[ SECRET POST #2650 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2650 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 062 secrets from Secret Submission Post #379.
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

Re: Possible wank inducer? Still "interesting" though

[(Anonymous)]

I skimmed the article (which, btw, is only available if your institution has a subscription either to sagepub or jstor). To be honest, maybe I've become radicalized, but I'm not really seeing what you find so incendiary about it. Yes, it's from a feminist point of view. Yes, the author uses the word patriarchy. But... there are definitely circumstances where it's legitimate to use the term; it is a valid academic term for describing a legitimate phenomenon. To me, talking about sexualized violence against women and the way that society has tended to respond is one of those times. She is making a point that it is disingenuous to avoid talking about women and the unbalanced power structures of gender in society when talking about sexual violence against women-- it is disingenuous to generalize Ted Bundy and his victims as genderless, when in fact their gender is critical to understanding and talking about his violence. To me, that seems pretty evident. I'm not sure how that's so extreme, or what would make you so upset about the thought that your teacher wants to discuss such things. I mean, also, even if you disagree with the article, it clearly has spurred you to think and made you want to discuss it-- that's reason enough for a teacher to assign something, isn't it?