It is a conundrum because a lot of this is white erasure based on racial guilt founded on a lie that whites or the west invented slavery.
The Aztecs, Genghis Khan/Shaka Zulu/Dhomey trades/Ethiopian Empire, Alauddin Khalji/Trans-Saharan Slave Trade. etc.
It's erasure of whites masked as a push for poc visibility, while white people step aside and let the "brown people" take the reigns of the future & whites get what they get; that's essentially what's going on here, very dystopian, very disturbing.
Because an all black production doesn't need diversity because it's "diverse", an all black project team is considered "diverse" despite being blatant homogeneity. *Which simply means "diversity" means LESS white, which is not inclusion. Obviously.*
Hypothetically: Pointing out that "Sholanda Smith" was the first handicapped, neuro-divergent lesbian black woman to screenplay an Avengers movie and the only reason she got the position was because of those checkboxes & not her ability---- is not only insulting, condescending to the hypothetical person but it's dehumanizing to exist as just checkboxes on a screen to replace a qualified white person.
0:53 And then per the reporters point, there's "standards" that to be eligible for an award / or a place in a university, or to get a job: you have to be less white and less male. that is a certainly a conundrum, because this is devolution in progress.
"diversity, equity, inclusion," all the feel good buzzwords to preach progress while enforcing fallacious moral superiority with an air of matriarchal pretentiousness. How so? Because patriarchal norms tend to be about meritocracy than coddling. This cancel culture, this DEI, fear monger women, let illegal aliens invade---- is not patriarchal. It's very feminized, emotional appeal based lens, a subjective lens of how to run a country. Hence decline.
And so, notice how those labels/the concepts therein don't build a lot of empires. That's interesting to me.
Specifically after meritocracy, patriarchal foundation & capitalism is done doing the work to give you a nation to whine & complain about while suckling off it's resources simultaneously--- then and only then does this equity/diversity theory come late to the party (after the work is done) to enlighten you all, even the rest of the world about what we're doing wrong or how something is too white or male when both is why you have infrastructure in the first place.
Same people will complain about patriarchal this & trad norms that: as a bad thing because oppressive standards made people bend over, hierarchal systems victimize & abuse aka a prison. ---- And then at the same time will enforce their own norms as an oppressive feminized moral authority; and everyone's (men & women alike) supposed to just bend over, surrender & obey when scolded to in the mommy tone because "progress", aka a modern hierarchal system that bullies, victimizes & abuses aka a rigid prison:
A prison just without the advancement the patriarchal system had, hence the empire it built vs progress declining what it inherited thus did NOT build.
So rigidity & enforcement of norms is okay but only WHEN WE ("the enlightened" good guys) do it in the name of [insert protected class], thus we're justified, and defying us means you hate who we're fighting for.
It's a very clever rationalization model to ensure you're never questioned, in fact it's a way more efficient oppression system than patriarchy managed to have. Because this way you can justify your actions not by biological superiority or merit, or accomplishment but moral superiority.
Thus you gaslight your opposition that you're entitled to succeed and when you don't, it's the fault of the system you destroyed in the first place or the people you left behind (whites / Men).
It's brilliant, red herrings as a defense mechanism, Savior complex.
Inherited the tools to build a ladder to the cosmos; we chose instead to create gender studies & invent the word "mankeeping".
It's unfortunate to choose decline because that way everyone's ("everyone" meaning: protected classes) emotionally safe, visible, apologized to, represented, coddled, empowered, and thoroughly breast fed. Meanwhile the house burns around you to the ground.
It's not sustainable, peacetime came with a price.
It's a solid enough theory, do I believe it? Not entirely, but it is possible.
I often ponder how Mono (while good in intentions) was better off leaving Six to relative peace (even if it was a violation of her agency) & perhaps remaining in the tower himself to possibly watch over her. (bizarre? Yes.)
I always saw the monster form as just a consequence of her being brought to the tower by force without the resistance Mono possesses to the transmission radiation & or The Thin Mans penance upon her was that specific form.
The flipside to that is:
if The Thin Man really wanted to make her suffer, he wouldn't have granted her the music box in the first place.
