[ SECRET POST #2321 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2321 ⌋

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: 04 pages, 100 secrets from Secret Submission Post #332.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

1. AGREED. And it's not just 'bashing is bad regardless of gender,' even though that's true. The point of feminism is to respect women's agency and choices. If your 'feminist' commentary is that woman X is doing it rite and woman Y is doing it WRONG, then that is basically the opposite of feminism. Now, in fiction, you can definitely critique the way some women are written to align with gross tropes, but that shouldn't be confused with attacking the character herself.

2. It bugs the shit out of me that the fallen chess piece here is the King, not the opposing Queen.

[(Anonymous)]

Thats not the point of feminism tho

jfc read a book and discard that I choose my choice rubbish

[(Anonymous)]

What the fuck are you even talking about.

Also, "read a book"? You do realize that there are millions of books on feminism which encompass a really wide range of ideas, many of which are totally contradictory, just like any social movement?

[(Anonymous)]

Oh hey radfem!anon. I'll bite.

What books would you recommend, then? Or do you have a convenient summary of what you believe feminism is? Because "respecting women's agency and choices" is a pretty broad description that encompasses several schools of thought within the feminist sphere. To the point that I'm pretty sure if that's not even a part of your particular feminist ideology, you are doing far more harm than good to women's rights in general.

[(Anonymous)]

Please explain to me how "respecting women's agency and choice" is not feminist.

[(Anonymous)]

Zie didn't say it wasn't feminist. Zie said it wasn't the point of feminism.

There are many feminists - and I'm one of them - who feel that politically and actively feminism as a movement should focus on systemic issues and leave the 'I choose choice' individualism rhetoric out of it. While having one's choices curtailed by an oppressive system is a feminist issue, choosing is not in and of itself a feminist act. The glorification of choice (while obfuscating the underlying mechanics)is far more about Western capitalism than about women's empowerment.

Choosing to be a sex worker is not a feminist act. Choosing to be a CEO is not a feminist act. Choosing to be an acrobet is not a feminist act. The reasons behind those decisions and the systems in which they are made are what we should be focussing upon. How empowerfulled the individual feels doing something because she wants to is a by-product, and replaces organised agitation, planning, defined goals, plans of action and theories of politics or social science with an inert cloud of emotivism that's never going to change the world.

[ariakas]

I... don't know, anon. If "woman X" is Ann Coutler, or someone actively campaigning against the rights of other women, I'd say they're "doing it wrong".

It's important to respect women's choices, but also respect them in the same way we respect men's choices: yes, it is also possible for their choices, like men's, so be shitty and not worthy of respect. To think otherwise is either putting women on a pedestal (all women's choices are noble!), or infantilizing them (goood job! you chose something! good girl, gold star!).

I'm no radfem, but I didn't sign up to treat women like they were princesses or idiots. Women can make bad choices too, and they should be criticized for them.

(Though this is just a tangent really: women aren't fictional female characters. When someone criticizes a fictional character, they're criticizing the author... ...unless they're so tremendously stupid they haven't figured out that fictional characters can't "choose" things yet.)

[dragonimp]

I think the difference, though, is to criticize (say) Ann Coulter's choices and actions without saying they make her "less of a woman" or that she "fails" at being a woman.

[sagelazarus]

Well, I mean, I'm not one who shies away from saying that something makes someone "less of a wo/man," but I tend to mean it in the same way that treating people or animals inhumanely, things like that, makes someone "less of a human." Though, I never say that someone 'fails at being a wo/man" because, nah, you're ALWAYS going to be your own gender. I guess it's in the way that someone thinks of someone as a "great wo/man" or a "Terrible person"

I don't know if I'm making any sense and I'm sorry because I"m slightly too damn inebriated.

[ariakas]

I don't know if I agree, but someone who actively works against the rights and freedoms of women certainly fails as a human being, if nothing else.

[dragonimp]

I keyed in on that King-Queen thing, too. Details!