[ SECRET POST #4538 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4538 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #650.
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)]

two points here

One, I don't think you have to be surprised at the existence of racism or racist characters to dislike it, even in characters for whom it's historically realistic.

Two, I think there's a real danger of overstating the degree to which racism and other forms of bigotry actually were universal, and flattening them into a blanket norm, and that's a very frustrating form of historical misunderstanding. "Flat earther" is actually a good case in point, because a belief in a flat earth was not historically widespread among educated people.

[sparklywalls]

I would add to your comment that sometimes I do feel like people hmm "enjoy" the unpalatable elements of historical settings a little too much as well. Like, it's not necessarily about historical accuracy anymore. This especially seems to be the case whenever there's rape in historical fiction imo. Anyone who points out it seems to be over the top is met with "but that's just how it was! They have to show it to be accurate!" Do they *have* to though?

But I do get what the secret is saying in that moralising from a 21st century perspective can sometimes go too far. However, as you have pointed out there's a lot of commonly believed aspects (like flat Earth) that weren't as widespread as people think as well.

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone who points out it seems to be over the top is met with "but that's just how it was! They have to show it to be accurate!" Do they *have* to though?

That's another great point! Realism in historical fiction is a rhetorical, aesthetic, literary device that people choose to use or not use, not an iron law that has to be followed.

[(Anonymous)]

"but that's just how it was! They have to show it to be accurate!"

Yeah, funny how all those totally-historically-accurate rape scenes feature women with shaved armpits, isn't it...

[sparklywalls]

And bald vulva or if they're feeling charitable enough to include some pubic hair, the occasional landing strip. And the hairstyles are suspiciously 20th/21st century looking.

Speaking of hairstyles, I love FrockFlicks for their snark on things films and TV get wrong (but also right.)

[tabaqui]

Outside of porn, I don't thing i've *ever* seen a vulva on tv/movies that wasn't covered mostly by panties, a hand, or something. And they all had hair that I could see.

Where are you seeing bald ones?

*is curious*

[(Anonymous)]

Bald/mostly bald vulva is the height of historical unattractiveness, because it meant you had syphilis. This is why prostitutes with syphilis wore merkins!

[(Anonymous)]

Depends on the context. In the Ottoman empire and a number of other premodern settings they routinely shaved/plucked for aesthetic reasons.

[(Anonymous)]

A lot of the whole "things were terrible back then, especially for women" business is often very inaccurate as well. If male writers do that, it always has this smell of it just being an excuse to write women being tormented under the guise of faux historical accuracy. What baffles me is when femlae witers, especially proclaimed feminists, do this as well. Ladies, stop portraying women as those feeble, downtrodden victims throughout history! Women often had much more power than they're given credit for.

[sparklywalls]

Precisely. For a start there are so many individual famous historical figures who were women who exercised some form of power or control of their own destiny despite any roadblocks or sometimes there aren't many roadblocks at all. Because the woman in question just ignored them. But that's just not interesting I guess? Even though it actually is.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

SO much of our received image of the past as this deeply regressive place is actually Victorian values being projected back onto eras with much more complicated and varied attitudes.

[(Anonymous)]

1. A small minority of rich women do not a liberation make.
2. Stop telling women (not "ladies") what to do.
3. Stop mischaracterising feminism.

[(Anonymous)]

1. You have no idea what you're talking about.
2. I'm a woman. Stop telling me what to do. That aside, women are not above criticism if what they're doing is dumb. Buying into the whole "women are the perpetual victims of history" and portraying it as fact is not a great thing.
3. I didn't actually characterise feminism anywhere. If you want me to, okay: Feminism is a variety of different ideological ideas grouped under one overarching ideology name. A lot of subgroups dont actually agree with each other. But empowerment of women is a main topic. So it's doing feminism a disservice to pretend women have always been tormented wilting flowers with no agency throughout history when that's simply untrue.

[feotakahari]

At the very least, there’s a distinction that can be made through the things slavers wouldn’t admit. One slaver who converted and became an anti-slavery advocate talked about how he’d “seen” the use of thumbscrews. Surviving documents from his time as a slaver indicate that he personally used them on children.