case: ([ MGS; Snake/Mantis ])
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2008-10-07 05:25 pm

[ SECRET POST #641 ]


⌈ Secret Post #641 ⌋

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

101.


__________________________________________________



102.


__________________________________________________



103.


__________________________________________________



104.


__________________________________________________



105.


__________________________________________________



106.


__________________________________________________



107.


__________________________________________________



108.


__________________________________________________



109.


__________________________________________________



110.


__________________________________________________



111.


__________________________________________________



112.


__________________________________________________



113.


__________________________________________________



114.


__________________________________________________



115.


__________________________________________________



116.


__________________________________________________



117.


__________________________________________________



118.


__________________________________________________



119.


__________________________________________________



120.


__________________________________________________



121. [ personal attack ]


__________________________________________________



122.


__________________________________________________



123.


__________________________________________________



124.


__________________________________________________



125.


__________________________________________________



126.


__________________________________________________



127.


__________________________________________________



128.


__________________________________________________



129.


__________________________________________________



130.


__________________________________________________



131.


__________________________________________________



132.


__________________________________________________



133.


__________________________________________________



134.


__________________________________________________



135.


__________________________________________________



136.


__________________________________________________



137.


__________________________________________________



138.


__________________________________________________



139.


__________________________________________________



140.


__________________________________________________



141.


__________________________________________________



142.


__________________________________________________



143.


__________________________________________________



144.


__________________________________________________



145.


__________________________________________________



146.


__________________________________________________



147.


__________________________________________________



148.


__________________________________________________



149.


__________________________________________________



150.


__________________________________________________



151.


__________________________________________________



152.


__________________________________________________



153.


__________________________________________________



154.


__________________________________________________



155.


__________________________________________________



156.


__________________________________________________



157.


__________________________________________________



158.


__________________________________________________



159.


__________________________________________________



160.


__________________________________________________



161.


__________________________________________________



162.


__________________________________________________



163.


__________________________________________________



164.


__________________________________________________



165.


__________________________________________________



166.


__________________________________________________



167.



Notes:

CITY STUFF → http://lolbuttsex.myminicity.com

Also, you may hear [livejournal.com profile] firefly99 singing this in the near future.

Secrets Left to Post: 09 pages, 219 secrets from Secret Submission Post #092.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

161

[identity profile] neonstilettos.livejournal.com 2008-10-07 10:37 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree with you SO HARD. *cheers you*

Idg all the woman-hating that goes down in fandom sometimes. The whole idea that women can only be "strong" and compelling if they're directly emulating traditionally masculine traits is really irritating.

Editing to add that I have no idea what the fandom for this secret is and I generally hate anime. But I agree with the words there.
Edited 2008-10-07 22:40 (UTC)

Re: 161

[identity profile] lanjelin.livejournal.com 2008-10-08 02:53 am (UTC)(link)
So what would you categorize as masculine traits? And why are they masculine?

Different person here

(Anonymous) 2008-10-08 04:51 am (UTC)(link)
Aggression. Outgoing nature. Physical action. Anger. Lust. Domineering. Genius. Just to name a few. Why are they masculine? Because up until the past 100 years or so, these were traits/emotions that were idealised for males to have, but females were encouraged to be shy, demure, nurturing, and so on. This holds true across most cultures.

Re: Different person here

[identity profile] girl-curve.livejournal.com 2008-10-08 11:29 am (UTC)(link)
And what, pray, is wrong with the most positive of these traits? Can't a female character be smart, sexual, and outgoing? Fuck the past 100 years. I'm looking forward. These traits get things done, and they shouldn't be gender-specific.

And can't said female character combine, say, shyness with strength of character and bravery? Be both nuturing and outgoing? I want active females, not damsels-in-distress. It's a story. The worst sin a fictional character can commit is being dull, which is frequently correlated with being passive.

Re: Different person here

[identity profile] lanjelin.livejournal.com 2008-10-09 02:55 pm (UTC)(link)
And people may have believed that these traits were masculine, but that doesn't mean they were right.

Re: Different person here

[identity profile] lanjelin.livejournal.com 2008-10-09 02:53 pm (UTC)(link)
So you mean that these traits have traditionally been viewed as masculine in large parts of the world for a set amount of time? This is undoubtedly true. This does not, however, mean that we should go on doing it.

It also doesn't mean that they are innately masculine. If we'd just stop putting labels on traits, moving forward would be a lot easier.

Re: 161

[identity profile] neonstilettos.livejournal.com 2008-10-08 05:01 pm (UTC)(link)
Late to the party here. But, more or less, what the anon said. The critical thing to understand, though, is that there's nothing wrong with the traditionally masculine traits anon mentioned. They are generally positive traits regardless of which gender they are found in.

BUT! What bothers me (and what I think 161 was getting at) is when these traits are placed on a pedestal and used to devalue or ridicule traditionally feminine traits, such as emotional depth, compassion, empathy, etc. These "feminine" traits can be just as strong and empowering as being aggressive and physically dominant, and they certainly don't necessitate being helpless or insipid either. Being compassionate, caring, standing up for a cause, and real problem-solving (i.e., not physical violence) takes a huge amount of courage. It seems that, a lot of times, female characters who exhibit this kind of strength are just written off as weak and worthless and I completely don't agree with that.

Re: 161

[identity profile] lanjelin.livejournal.com 2008-10-09 03:16 pm (UTC)(link)
What bothers me is the categorizing of them as "male". It implies that women who have them are unusual in some way, not "ordinary" women. Using the "male" and "female" labels for certain traits gives them false associations, and prevents both deeper understanding and progress of us humans.

Loving female characters who like to fight, are brash, have "romantic" goals (not romance; I mean wanting to sail around the world, becoming the best swordsman, solving the mystery of something, and the like), and are uninterested in family life should not make people think that one hates being a woman. These characters are women! They're just as womanly as the timid housewife who lives for her children and husband! There is no special way a woman "ought" to be, no "natural" way of thinking that's innately female.