case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2026-02-07 02:50 pm

[ SECRET POST #6973 ]


⌈ Secret Post #6973 ⌋

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


01.




__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #996.
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.

Re: Secret OP

(Anonymous) 2026-02-08 04:17 am (UTC)(link)
A woman works there, and she talked to the temp at the supplier company instead of the regular and now there are no chips.. So it is misogyny because it's the fault of a woman for who she talked to. You have now watered down the definition of misogyny to be useless. Congrats!

Re: Secret OP

(Anonymous) 2026-02-08 06:21 am (UTC)(link)
For your analogy to make sense, it would have to go like this: assume all that happened, and all over the world people who are mad when there are no chips at the store do the same thing you did... but only when the person working there is a woman. When it's a man, they just go home and be mad by themselves because there's no helping it that the store can't always have their chips. It's a pattern of the same thing happening all over but it's only something to blame another party for when that party is a woman. That's misogyny.