fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6013 ]

[ SECRET POST #6013 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6013 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[The Witcher: Blood Origin]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Taskmaster]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07. [WARNING for discussion of child pornography, child molestation/underage sexual assault]

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for child molestation]

[Mysterious Skin]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #859.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

06. https://i.imgur.com/qj1r1jK.png

Anon from the secret post. You already know what I think of this.

In before people (again) miss that OP is okay with it if people call it good for its time, while whitesplaining that this movie is "feminism, simply not for BIPOC women" as though that's not OP's entire point

OP, I saw your thread before, and oof. Just gonna say I see where you're coming from but I don't want to engage with defensive white people about this one. Good luck

As someone who's incorrectly called straight (and seen countless others done so as well) for disagreeing with another queer person who said something was homophobic when I thought it wasn't at all, fuck off. Someone not agreeing with you doesn't mean they're white.

Nah, the person in the old thread stated they aren't BIPOC, if I recall right. So this isn't an assumption. I assume they're still here and they replied to me below you? They were saying similar stuff to OP in the original thread, like "not everything is about you" is a really cringe response to someone pointing out lack of intersectionality

Not really, considering that the movie was made in the '90s. Society has changed considerably since then.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-06-24 04:08 (UTC) - Expand

+1000

And here you are, with the same load of bullshit. Not everything has to be about you.

I'd say it was groundbreaking for its time, and that some of the aspects of it that were so refreshing are still sadly kinda rare, while other parts have indeed aged terribly (the queer and race fails), or were always a bit silly (the Delta Nu/liposuction alibi/perm stuff). But the silliness is intentional, as part of the comedy. Plus it's just fun and earnest, which is sadly rare too.

It's not my favorite move ever and it's definitely not the pinnacle of feminism, but I understand why some people would have a lot of fondness for it, including the intended feminist elements, even if they were Very 90s.

I'd agree with this.

Honestly, this movie is what I always thought of as the Barbie movie.

I much prefer the musical, although OP's criticisms still apply there. But it goes a lot harder on Elle's determination that women should stand by other women, which I did appreciate (even though it still largely lacked intersectionality).

So, OP, what are your opinions on Nine to Five?

I think it's feminist in a very particular and narrow way, and I think it's a very well-made, clever, enjoyable movie.

I don't know how much there really is to say beyond that.

Your points about the movie's problems are valid, but I am very over the pressure to list off a piece of media's sins every time you discuss the things you like about it. I don't think most of its fans in the spaces you're talking about are unaware or uncaring about its flaws, they're aware and don't need to spell it out for everyone when they just want to talk about a particular way in which the movie is fun or feminist.

this, exactly.

Wait so rich white ladies are automatically not feminists?

Yeah, that's what I've been wondering about. I also love the snide assumption that white women can't possibly experience discrimination based on the fact that they are women, at a time when the courts and legislatures in my country are actively trying to take civil rights away from women as a gender.

Internet leftists genuinely don't think white women face any oppression as women. I have seen the question "Are you seriously saying white women are oppressed?" being asked in earnest.

So what do they think abortion bans, the attempts to go after no-fault divorce and the way sexual assault victims are treated are? Or the fact that women are still paid less for dong the same jobs?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-06-24 15:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-06-24 15:14 (UTC) - Expand

I've seen misogynists on reddit use a Bill Burr comedy routine basically saying this and it's beyond infuriating.
As in Fuck off, Bill Burr! A white man trying to talk about the experiences of all women, trying to score some kind of leftist points (but in reality enabling misogynists).

I don't think that's the implication. More like you can't call something a feminist classic when it focuses almost entirely on rich white ladies. Just like you can't call something an LGBTQ classic when it focuses entirely on rich white
cis gay men.

Do rich white cis gay men face discrimination? 100% they do. Would you call media focused only on rich white cis gay men 'LGBTQ masterpieces' especially if they mocks for example, black lesbians along the way? Wow, I would hope not.

Someone else above put it best, the movie is a great and fun example of a very specific, narrow kind of feminism. Just like that movie only about gay men would be very specific, narrow kind of queer media for a specific audience. I don't see why it's so surprising that those not in that specific audience are annoyed when people say that this feminism that specifically doesn't include them is super and/or representative.

And when someone points out maybe this piece of media has issues and maaaybe shouldn't be referred to as a general masterpiece representative of the group due to said issues, they get responses like "you think everything has to be about you" and "what, are you saying Elle should have been black and this should have been all about black women?" <- literally responses the OP got in their original thread

Re: Same anon, cont.

(Anonymous) - 2023-06-24 15:15 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Same anon, cont.

(Anonymous) - 2023-06-24 15:28 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Same anon, cont.

(Anonymous) - 2023-06-24 18:42 (UTC) - Expand

Something can still be a "any group of choice" classic even though it doesn't check all possible boxes included in that group, what the hell are you talking about. The fact that some things might not have been greatly handled doesn't immediately negate the classic status.

Well it was girl power. Because that was what girl power was in the 90s (i count this because it was before 9/11), where there was the barest consideration of class or race, see Spice Girls. I don't even mind the designation because I think "girl power" never moved beyond this anyway.

So here's the thing. I do think there's something in the degree to which female labor is discounted as important or culturally significant or considered vapid as a major problem which impacts the labor of exploited women too. and I do actually think that Elle treating workers as equally important to her was frankly more radical that you would think.

But yeah there's a shallowness here that is very much of its time and of its class. It's not doing anything interesting now.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only