[ SECRET POST #5250 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5250 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________


03.



__________________________________________________


04.
[Lux-Pain]


__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________


06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________
















08. [WARNING for discussion of underage ships]

[Jujutsu Kaisen]


__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for discussion of gore, rape]

[Evenicle]


__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for discussion of sexual harassment]














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #751.
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 was on board until "hire survivors" like wait what, so like go ask people to disclose their history of trauma and then hire them over people who have not? Umm...

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that one gets a "wtf no" from me. If what she meant was "Give people who have come forwards with their experiences the same work opportunities as you would any other person; don't treat people as less hirable because they accused someone of assault," then yeah, absolutely, 100%. But if that's what she meant, then she needed to say something in that vein, not just "hire survivors."

[(Anonymous)]

I took "hire survivors" to mean "don't discriminate against people who've talked about Me Too experiences in the workplace because you're afraid they're touchy/gonna sue, etc."

Which is a real thing these people experience, being painted as dour SJWs who cause trouble over an overheard slightly risque joke on set.

It's men who still do most of the hiring.

[(Anonymous)]

It may also mean "Be careful in blacklisting women as "difficult.'" Harvey Weinstein managed to get Mira Sorvino blacklisted. Peter Jackson was among those who passed her over as a result, and now he says he regrets it.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't mean to be snippy, but this and what ayrt suggested are good ideas, but substantially different from "hire survivors". Either Yi worded it very, very poorly, or both of you are very kindly putting a more reasonable spin on a very awkward suggestion.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

You're right but also I think the point that anons are making is a really important piece of context.

Because it is unfortunately the reality in the entertainment industry that there are a lot of people who have had their careers destroyed as a result of this stuff, often quite publicly. So in that context, I think it makes a lot more sense: don't blacklist people for having dealt with creeps or being smeared as "difficult", and not only that, but affirmatively go out and do projects with those people who have been smeared.

I do get where you're coming from, it definitely is a tricky thing. But I think it's less tricky for Seth Rogen putting together projects in Hollywood than it would be if, like, you were taking applications for an office job and 3000 people were sending in resumes and you were asking them to disclose it.

[(Anonymous)]

Possibly, but at some point in order to hire survivors, he's going to have to obtain knowledge about their trauma and... well, how is that going to be accomplished? The one avenue I see is to hire people who are known to have spoken publicly about #MeToo, which is good. But what about the people who haven't stepped forward for their own personal reasons, such as not being ready to handle the fallout yet? It's not exactly like a regular job, but the process is comparable. If your end goal is to hire survivors, where, when and how do you collect that information?

Also, when you consider the people doing the hiring... is this a process we think they're qualified to oversee?

[(Anonymous)]

you're interpreting a lot into three words. like you can't get upset at her for your own interpretation of that when other anons have offered much saner ideas than what you're thinking of

[(Anonymous)]

Who's upset? I'm just asking how that's going to be accomplished because it sounds good in theory, but the real life application seems a little questionable and impractical.

Also, "hire survivors" is two words.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that... I mean I can see how the basic idea sounds good but how do you do this IRL? Are you seriously going to quiz people about their trauma as part of the interviewing process? It seems awful to put people into a position where if they want the job, they have to leverage their past trauma to get it.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah this.. and like... I'd hate to think I only got a job because of a part in my life I'd rather forget and definitely do NOT want to be defined by.