It makes more sense that she simply became just as much a consumer of media as the deformed residents with their TV's. And that's likely what deformed her in the first place, combined with her being in the tower itself & her somewhat unique direct exposure to The Thin Man, who provided her some kind of form of peaceful stasis.
He simply wanted her away from Mono & that toy kept her still. He could've just killed her.
If she was in the tower for an extended period of time, then it's actually leagues more interesting how compliant & relatively 'friendly' she was when Mono signaled her to move from the corner, let alone showing his face in her presence. She didn't show any bitterness or resentment to him for not helping her when was abducted (be it in the past for her/ or just recently in real time).
When she moved at his request, she even put the music box down, while her hands rested beside the toy. She didn't clutch it from him, meaning zero defensiveness to someone she should reasonably hate.
Either way, she didn't try to hurt him until he began hurting her by smashing her anchor. That's why she went nuts, if Mono touched her hand instead, or resigned to just remaining there with her, there wouldn't have been a fight.
So in respect to op "This isn’t an excuse for her actions," her actions were a consequence of Mono 'helping' too damn late in the timeline.
Because think about it, when The Thin Man showed up in the street, Mono has this energy of submission to the fight, to save her, abandoning his head wear and everything. But if he had that energy before she was taken, he wouldn't have had to rescue her from a place that wasn't hurting her in a conventional sense.
So she reaches out to him, he cowers. She finds peace, but now he hurts her to save her.
My take all these years prior was: "He spent most of the game looking out her but that one time & she's done with him? Psycho."
But no, really absorb the timeline. For her it was just repeated pain, a repeat agony, destroying the one thing she loved after he failed her. She allowed him into her room & through violence on her toy, he betrayed her once more.
Again, she didn't get hostile until he imposed his will on her safe space for the right reasons. Her actions don't need defense because it's pretty reasonable why she went berserk. It has less to do with her being broken or her glitch form being separated & had everything to do with her minding her business, until he showed up, she let him in, and he hurt her.
It's a very nuanced, very interesting storytelling decision, even for a basic concept as "Little Nightmares". The writing is pretty good in particularly in the 2nd game, so much so it's a good inspiration. She wasn't a princess in a tower, she was a victim that was compliant to her prison, because what else did she have to look forward to outside? If she remains, she wouldn't have delt with the hunger pains, she wouldn't have killed The Runaway Kid, she wouldn't be wandering the planet as a WOMD.
Now this isn't excusing his actions but The Thin Man: given his justifiable wrath & pre-meditated hatred so immense his power enslaves sentient life- still treated her better than one would expect.
though in a way it could be/likely was a form of taunting, given he knows she won't leave the toy, thus he owns her.
Otherwise he could've just merged her with a solid wall, in a pit, screaming in the dark, to suffer for eternity.
But he granted her that one little totem that emulated the tune she imprinted on in that house & granted her enough cognizance to recognize people, to move around, to even enjoy the music. Her own room, a twisted safety. That's way more than the others got or will get.
Fked up all around, a sentimental tormentor.
solid topic, good post.
socialism doesnt work, familyequity & socialism doesnt work. If it did, it would've proven its bark making its own America.
Socialism comes after meritocracy and capitalism does all the work Socialism's elements can be applied to capitalist foundation but socialism by itself doesn't work, stop trying to force it
2:30 thats part of the issue; it's true in life that a man doesn't "try to make efforts" to get a woman to submit to his leadership or authority-- It's something she gives by choice.
It is not something he asks/ takes/or has to make an "effort" to make her do. It's not his place to milk submission out of her.
Submission is something she gives, and if she doesn't feel he's worthy or? The more likely scenario is she lives in a culture that drilled into her that submission of safety or any kind of humbling herself is a threat to her agency. Which guarantees martial success is lessened or basic human connection is impossible. (a much more likely candidate to drop birthrates than economics and education, because cultural sociological incompetence is leagues more active than the latter)
Thus she lives an existence where she never defers submission or defers burden to any man, and eventually reaches burnout, resentment or frustration---
if you're dealing with a woman who thinks submission is defeating her autonomy then you're not dealing with a woman; you're entertaining a career-teenager that was groomed to be single forever, child of faux-feminism.
