fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6217 ]

[ SECRET POST #6217 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6217 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #889.
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

In fiction, yeah. That's boring as shit.

It's boring because motherhood is by nature restrictive and confining. That's why we've fought so hard to liberate women from it.

No. We fought so hard to let women be able to CHOOSE.

THIS. And I say this as someone who hates kids and has known since I was 13 that I never wanted them.

But since our roles are socially constructed, which roles we assume has an impact on the broader social reality. When we make choices that support traditional conceptions of "womanhood" and "manhood," we help keep those conceptions, and the oppression that goes along with them, alive and well. And this is not even getting into the fact that our choices are rarely made independently; they're influenced by the very same social reality referenced above, and so we should engage in some serious self-reflection whenever we find ourselves choosing tradition.

In an ideal world, we would all be able to just freely choose one option or another. But unfortunately this is not an ideal world.

And this is not even getting into the fact that our choices are rarely made independently; they're influenced by the very same social reality referenced above

Dude, that's never NOT going to be the case. We're a social species. It's how we function. So... are you trying to say that no women can ever freely choose to be a mother? Cause... um... that's some dire worldview you got there.

No, I don't think they can. I don't think men can freely choose to be fathers, either.

Is it dire? Maybe. But I also don't think it's false.

Well, I don't think freewill is actually a thing, but we have to act like it is. Because we have no choice (ba dum tissss). So all things being equal, if we have the ability to do otherwise, that constitutes a choice.

So yeah, thinking no one can freely choose is depressingly nihilistic.

I don't know, the idea that we don't have free will at all seems even more depressing to me than my position. We may not be able to choose to be parents independent of tradition and social expectations, but we can at least carve other paths. To not be able to choose anything at all outside of a predetermined path would rob all our struggles of any meaning.

I don't know, the idea that we don't have free will at all seems even more depressing to me than my position.

Like I said, even though we don't have free will, we have to act like we do. The irony.

We may not be able to choose to be parents independent of tradition and social expectations, but we can at least carve other paths.

But if you can't choose to be a parent because you can't choose things due to societal expectations, then how can you choose to NOT be a parent? Either you can have done otherwise, or you can't. If you can't, then you didn't choose. If you could have, then you DID choose. It doesn't matter if any or what kind of pressures are on you. You COULD have done otherwise. That means you had a choice. If you can choose not to, then you can choose to do it.

You can't say that people can choose to "carve other paths" but can't choose to continue tradition. You can't have it both ways. Either people CAN choose to be traditional, or we have no choices at all.

> Well, I don't think freewill is actually a thing

Why, because your sky daddy writes every fate?

based on the stuff that was being studied 25 years ago in psychology and computational biology, there is no evidence for free will. So no, not you puerile insult at other people's beliefs, but science.

25 years ago "science" said homosexuality was a mental illness

Science can be corrupted and tainted by religious leanings and a lot of Christofascists are into the idea God has a plan for them, so if you think this didn't affect things, you're delusional and also probably lazy and think nothing you do matters so might as well not try.

No-free-will-anon here. I'm an atheist. I'm also philosopher!anon. I spent literal years studying this. No free will. Sorry.

PS. Believe science. They're not always right, but fuck they're the only ones trying.

What does "believe science" even mean, here? A study, a result, or a finding isn't necessarily true or worth believing simply because it has the word "science" attached to it. This is especially the case now, when many fields are continuing to grapple with the replication crisis; the deleterious effects of the "publish or perish" culture are coming to light; and the entire peer-review system is starting to come under fire for being corrupt at worst and incapable of detecting errors at best (many publications don't actually fully read and review the papers they publish, because the volume is so great that there simply isn't the time).

Science is a process, not a label. Good scientific practice in fact involves not simply believing; it involves questioning, critiquing, attempting to falsify. It involves skepticism. That is what truly separates the religious from the scientifically-minded.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-01-14 20:38 (UTC) - Expand

You're a real shit philosopher if you actually think anything in philosophy is an objective fact. Sorry to say it but 25 year of studying and you have no understanding of what the field of philosophical studies entails - that's real sad.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-01-14 21:41 (UTC) - Expand

What ayrt kinda didn't understand in 25 years of studying is that philosophy, at its core, is in many, many cases just a form of atheist religion and dogma - schools of thought that you believe in or don't and often are convinced that the one you do believe in is the correct one and others who don't believe in it are wrong.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-01-14 21:43 (UTC) - Expand

Well, you're a fucking dumbass, then

Can you explain why?

Wow, way to be an asshole. That contributed net zero to the conversation. You proud of yourself?

It amazes me that there are people who find it hard to grasp this concept. Yes, some women actually want to raise kids with or without considering alternative paths in life. This is a GOOD thing, for more than one reason. (Hell, I sure as fuck ain't having kids and I'd rather someone who actually WANTS kids to raise them.)

This. I'm the only one of my friends with kids. I love being a mom. That does not mean that I want my friends who chose childfree lives to be socially shamed and pressured into having kids. Apart from anything else, that's just awful for the kids.

I'm happy they're happy, they're happy I'm happy. We all got to make our own choices and THAT is what we fought for.

SA And what we're still fighting for.

I'm a childfree woman who has known my entire life that I never wanted kids and I 100% support the women who DO want kids and who love having them and being moms, because there are plenty of women who do! If that is the right choice for someone then I am totally in their corner.

And you're exactly right-- people who don't want children SHOULDN'T have them, because that's cruel to the kids. Parenting should be for the people who want to experience it, warts and all.

+billions

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only