[ SECRET POST #2638 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2638 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #377.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

what repercussions do men as a group face in light of "sexism" against them? at worst, some of them are told they need to watch their body language & behaviours so as to not spook someone who inherently sees them as a threat. that's... it. and even then, most men don't heed that at all.

don't say it goes both ways. the implications of misogyny and the implications of "misandry" are entirely different. they have a different effect on both of these groups.

when men are objectified, it might hurt their feelings. when women are, they aren't seen as people, but assets/liabilities depending on their relationship with men. they're additions to men, they exist to serve and please.

it's not the same. it just isn't. i'm not saying it's right (i don't think it is personally), but don't say it goes both ways. it is not the same, at all.

[(Anonymous)]

Either we say objectifying is bad for everyone, or we say it is bad for no one. You can't cherry pick what you want.

Also, so if something just hurts someone's feeling it isn't bad? I'll remember that.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, do remember it, Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them. If you can't see how one is worse than the other, you need to hand in your "humanity" card right now.

[(Anonymous)]

Look, the real world does not exist on Tumblr's definition of the world. Most women don't go around terrified all the fucking time.

And what the fuck does a TV show/movie/whatever objectifying a character have to do with that? You think a murderer is going to watch a show that doesn't objectify women and be like, "Well...I WAS going to murder some women tonight. Instead, I'll just go take a soothing shower."

[(Anonymous)]

plenty of women are sure as fuck uncomfortable around groups of men they're unfamiliar with for safety reasons

12 year old girls get harassed in the street by grown ass men

you don't have to be ~terrified all the fucking time~ to acknowledge that there is a problem

[(Anonymous)]

[i]Most women don't go around terrified all the fucking time.[/i]]

This - and more importantly, men don't spend their entire lives plotting rape and murder.

sa as above

[(Anonymous)]

your conclusive jump is a logical fallacy. firstly, i acknowledged already that objectification isn't okay.

however, there are societal implications behind objectification that differ between the two primary genders - things like who has institutional privilege, for instance, which does in fact matter in issues like this because it influences/changes how objectification affects men and how it affects women. again, the consequences of objectifying men are few, whereas they increase when you objectify women.

objectification is a pretty gross thing, but it's also a common thing, and i think it's inevitable that it happens every now and then. keeping it rare is a good way to minimise its harm. but the harm in objectifying men is already low, and objectifying women just reinforces harmful societal norms that keep women below men, on average.

as for your second part: sometimes hurt feelings are also inevitable, especially if the people you are "hurting" are giant pissbabies about the issue. you can't coddle everybody. in any case, hurt feelings do not stand up to systematic, continuous, harmful oppression.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course it's bad for everyone. But it's worse for women. When men get objectified they either preen or feel uncomfortable. The potential consequences are pretty light. When women get objectified the potential consequences are rape and murder. Not the same.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like all feminist discussions go back to "but it's worse for women!"

It'd be nice if everyone just accepted both groups have different areas that suck for them instead and focused on improving them, even if the suck is skewed more towards women.

[(Anonymous)]

Bullshit. That's the first step to undermining and dismissing the greater damage caused to women by institutionalized sexism. It lets people pretend that women "don't really have it that bad! Their suffering is just like the suffering of men!"

[(Anonymous)]

this isn't an issue that needs to be treated equally though, and the differences matter. it IS worse for women, and that IS relevant in closing the gap.

Massive post about sexism incoming

[feotakahari]

You're talking as if sexism is passive--"you exist within this group." Sexism is a monitoring process--"you belong within this group, and you will be punished, in one way or another, if you step out of it." Assuming a simple model of a group that's defined as "lesser" and a group that's defined as "greater," those who are in the "lesser" group are punished if they try to stand out, while those who are in the "greater" group are punished if they fail to fulfill the group's standards of greatness.

In other words, men don't discriminate against men for being men, but they do construct a definition of "not-men," male-gendered people who are framed as womanly and can therefore be mocked or humiliate without consequence. (In America, a common term for these men is "fag," applied not just to gay people, but to a variety of men who for whatever reason aren't seen as manly.)

Of course, this is massively oversimplifying, but it's misguided to say that sexism is against women. I don't think it's possible for there to exist bigotry against a group without there also being bigotry against the group defined as opposing it, at least in the sense that the group self-polices and punishes the "weak."

Edit: I just realized I went on a spiel about men's sexism against men in a thread about women's sexism against men. I apologize for going so far off-topic.

Re: Massive post about sexism incoming

[(Anonymous)]

men who are mocked for not being manly - in other words, having qualities that have been designated more "womanly" by societal standards - are suffering consequences that result from misogyny, not sexism against men.

Re: Massive post about sexism incoming

[(Anonymous)]

Christ... they're men, they are experiencing sexism, it is directed at them, for being men. Why do you have to torture the definitions until you somehow win this? Why is this a thing you want to win?

Re: Massive post about sexism incoming

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt. Because it's the Oppression Olympics! Instead of running every four years, it runs every four minutes.

Re: Massive post about sexism incoming

[(Anonymous)]

because the fact that it has to do with misogyny is the point and it's that we should be working to tear down?

i don't see why that's too hard to understand. i mean this shit is even tied into how men view homosexuality. it's linked to how our society views women and how that affects everything else.

[sarillia]

When men are objectified they aren't seen as people too. That's the definition of objectification. I agree that it doesn't carry the same power imbalance as it does with women but that third paragraph of yours just doesn't make sense.

It's also a lot more complicated when you consider how different races are exoticized and queer people of all kinds are treated as inherently more sexual and sometimes treated as sexual objects rather than people who sometimes act as sexual beings, and men are included in these forms of objectification as well as women.

[(Anonymous)]

i agree with this, but there are different factors that need to be analysed when discussing objectification. sexual identity/expression/orientation, gender identity, body type, etc. so just because we may be focusing on one factor in this thread doesn't mean the other factors aren't obviously important. of course some men are objectified more than other men, but that's usually not to do with their gender identity, but things like their sexuality. when discussing gender in particular, women hands down receive far more objectification, and the objectification they receive has far more societal repercussions, because society has this problem where it doesn't like to acknowledge that women are human beings.

[sarillia]

This is true. I just like to at least give a nod to the fact that straight white people aren't the default.

[(Anonymous)]

What's the threshold for caring? Eating disorders among men are increasing; when does it become okay to care about men's body image? Exercise disorders are already higher among men than women; when does it become okay to care about men's body image? Male suicide rate's higher by a factor of five; when does it become okay to care about that?

I'm genuinely asking. At what point does it become okay, by you, to care about people?

[diet_poison]

"Exercise disorder"?

Not trying to dismiss your comment, just never heard of that before.

[sarillia]

Some people exercise too much instead of eating too little. I'm not sure if it's usually called an exercise disorder. Mostly I've seen it lumped in with the various types of anorexia.

sa

[(Anonymous)]

suicide attempts are higher in women than men, as a total. men are only more likely to succeed.

objectification does hurt. but you have to analyse the consequences and consider the fact that women objectifying men doesn't hurt them, but rather patriarchal standards set by men themselves tend to leave many men with complexes. women don't have the institutional power to oppress men through objectification.

Re: sa

[(Anonymous)]

Feminists use patriarchy like zealots use God. No one can see it, but it is totally responsible for everything ever.

Re: sa

[(Anonymous)]

Followup question, then: at what point do we decide that women do have institutional power? You would agree, I hope, that women have MORE power in society than they did fifty years ago? We're on the same page that that's a good thing, right? But it doesn't count yet, according to you. That's cool. At what point DOES it count? What's a metric we can hit?