fandomsecrets | (no subject)

⌈ Secret Post #2134 ⌋

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.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #305.
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

My point is that it's culturally bound and you have to EXPLAIN what those terms mean inside of that culture. For example, homophobia in Japan /= gay-bashing, but acquiring basic visibility. It is a different issue.

If I say that denying homosexuality is homophobia and not a form unheard of in probably any other country outside of Japan as well are you going to condescend to me?

I don't understand your point. I'm talking about something very specific to the culture of Japan, not a world wide definition of "homophobia" - that's my point, it's going to be culturally bound no matter where you are and it's important to understand that.

Its not "denying homosexuality" in the sense of "there's no such thing/it's a choice/you need to be cured" - which is how it is typically presented by fundamentalists in the US, for example. It's more of a "that's okay, but you still have to meet all of these other expectations which include marriage and children, but you can still be gay on the side!" attitude - which is very different than the general understanding of "homophobia." Japanese GLBT people are dealing with much more fundamental issues of visibility than those in the US have had to deal with for almost 50 years and there is no vocal opposition, there is no public argument, it's non-existent.

GLBT activists in Japan have a hard road to hoe - which is why I support organizations like Colori Caffe (http://www.coloricaffe.com/) in Kyoto and the 'zine Girrls Love (http://girrlsluv.com/).

Really? You don't think an expectation for a gay person to have a primary heterosexual relationship isn't at least a level of denial about what it means to be gay?

I'm not saying it's identical to homophobic denial in the U.S. just that it's homophobia and it doesn't really need a special 'but not really' disclaimer when someone is speaking generally about attitudes in Japan.

Just because you assume everyone has preconceived cultural notions of homophobia and expects them to apply world wide doesn't mean the word homophobic doesn't describe common Japanese attitudes toward homosexuality. Sure, delving into the implications of applying a term to another culture isn't a bad thing. But you can't call out anon for using it.

On the contrary, I don't think that further explanation of a situation is "call[ing] out" - it is what it is.

And using the same general label to describe Japan as, say, Uganda is problematic, wouldn't you agree? No one is harmed by being specific, but these generalities are far too easily thrown around and open to interpretation.

Your original comment implies anon was wrong to use the words they did. Not, hey, some people might find further explanation illuminating.

That's not what I wrote, though, but your take on it.

Yeah because it's my job to make sure you communicate your intent clearly. Ok.

I thought I should tell you it read that way to me as well. Just so you're aware of how your words come across to others since you sound like you're saying you didn't intend for it to seem like you were saying anon was wrong for using the word. It seems from the above comment that you just wanted to help clarify.

If people are regularly interpreting your words incorrectly, then the problem lies with how you're phrasing them.

you fail, anon.

Oh, enlighten me you tease!

oh god i am really getting fucking tired of seeing that goddamn nail

Oh thanks! You've really helped me out. I've been thinking about getting a new icon for a couple of weeks now but this settles it!

The fact that it manifests differently doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I get that you're taking the terms very literally (e.g. Japanese are incredibly ethnocentric rather than xenophobic, as "xenophobic" literally means "afraid of foreigners"). I guess that's cool. But it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For example, being sexist against the women of one ethnic group is still a form of sexism.

For example, being sexist against the women of one ethnic group is still a form of sexism And a form of racism and a form of xenophobia. Which is why I'm insisting on being specific in this dialogue - transferring terminology among cultures brings with it the danger of equating very different kinds of struggles that fall under the same umbrella and glossing over unique cultural experiences.

Change your icon. You are so weeaboo I think you need this.

Are weeaboos like that fucked up "trans-ethnic" shit I've seen around? If so, I'm not. Sorry.

no they are not

fucking christ literally everything you say makes me mad im sorry but it keeps happening!

I'm referring to this kind of "trans-ethnic" (http://www.modernprimate.com/what-the-hell-is-transethnicity/) and not actual (correct) trans-ethnic/multi-ethnic/multiculturalness.