fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2351 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2350 ⌋

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.

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 113 secrets from Secret Submission Post #336.
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

so...having an obsessive character is inherently misogynistic?

yeah, fuck that. people come in all shades of personality, and hers wasn't extremely unrealistic just to pander to some societal ideal (which is the only way I can see a personality type being "misogynistic")

You are totally correct, but that, again, is from an in-universe perspective.

Female characters being obsessed with a man, and having their entire lives and storylines revolve around a man, and having all their onscreen actions being reactive to a man, and having no personal agency of their own because everything about their life is influenced by a man, has definite hints of misogynistic stereotypes that have been present in fiction for a long time and that tie into legitimate real-world problems, and it was a choice by the writer to give her those traits.

Maybe in the distant future, an obsessive character who happens to be female can be just that, no baggage attached. But today, stereotypes and popular consciousness about how female characters should be written is unfortunately so pervasive that choosing to write a character that was does smell of misogyny -- unless the writer is legitimately completely clueless about the world and culture he lives in, which is just as bad.

Maybe he is reflecting the world in order that it should raise the issue, and by attacking him you are enabling those that genuinely act out that issue by focusing on the messenger instead of perpetuators. Have you considered that, huh? You campaign against Moffat because he is portraying the issue, and by wanting it off the air you are attempting to erase it and thus allow it to go unchallenged. Erasure is bad (but the Pet Shop Boys are brilliant).

But he isn't portraying or trying to raise the issue! Not once does the show's narrative portray that stuff as sexist and bad and awful, nor do any of the characters describe it as such, nor do the events of the show challenge the issue, nor are any discussions of misogyny raised in the show. You can't raise an issue without actually portraying it as an issue that needs to be addressed.

Unless of course, Moffat had a master plan to make people hate him for the sexist crap he does and start a dialogue within fandom without realizing he planned the whole thing, a la The Producers.

Which is totally unrealistic even by Moffat's trollface standards, but now the image of Moffat as Max Bialystock is entertaining the fuck out of me :)

It is not for a show to endorse an issue as good or bad, but simply to display it so the audience can choose to fight the issue or fight the show creator.

So, are you going to keep complaining about Moffat for showcasing an issue that exists, or are you going to take up the torch and fight the issue itself? If the former, you're part of the problem and part of the system of oppression, if the latter then say thank you to Moffat for showing the way and get out on the street and actually fight sexism in the real world.

Spandau Ballet was pretty good too now I think about it.

It is not for a show to endorse an issue as good or bad, but simply to display it so the audience can choose to fight the issue or fight the show creator.

You cannot fucking be serious.

No, really. You. Cannot. Fucking. Be. Serious.

You're almost certainly trolling me, but just in case this is Poe's Law in effect:

Excuse me? Endorse an issue as good or bad? An "issue"? You are talking about SEXISM. Sexism is not an issue that it is okay to be moderate about. This is not about war or drug policy or whether high taxes or low taxes are better. Sexism is BAD. There is no such thing as an acceptable pro-sexism argument. It is bad. Period. End of discussion. Show creators have an obligation to fucking portray sexism as bad, because IT IS BAD.

Showing misogynistic stuff in a show and portraying it as totally fine and romantic and not presenting any argument against it is NOT okay. If you do that, it is a tacit endorsement. And by the way? It is the 21st fucking century. If you portray the issue of sexism as neutral -- implying that people who are pro-sexism have as valid an argument as anti-sexism people -- that is even worse than accidentally portraying sexism as an okay thing.

Moffat is not "showing the way". He doesn't think his show is sexist. He is not some master planner secretly conspiring to motivate people to be anti-sexist. If you honestly believe that...well...there are people who totally believe that those two actors on Supernatural are totally in love and that one of them named his newborn baby after the other. So...you're not completely alone?

Show creators have an obligation to fucking portray sexism as bad, because IT IS BAD.

Creators have no obligation to pass judgement on any issue. If something exists, then they can portray it as it is. If they have any higher obligation than entertainment it is to create something that is truthful, not didactic.

Saying that he wrote it to showcase an issue that exists instead of being part of the problem is giving Moffat waay too much credit. You see it in all his female characters: Amy's life revolved solely around the two men in her life (she was obsessed with the Doctor all throughout her childhood and expressed ti through biting therapists), every single one of River's decisions was made to bring her closer to the Doctor, Clara was literally born to save the Doctor. You'd think that, if he was really trying to showcase an issue that exists, he'd have a character that subverts those expectations, to show that, "hey, women actually aren't like that." But none of them do because he honestly thinks that that's what women are like.

I'm pretty sure the ayrt is a troll. It's impossible to say "shows shouldn't endorse a viewpoint on an issue!" without being either a troll or delusional.

And what about the stance that Spandau Ballet was pretty good?

Madness were excellent though.

[ SECRET POST #2351 ]

Re: tl;dr ahoy

Re: tl;dr ahoy

Re: tl;dr ahoy

Re: tl;dr ahoy

Re: tl;dr ahoy

Re: tl;dr ahoy

Re: tl;dr ahoy

Re: tl;dr ahoy

Re: tl;dr ahoy

Re: tl;dr ahoy