Women didn't fail, Modernity failed women. Egalitarianism works when applied to Traditional foundations, not the other way around.
Otherwise it's not the man's job to make an effort to make her submit, that's half the problem right there. It's not his place.
Women think submission is surrender, fallaciously confusing grace with being invisible, too insecure to realize a matriarch's submission is indication of agency and strength. A slave doesn't submit, they surrender or subservient; ask anyone that's tapped out on a sparring mat, submission is a choice.
And too many men think authority & leadership is a monarchy and a woman's submission is her falling in line, her being manageable or >docile<, when that's not submission. In fact docility might be also what women think submission is hence the intimidation of submitting.
Rest your minds, submission doesn't entail being subservient & fetching his slippers and if you got a man worth a damn, why not? Can't expect to maintain anything while serving no one but yourselves. You were groomed to be single, isolated and lonely forever. You were lied to.
Submission is something he earns through trust & integrity, fetched slippers is a testament of earned position-- not just being "the man" in the dynamic as an entitlement.
Same goes for the woman, you don't get put first just for being "the woman"; it's an entitlement as a WIFE, 100%, but to even get that far is something you should be earning beyond just being "in love".
We're missing the plot on both sides. Too much talking past each other & not enough communication, and yet everybody wants something.
It's not sustainable, and it hasn't been. Wake the fuck up.
34:24 he says this crap every single year.
Obviously a 12D++ quantum intelligence isn't a legit man or woman, yet advanced civilization in any form contradicts his theory that men specialize only physically,
Women having higher Drama IQ doesn't negate Art, Music, Science, Architecture, Athleticism, Infrastructural paragons throughout history-- not exclusively male but majorly are male pioneered.
The toilet, sewer systems, the vibrator etc. Bro is beyond high thinking God was cooking with women NOT because their microchimerism bond with a baby's fetal cells is something out of science fiction or women's natural emotional tendencies are the glue of communities; No, he doesn't mention any of that ---- but because women are better troublemakers & keep receipts.
Typical NPC human understanding moment.
The best arguments for God possibly being a female coded or woman, is women being priority in sexual hierarchy--- and yet to be a priority means you're under the care & authority of what is prioritizing you in the first place. And according to lore, Adam is the authority, males inherit that authority. Men are the head.
Childbirth: Can't do that without men's seed. She's not creating life because she needed external contribution. She can't abort of her own will naturally, the baby will come regardless of her wishes, thus not in control. She can't customize the child's eye color or genetics with her woman powers, ZERO control. Thus she by herself isn't creating anything. She receives the sample, carries it, then delivers.
Women live longer because of better diet, better immune systems at the cost of weaker physiques, less bone density, less strength, less stamina due to lesser testosterone.
The caveat is: If women lived longer by 75 years guaranteed and were as strong as men, & did all the dangerous jobs men do thus having as much grip on infrastructure-- then that would be a much better case for God being female coded.¯\_(ใ)_/¯
Otherwise women live longer because Men do the more dangerous jobs women have the luxury to not think about, that's not an upgrade, in retrospect that's a liability.
HOWEVER: According to lore, allegedly, women are the "help". And IRL? That's exactly how they behave, as helpers. They only become "liabilities" when you don't check them & hold them accountable.
TL;DR like the "creator of life" fallacy, men also did not birth civilization on their own. A male's seed without the female eggs is a useless element. Men were not the only pioneers & innovators in human history to this day. When a patriarch passes on, the matriarch is who carries on his legacy as the authority. But that's if a society actually raises functional, competent, accountable, respectful women men actually want.
*So be it a baby or civilization itself: Men do most of the dangerous jobs/Women do most of the childcare but no one person or side is creating the outcome on their own.*
The alleged "God" is not man or woman, but the address it prefers is very clear. "FATHER, SON, & the Holy spirit."
Not "MOTHER, DAUGTHER, & Gender Studies."
