[ SECRET POST #3853 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3853 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 43 secrets from Secret Submission Post #551.
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

[morieris]

The perspective I have seen is almost universally that casting a woman is a good thing and people should be happy about it but at the same time it's important to be aware that it's not perfect. That is 100% the attitude that I have seen.

Yep. Personally it's fine to be excited, and I don't begrudge anyone, but all these "THE FUTURE IS FEMALE YASSS" with a bunch of white women images shows just how much we're not close to actual equality. It's a step of progress, nothing more.

But those damn SJWs, right.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

That's what I'm seeing.

Personally? I'm going to keep watching Doctor Who, and will probably love it, but I'm a bit leery of "Time Lords are beyond gender" except when they're apparently not.

Edit: And since the term "SJW" has been thoroughly co-opted by right-wing pundits, I can't take it at face value anymore.

[(Anonymous)]

I think generally any term like SJW where you're trying to distinguish between the 'good/reasonable' members of a community and the 'bad/unreasonable', but where there's no hard and fast objective way to distinguish the two groups, is going to be pretty useless. Usually they're going to get coopted in a hot second, and even if they don't, I don't think they really add anything useful to discourse. Even in the best case scenario they seem like they're mostly a way for people to do an if-by-whiskey type thing. A bit two faced.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

It's become a straw man in some circles. Evidently the current conservative pundit talking point is that liberals hate Dunkirk even though few journalists on the left are writing about Dunkirk and those who do are not overly negative.

[(Anonymous)]

It does happen with the term alt-right just the same though. I'm not talking about people calling themselves alt-right: those are always assholes. But the term gets thrown around as well for anyone slightly conservative right now, and used in the same strawman-fashion as SJW is used to try and undermine any liberal POV. Anyone who denies that is wilfully ignorant at best.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it happens just the same. I mean i agree that the term is used in an extremely inexact way, and while I haven't seen it used as a blanket pejorative, I believe it happens.

But the word doesn't have the same structure that I outlined. It just doesn't. It's originally a self-appelation, not something that's used to divide between reasonable people and unreasonable people.

[(Anonymous)]

SJW started out as and is still used by some as a self-appelation as well. It's just been around a bit longer.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you have a source for the idea that SJW started out as a self-appelation? Because that was not my understanding at all.

[(Anonymous)]

nyart

Yeah, as I remember it the term was definitely coined to separate between reasonable and unreasonable people in the social justice movement. Have people used it since to apply to themselves? Yes, but only after the term had already started to lose its meaning... and even today the feeling I get from those people are less "this totally applies to me" and more "I'll be called SJW no matter what, might as well claim if for myself".

[(Anonymous)]

Do you have a source that it didn't? What "source" would count, in your eyes anyway, for this kind of term?

[digitalghosts]

Someone needs to google better than me but I swear it is mentioned that time lords have no gender or sexuality (apparently can romance and marry but series loves contradictions). I think it was Ramona who might have said that but not 100% sure.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

The Doctor just said it in the first part of the Mondasian Cybermen story. But then The Master drops a bunch of sexist zingers onto Missy and Bill in the second part.

[digitalghosts]

I did see up to the season where Missy had a cyberman army but I do not remember a lot from it besides the jungle zoo in London. It would be logical for them to be able to regenerate however they wish and I am not as certain of them just appearing human to others in same manner TARDIS translates or is invisible. River was quite extreme:



[Spoiler Alert! For whole 11th saga!]



She was a kidnapped toddler then a little white girl, then a little black girl who grown up alongside her parents and was their peer and best friend as a young adult. Rapidly aged during regeneration to 40 (for someone in 20s that is a gap even if she has been older or younger as not sure on her timeline) and changed into a white woman ... in Nazi Germany. Her character would possibly be a kickass space travelling archeologist if she survived AND let go of the idea Amy and Rory not being her peers but parents (as they were more like mates). However, Doctor was even worse for her so yeah ... River in the brief library intro in 10th's season was way more interesting and less messed up to me.




[End of spoilers]



I also misspelled Romana (my husband has a jacket with Ramones badge so forgive me). Could have been me reading book recaps as I think it was her mentioning someone regenerating into different gendered body. Might skim past season due to Master being horrible to themselves is rather interesting plus the whole 'is regeneration someone different or reinventing yourself' and so on.

That went long pft.

[lordbaelish]

I'm somewhere in between. I think that media getting to new levels of diversity is awesome! It doesn't mean, though, that we should conform and draw the line at white women, of course -- no social movement is going to get anything done without protest. But small successes are still successes. I think we can recognize what is good about that decision while still agreeing that media, in general, should aim for more diversity.

[erinptah]

Who's making these things with only images of white women?

Because it's not like those are the only options. There's the new Star Trek captain coming up, and the characters from the new A Wrinkle In Time. We've just had a Polynesian Disney princess, and an Asian woman as John Watson, and a fantasy!Inuit woman as the Avatar. The most recent season of Doctor Who had a black lesbian as the companion! Any discussion of race on Who that pretends people weren't excited about her, or acts like she never existed in the first place, has got something skeevy and dishonest going on.

So if people are making "let's celebrate women!" photosets that are all-white, that's a problem of racism. If people are making "why are only these women getting celebrated?" photosets that are all-white, that sounds like a problem of "SJWs" editing out facts that don't fit the narrative they want. (And I've seen at least one case that was definitely the latter.)

[(Anonymous)]

Bill is hardly the first black female companion. It's the lesbian part that makes her different.

Everybody forgets about Martha. -_-;;

[erinptah]

Who said Bill was the first?

People were excited about Martha too. A role going to one black actress doesn't mean we have to stop being excited about any other black actress getting the job. (Any more than Janeway or Rey already leading a major sci-fi franchise means we have to stop being excited for Thirteen.)

Especially if your complaint is "she was hardly the first! She was the second. It's totally meaningless now."