[ SECRET POST #2245

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2245 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03. [tb]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 098 secrets from Secret Submission Post #321.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 3 4 - come on, troll with a little more subtlety ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think you understand how sexism works, OP. Call me back when the only way that a man can get on TV is to be that smoking hot despite being middle aged, and maybe we can talk.

[(Anonymous)]

You're right. Because of that, girls can't be shallow.

[(Anonymous)]

That wasn't the part anon mentioned. It's not SEXIST. Not that ladies can't be shallow. Come back when you have some reading comprehension.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, I'll bite. You probably aren't coming back, but I'll explain this.

Yes, girls can be shallow. You'll notice I didn't deny that. If what the OP says is true, then those girls are indeed shallow.

However, said girls aren't reducing the character or the actor's worth to just his appearance. They aren't construing that as his only value. They aren't demanding that all men live up to their standards of attractiveness. All of those things would be objectifying.

Recognizing someone is attractive and appreciating it is not objectifying in and of itself, and not sexist. Being unhappy about a bad character being kind of attractive is weird and possibly shallow, but not sexist. No one is oppressed by their opinions, nor do their opinions contribute to an atmosphere where men in general or unattractive men specifically are deemed lesser than women.

Conversely, if the character were a woman, no one would ever pause to consider that they were played by an attractive actress. It would just be taken for granted that women on TV are attractive.

[(Anonymous)]

How does one point negate the other?

[(Anonymous)]

Didn't you learn anything from racism wank? ~ism = power + prejudice.

Men going on and on about the attractiveness or lack thereof of female characters is sexist. Women doing the same about male characters might be shallow and even grating, but it is not and cannot be sexist.

[(Anonymous)]

And that is why nobody takes feminists seriously.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a difference between a feminist and a Person Who Believes Everything Ivory Tower Academics Say. Unfortunately, a lot of PWBEITAS' identify as feminists, so.

But, yeah.

So, sociology decided to redefine all the -isms as being expressions of systematic/institutional oppression, which is great when it comes to research into these phenomena. It's not great, however, when it comes to relating with the general public. You can't just make up a new definition for a word in a purely academic setting and expect everyone else in the world to adopt said definition. What's more, you don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to getting mad at everyone else for not readily understanding/adopting your redefinition of a word that is elsewhere defined differently.

Or, shorter version: using the sociological definitions of -isms outside of sociological circles doesn't actually do shit or help anyone. It just confuses people and puts them on the defensive.

[ill_omened]

No, that would be institutional racism/sexism etc.

Jesus, we had a perfectly good modifier for this, what is to be gained in adopting a very specific meaning for a common usage term with a clear laymans meaning, that is only going to act to cause confusion and get people to instinctively dismiss your point or be antagonistic towards you.

What do you even hope to gain here, it's honestly confusing to me. It's not as though this is the exclusive and long established meaning of the term even in an academic context. Why are you trying to shift the meaning when there's countless negatives against the positive of what, not tagging institutional on the front of something a couple times an essay?

[(Anonymous)]

Hahahahahah....

wait, you're serious?