[ SECRET POST #6349 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6349 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
[Justice League]



__________________________________________________




















07. [WARNING for discussion of weight loss/potentially EDs]




__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of underage ships/pedophilia]























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #907.
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)]

This is a really good point.

Personally I would love if we had more media in which male characters specifically were depicted as being far more inhibited by fear. Give me male good-guy characters who are "chicken"! Not just "Oh no, the villains are going to harm a beautiful, defenseless woman I care about; I feel noble, manly fear for her well-being!" No. Give me men who are scared for themselves.

I haven't finished watching Fallout yet, but I really liked the moment early on where one of the male characters admits to his sister that he's not going with her on a probable suicide mission to look for their dad, because he's "not brave enough." That was great. We very rarely get to actually see genuine fear (the kind that undermines resolve and intention) from important male characters who aren't villains, jokes, or afterthoughts, and I wish we got to see it more.

But I do think there's a distinction between a character showing fear, even to a point where they freeze or flee, and a character who lacks the inner strength to risk anything, period. Personally, it's only the latter type of character I would consider a coward. The former type of character may see themselves as a coward, and/or be perceived by others as a coward, but I wouldn't call them a coward. They're just a person reacting to fear in a very natural, human way.

[meadowphoenix]

yeah i think you and i have the same understanding of coward, but OP's must be more broad.

and i would love it if more dudes were afraid and avoidant in more dramatic scenarios.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I think a lot of people would call someone who panics and runs from conflict a coward. Even if they aren't thinking about risk. Or so afraid they aren't thinking at all. Or even if they're literally, physically paralyzed with anxiety about something or around people, especially in a time or circumstance where things like anxiety disorders aren't known about.

We could argue the meaning of "true cowardice" and "true bravery" all day, but when you look at what gets people called cowards, it's mostly about behavior - fled from a battle, ran away to avoid making a decision, hid to avoid talking to someone - and not what they were thinking at the time.

Personally, I think it's difficult to talk about a lot of fear responses in terms of what people are "willing" to risk, because that requires being able to sit and logically think things through and decide upon a course of action after weighing benefits and drawbacks, and you can't do that if you're like, a panicked teenage conscript in WWI fleeing a battlefield who is 100% not thinking at the time about whether it's moral or worth the risk to abandon his mates - no time to think, just fucking bombs, run! Then having to deal with the fallout and survivor's guilt of that, and realizing that none of it was particularly conscious, and he'd probably do it again if it came to it.

I mean, I'd read a story about that.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

To add: my main issue with defining cowardice as the unwillingness to risk anything is twofold.

One, does that then make bravery = the willingness to risk? Is gambling then brave? Is it brave to do heavy contact sports?

Two, is an evil person who is simply selfish and deciding logically to not risk anything, without a hint of fear, but because they simply don't want/care to, a coward?

[meadowphoenix]

I am defining coward in all the ways I have defined it. so when i say it's an unwillingness to risk that is within the context of social responsibility as defined by the media. running from conflict is often called cowardly, but its simply not true that running from conflict is automatically cowardly-worthy. it is a term that implies a common social understanding of what is and what isn't actionable. for instance, the people who run from monsters or zombies or whatever are almost never considered cowards, because the media usually doesn't imply that this is unacceptable. many many many post-WWII and Vietnam novels either do imply that deserters are cowardly, or make the case that desertion itself is not (and only from that are those deserters not cowardly). Those novels never imply that civilians running from battles are cowardly but they might imply that civilians who don't provide succor to soldiers (either those on the "right" side or simply because they should recognize their humanity) are cowards. I think Catch-22 makes a very cogent point that avoiding that conflict is not cowardly. Either way, it is a designation of what we owe society. But that's also why I said it's about how the media itself is building out the environment, because it changes depending on what the media is saying.

Secondly, personally i think the direction of obligation is what determines a moral judgement of two opposites. if you're obligated to do something, not doing it is perhaps negative, doing it is neutral, going above your obligation is perhaps positive. if you're not obligated to do something, doing it is perhaps positive, but not doing is neutral, and not doing it to the point of harm for instance, is perhaps negative.

but that's an issue of obligation which is usually arguable.