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)
fandomsecrets2013-02-24 03:21 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2013-02-24 03:21 pm
[ SECRET POST #2245
⌈ 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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-02-24 11:52 pm (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-02-25 12:07 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-02-25 12:23 am (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
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?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-02-25 02:42 am (UTC)(link)wait, you're serious?