[ SECRET POST #3969 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3969 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Vampire Princess Miyu]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Disgaea/Soul Nomad]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #568.
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: Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

What people mean by "all guys are trash" is, I think, generally clear. It is a shorthand, colloquial question for the idea that societal structures and patriarchy influence experience and behavior in general in a way that has immediate, pervasive, and nearly inescapable effects on everyone living in society, in a way that is particularly toxic for men. And I think that underlying idea is correct, and more to the point, not the kind of negative generalization that we should find objectionable.

So the relevant question, I think, is two-fold. First, is "all guys are trash" a fair way to gloss that idea? Second, is "all guys are trash" a rhetorically useful way to gloss that idea? I think the answer to the first question is yes - it's at least reasonable - because the reality is that those structural factors we're talking about do effect behavior and perception in real and tangible ways that are more or less universal. The second question, I have less of a good read on. I can see the argument that "all guys are trash" doesn't do a good job at capturing the underlying ideological argument. On the other hand, I'm not sure that there *is* a rhetorically good way to approach these issues. And it's not like the underlying ideological case is some kind of secret that no one is aware of.

So tl;dr I guess I just think that dismissing it as nothing more than an unfounded negative generalization is a misreading of the phrase.

Re: Pet Peeves

[(Anonymous)]

I don't understand anymore how men seem to be under the impression that it's just evil feminists who are attacking them, that there is no problem at all, that men are innocent and good. I don't think there's a way to open their eyes at this point that yes, men are a big problem. A lot of them, in systemic, abusive, killer, rapist ways: and the ones who look the other way, try to deflect the issue onto the evils of womanhood, or think it's all a big joke and women are too sensitive ....they are active enablers.