated to speak out for groups' interests that they don't really understand and aren't that interested in understanding.

Edited 2016-07-01 00:24 (UTC)

But I think that's clearly a problem whose solution is more and better intersectionalism.

I don't. The spoiled chicks with nothing better to do than play at being activists can go speak over some other marginalized group (or??? wild thought--they could focus on their own issues) 'cause I don't want or need them speaking over me.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only