LTG gotta broaden his mindset. Every single time he harps on this he keeps bottle necking mens very real capability only to the physical category just so he can gas up how clever women supposedly are.
No group of women came together on a contract and built that house he's sitting in, men did that.
And if a women owned contracting team built that house, then more power to them. Likelihood? Less than 2%
The most male-hating Woman has the luxury to think skyscrapers just dropped from the sky, or her fav Starbucks was built by another woman's emotional labor; but as a man, you should know better. Deadass.
I swear he drones on this every year lol, no idea why; it's like he's trying convince his chat to convince himself. I mess with LTG here & there, but Brotha has to be trolling on this.
nah, i'll show mercy & let it slide a few times but i aint consciously running from no one, not on purpose.
Cause that just empowers her to think she can abuse anyone else. Part of your job as the man is checking the women, women are boundary testers. People in general test the other, but your woman will test you instinctively, it's a survival mechanism to trial the kind of mate you are, to see your reactions. And if your reaction is running, you're low quality.
American men being scared stiff of their women, or resenting them & not checking them properly is why the women don't respect youse as is. Run from women, run from your kids, run run run.
There's a way to handle it, stay on business, or you have no business dealing with women. And to be honest? If she's that comfortable to where it gets to that point, she didn't respect you to begin with.
But LTG is half right btw, you look less predatory if she initiates but she can still lie 9:02 exactly my point, so it doesn't matter, because context is an option not a reality in these situations, thus it's all a risk---- IF you're dealing with a child and not a woman to begin with.
While instability has no age, a lot of this boils down to men messing with these young, immaturely undeveloped males & females: you don't get these kinds of issues as much with older, mature women with emotional mileage, know what they want, will speak up without shouting and secure.
if its a risk, then you need to change the demographic you dating from. deadass
While some women still subscribe to the soft feminine model- alot of women in general don't want to be "soft" because soft in the minds of some women means vulnerable or dependent.
We need to accept that women have been conditioned to be harder than necessary and meet them where they are now; hold them accountable 100% (I do it all the time) but not shame them for what they've been groomed to be in the first place.
I agree that the statue was one unsubtle diss to BW, it really is the modern mammy stereotype. And notice how the guy who made the statues. the majority of the statues body language is agitated & unwelcoming, ZERO approachability or desirability.
Liberal white ppl will praise it now, but wouldn't befriend or hang out with any BW that looked that unappealing in just the body language. No one would. And in fact, women with that body language are more than likely not how they portray, like myself, some women exude that exterior as a tactical mask to ward off unwanted engagement but are totally different when they start talking with someone casually-- and yet others actually are that unpleasant.
Otherwise, redirecting back--- Fact is femininity is not soft, it's a more subtle force, & it's unifying just as masculinity is. Women are the hearts of the community regardless of race, that's a human species constant- women & children are what unifies community.
Women as vessels of life (not creators of life, unlearn that bullshit vs VESSELS, thresholds of life), are symbols of hope--- I RARELY hear that sentiment, despite it being a biological / social reality.
Conversations surrounding women in outlets from Buzzfeed to The Guardian is always so goddamn negative, men doing something wrong by women this week, this minute; always a damn fight. Women are not mascots of misery & controversy, that's modernity proving it's a damn failure.
Women are symbols of hope: People need to project that narrative & perpetuate that reality more than just "soft" femininity and the perpetuation of Women & Men in a headline equals "STRIFE".
Masculinity is foundation, evolution, it builds. Femininity unifies, it's progress, it is hope.
Women will be less likely to be intimidated or rightfully turned off by a implication of softness, which for a lot of men just means a woman that's non-threatening. Let's just put that out there.
Many BW are protecting status quo, yes, I stand by that. Agreed.
But not all of this is white supremacy boogeyman; Asian, white, black, Indian, women are women.
We need to look at what exactly it is we're saying to describe femininity & ask ourselves is "softness" flattering in any way as the world is now? Vs what we want it to be in fantasies or how things were.
