[ SECRET POST #4856 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4856 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #694.
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)]

I’m cool with “period” fics that do away with period-typical homophobia, as long as they also do away with the period-typical sexism. I can’t stand when they completely get rid of one, but completely keep the other. The internal logic of the society no longer makes any sense.

So...women can marry women and that's fine, but they can't go out in public without either a chaperone or a husband? It's fine to be a lesbian - you just can't own property unless you marry a man? You can have a two-woman household, but neither one of you is deemed fit for most forms of occupation?

This is why I like ABO period piece fics. ABO prejudices make a good substitute for period-typical sexism and homophobia, but it's not quite as grim because it's ~analogous fabricated prejudice~ rather than actual real life shit.

[(Anonymous)]

Two-woman households have been a thing for a long time--look up Boston Marriages, for instance.

[(Anonymous)]

They were a thing. But they weren't something the majority of women could simply choose for themselves. The financial situation had to allow for it, which it usually didn't.

The point, however, is that the mindset that women were unfit for the majority of occupations, and should not possess their own means, is at odds with the mindset that lesbianism is totally normal, healthy and appropriate.

[(Anonymous)]

But it was an OPTION. Plenty of women had their own means and finances and inheritances--which were assumed to be passed onto husbands or children if/when they married, but were not OBLIGATED to. This notion that all women throughout history were tied to men by purse strings is no less ridiculous.

[(Anonymous)]

You really seem to be determined to miss the point here, which is that the mindset that women were unfit to do the things men did and be in society the way men were is inherently at odds with a mindset that accepts lesbianism as a normal, functional, appropriate aspect of society.

As for your comment (which is only tangentially related to my point in the first place):

Women were not always 100% reliant on their fathers or husbands across the board through all of history. But in many places at many times, they very largely were.

https://www.thoughtco.com/property-rights-of-women-3529578

https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/11/women-rights-money-timeline-history

[(Anonymous)]

No, cool, I get it. No gays allowed ever in any historical setting, or you might as well have dragons.

[(Anonymous)]

DA Stop being uselessly obtuse. You know perfectly well that that is a travesty of ARYT's point.

[(Anonymous)]

You are not 100% right on this. Gay males were always taboo and viewed as deviant by society historically. Gay sex was also against the law. But lesbianism is a different story. Because how men viewed women and women's sexuality they didn't really see women as having sexual feelings and needs outside of being with men. Because women's friendships tend to be closer than male friendships two women being physically affectionate weren't judged so harshly. Seeing two women embracing or walking arm in arm was socially acceptable. Lesbian sex wasn't even ilegal. Now it wasn't encouraged or accepted by any means but it slid under the radar. Of course all this changed at the turn of the 20th century after WWI. Women became freer and men noticed us more.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

You do know that women weren't allowed to vote for such a long time is because they weren't even valued as actual people right? And women were very much expected to be tied to a man in order to live a 'proper' life. Humanity is overwhelmingly a patriarchal society, it must really come as a shock to you, but sexism is something that exists. Which, you know, is what the anon who started this thread was actually talking about.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really think you can claim IT WAS AN OPTION when the proviso is "...if you were rich".

[(Anonymous)]

As if most protagonists in historical fiction aren't at least middle class anyway? (Or if they are poor, anachronistically so)

[(Anonymous)]

See, those sound like interesting things to have to navigate in a story that don't require outright bigotry, just logistical concern.