[ SECRET POST #4374 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4374 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Disney/Doctor Who crossover]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Avatar: The Last Airbender]


__________________________________________________



04.
(Markiplier and his friend Wade)


__________________________________________________



05.
[Dumplin' on Netflix]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Daredevil]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Criminal Minds S03E13 "Limelight"]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #626.
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: No one is here

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

The reason that it's relevant whether it's "essential" or merely "characteristic" is that it impacts whether or not the behaviors and social attitudes can be changed. If it's just characteristic, then we can change it. Whereas if it's essential (either socially or biologically), then it can't be changed. So it actually turns out to be a crucial and really meaningful distinction if you're talking about the idea that "male violence and all the evil and crimes that come with it are a unique phenomenon and comes from the way men the world over are socialized."

And I think the fact that you've overlooked that distinction, in turn, goes to the problem that people have with the way that you talk about feminism. Because you always talk about that like feminists think that violence is unalterable - you say it's socially essential instead of biologically essential, but still, your understanding of the feminist argument really seems to be that these things can't be changed. When the point is that it is still just one of a number of nearly infinite ways in which society could be arranged. The point is that the socialization of men, the choices of men, the actions of men, and the societal impacts of those things are all alterable.

So, the idea that male violence and toxic masculinity are the outcome of social structures and socialization - yes, that's a mainstream idea in feminism. But the conclusion that these things are unchangeable is absolutely not a mainstream idea. And you really seem to keep acting like it is. You keep talking like "toxic masculinity" means that masculinity is unalterable and can't be non-toxic. And this is not the case. And you really keep on insisting and insisting and insisting that it is, and it's not.

Re: No one is here

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. Laurie Penny--who's been kind of a big deal in feminist post-#metoo op-eds--has had multiple columns this year arguing that her life as a polyamorous woman who does casual sex would be a lot easier if more men got over our hangups and bought into consent culture. Saturday's column by Arwa Mahdawi argues that if queer-positive burlesque clubs can do consent culture, so can the office Christmas party. Even if you go back all the way to 1970s radical feminism, people like Dworkin emphasized that male violence is a political construct and not something essential to men, although one argument there is that ending sexual violence would mean giving up as masculinity as we currently understand it (Stoltenberg). But I'm mostly of the opinion that a large number of the young people claiming to be "radical feminists" are--in the kindest interpretation--cherry picking bits and pieces of radical feminist theory in the service of an ironic misogyny.

Generally though, using Twitter and YouTube conversations as evidence for anything beyond the case that people on Twitter and YouTube are frequently horrible is a big WTF. Viral tags are often filled with rants and shitposts, if not blatant trolling. But I've been a deep curmudgeon on the idea that people shouldn't use Twitter as a source.