Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2012-07-01 03:19 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2012-07-01 03:19 pm
[ SECRET POST #2007 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2007 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12.
__________________________________________________
13.
__________________________________________________
14.
__________________________________________________
15.
__________________________________________________
16.
__________________________________________________
17.
__________________________________________________
18.
__________________________________________________
19.
__________________________________________________
20.
__________________________________________________
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 111 secrets from Secret Submission Post #287.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ], [ 1 - text secret ], [ 1 - empty image ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-01 09:16 pm (UTC)(link)Yeah, a lot of people call themselves feminists while being blatantly hateful towards women for not fitting their ideal, or toward survivors because they don't fit whatever 'classic victim' idea they have. Not to mention, plenty of self-identifying feminists are racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, and otherwise bigoted. So I can definitely understand why someone wouldn't want to identify with that label. Feminism is a huge movement, and it's more than just a rare few people involved with it that are utter assholes. I think often people fall into the No True Scotsman fallacy when trying to defend feminism from that - saying "no real feminist would advocate political lesbianism or hate on rape survivors for not fitting some perfect 'ideal victim' image!!" for example, when actually yes, plenty of people that call themselves feminists do just that.
It's as ridiculous as people claiming that no real Christian would be homophobic. Admitting that many people that follow a particular ideology, whether it be religious or political, do have some really horrible beliefs and attitudes that are directly related to that ideology does not mean that everyone who follows that ideology or identifies as being a part of that group is evil. I think sometimes people have a hard time grasping that.
That said, a lot of people that shun the feminist label do so not out of distaste for the truly hateful and bigoted parts of the movement, but because they buy into the popular "feminists are all ugly hairy-legged man-hating bitches" stereotype. Which vilifies women for not fitting conventional, patriarchal ideas of attractiveness, and also for being too aggressive and angry, and in general is just a bunch of hateful misogynist garbage. That, I think, is why feminists - the good ones at least - tend to be somewhat leery of anyone that quantifies any defence of women or womanhood with "but I'm not a feminist". Because usually it's coming from someone that's bought into the popular anti-feminist stereotype, and has nothing to do with being against some of the genuinely shitty aspects of the movement.
no subject
Thank you anon, you said it infinitely better than I've been! <3
ETA: ....particularly the No True Scotsman bit.
On the one hand, the people who think you're a feminist if you believe women should not be oppressed want to include a very wide swath of humanity, which no doubt includes a lot of crazy assholes (because there are not that many humans who are going to straight up say they believe women should be oppressed.)
But on the other hand, the moment you go "Mmmm... not so much for me, there's some really crazy assholes!" they go "Those aren't TRUE feminists!" Which expresses a desire to narrow the definition and to exclude people who have, in fact, expressed that they believe the oppression of women is wrong.
At which point I tilt my head and wonder why the person doesn't see that she's talking out of both sides of her mouth.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-01 09:36 pm (UTC)(link)Yes, that does make sense- I can see how that could be a problem. I remember when I was in middle school my grandmother had that talk with me. I don't remember what brought it up, but I guess I responded to something by saying "well at least I'm not ugly and I don't hate boys" or something like that. That was actually when I learned about her past activism, and I actually really grew to respect her after that. (yeah, I know, CSB).
It feels like in more recent times, though, the whole SJW style of activism where you scream obscenities and invective at anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with you or fall into your preconceived paradigms has taken over a lot of these different movements, like in my experiences. I know there's more reasonable ones out there (like you), but at times it can be hard to remember that when you're being called a fucking asshole misogynist bigot because you tried to help your husband get treatment for his PTSD. :|
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-01 09:43 pm (UTC)(link)It's always sad when people take "equality" to mean "drag everyone down to the same lower level" instead of "raise everyone up to the higher one." We don't get (something), so you should take it away from the other group! How does that even help /sigh
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-01 10:03 pm (UTC)(link)Well I'd say that in some respects the only way to make people equal is to take away from the group in power. For example, the only way to lower the disparity between rich and poor is to take away from the rich - not to make them poor, but to make them less rich and spread the wealth around to those who are poor.
Or, when it comes to less material things - in using an analogy -
In order for those who are oppressed or less privileged to be heard, those who are in power and privileged must stop being allowed to have the floor all the time. They have to be silent sometimes. Sure, that's taking away from them and in a sense lowering them to the level of those who have had to endure in silence and listen all the time, but it's the only way for those who have been suffering in silence to be able to speak up and be heard. And if sometimes (or, perhaps more honestly, often) those who have been silent and ignored have to shout to be heard and acknowledged, then I don't think we should have to waste much sympathy on the eardrums of those who have been the only talkers for so long.
God that's a convoluted analogy, but hopefully it kind of makes sense?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-01 10:10 pm (UTC)(link)Taking money from the rich and making the divide smaller doesn't mean that they're no longer rich; what I mean is people wanting the rich to be as poor as they are out of spite. Which helps nothing, frankly. In the other example, giving the oppressed "equal privilege to be heard" doesn't mean you have to take away anybody else's privilege to be heard and make them completely silent. Only give the oppressed the privilege, too.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-01 10:27 pm (UTC)(link)I get what you're saying about sometimes people just seem to want to make others suffer out of spite because of what they have suffered themselves - and honestly, I can understand that sentiment, although I don't think it's healthy or moral to actually endeavour to bring about that suffering or devote a great deal of time to fantasizing about it - but I don't think it's a clear dichotomy between "we can all have some!" and "I didn't have any so you shouldn't have any either, fuck you!!!"
If someone has everything, then of course they're going to have to lose some of that in order for others to have some. And a big part of oppression and privilege is that it's defined by havers and have-nots. Getting rid of the category of have-not kind of by default gets rid of the category of havers - because if everyone's a haver it can't be a category anymore, since a category can only be defined by being different from something else. If there's nothing else for it to be different from, it can't be a category. If that makes sense.
There was once a really awesome article I read that explained how the identity of white is built on not being a person of colour, and how in order to destroy racism in some ways the whole identity of whiteness has to be destroyed. I'll see if I can find it and post it later tonight when I have access to my bookmarks.
Obviously, though, that can't really be applied to feminism because there's a lot more to gender identity than privileged group vs oppressed group... although it is a big part of it, I'm sure at least some people would argue... this is always the problem with arguing this kind of stuff, there are so many different trains of thought regarding everything. Ahhh.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-01 10:18 pm (UTC)(link)And some activists wonder why people want to distance themselves from their cause...
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-07-01 10:15 pm (UTC)(link)First - just so you know, your grandmother sounds awesome.
Now, to the rest of your comment... lol I'm actually usually called an SJW when I post in fandomsecrets (as an anon, I never unanon here anymore). I'll admit though that yeah, the SJ movement on the internet can be pretty shitty sometimes. I just think, most of the time, people complaining about it are not referring to the sort of genuinely shitty behaviour you've described, and are just using 'people on the internet being mean' as an excuse to not care about social issues.
It's a bit like the disconnect between the "Ew feminists, I'm not a manhating bitch like them!!!" train of thought and the "ah, feminists... there are some really fucked up parts of that movement" one. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of the SJ movement. They're just often by-passed or exaggerated to justify people's lack of caring and ignorance toward certain social matters.
Sooo what I'm trying to say here is, I get what you're saying.
no subject
no subject
no subject