More importantly is it accurate to even describe femininity as soft vs an emotionally unifying force that drives society's social progress (for better & worse) or is it just comforting to say "soft" from the male perspective?
Because it can be soft, as in "gentle" or "graceful" but too often I hear "soft" and nothing more than that. And Feminism as it is doesn't much better descriptors either, in fact even less flattering. This "power" fetish, which is just dick envy masked as confidence.
We really need to slow down before we go pathologizing how women react to things & put yourself in their situation.
As for the specific no-named person that attacked the book, yeah they likely got turned off by the cover itself; that much Shawn is correct on.
If it was an action driven comic or more pop culturally relevant or had an animated trailer like ISOM- there'd be a wider window to reach the audience Shawn wants, because people as a whole like COOL shit.
If Isis had like a Youtube exclusive trailer that looked anime or Boondocks inspired or John Haynes trailer fighting some villain or something, or hiring someone to ANIMATE a fight from the book: That would boost retention & reach people.
The marketing of these books of Shawn's really needs to evolve as well.
The vast ratio of blks that actually read like that isn't even over 50%, well below, so the medium itself is a turn off to most blacks to begin with & yet that group is exactly who Shawn is trying to reach.
Self-defeating because formula & format and the target demographics aren't clicking. That also factors into a reaction like that persons.
He may have been writing for a minute, multiple decades worth but the marketing game has to change if he wants to compete in the current wavelength.
Excellent fight as usual. Carnage symbiote seemed fragile at times, but for the sake of the fight I get it. You otherwise presents its tenacity accurately, especially the spidersense & camo (which I forgot he could do) 3:33 having him use the tether to pull back to evade was genius, little stuff like that is keeps me on this channel.
The best parts about your scripts is the situations where opponents learn info on weakness is reliant on context clues that happen naturally, love that. No exposition dump, no internal Shonen Jump esque monologue aka RUINING THE FIGHTs momentum
The smallest shit that most ppl dont do in their matchups.
Rhodeys constant repulsor bursts to move faster(which Xmen 97 cyclops did with his optics)✅️✅️✅️๐love that. I wish MCU Tony & Rhodes leaned into the repulsors to slide around more, beyond using it to twirl in the air like a leaf in the wind lol.
Im surprised Carnage didn't use biomass bullets or using micro-particles to invade the suit. (tho symbiote residue from that impalement can theoretically infect him as well)
Overall Warmachine was beyond tough as grits & godly lucky that hardware was up to the task. 0:56 the pieces shifting in repair mode is so goddamn cool๐ง๐ช another little detail.
He could've just had the HUD say >repair mode, instead he went through the trouble to say it AND show it by animating the components moving around, & it looks convincing. ๐ทMCU outplayed with their own character by some FanVS engineer.
"I don’t think they're trying to make strong female characters. I think they're trying to make emasculating female characters. Making them masculine and overpowered is the least subtle, most obnoxious way to do that. So of course they're gonna." -@jeffjones7108
Agreed, been said this.
The preconception is that these characters are made for women & girls but they're made in spite of women & girls. A true strong female character is not strong, she's well written & thus emulates strength on feminine terms, feminine traits (tomboy or girly) aren't "soft" they're more subtle, thus not weak, simply the other side of the coin to masculinity.
A true well written female character unifies both sexes, this is why Spider-Man, Batman, Superman aren't for men. They're for everyone.
Fact is, there's no good will in surrounding strong women with weak men and or the common theme of a strong modern woman is being a parody of a man.
One hand it's conspiracy to claim that it's on purpose, but what does it say that peoples definition of a strong woman is she exists in the vacuum of equally competent men, no challenge. What exactly is the conspiracy when it's this consistent & backhanded to women anyway that they're only strong when she has no competition?
You could just write a stable woman at default: that simply isn't girly, which is a tomboy and is completely valid & different from this "Strong woman" gag.
But they're not doing that are they? It's not about development, it's about message.
It's not about freedom or fluidity of roles, modern voices that hates patriarchy believes in roles 100% & love rigidity more than anyone; it just has to be on their terms aka "Modern Strong Woman Archetype", the new rigidity, matriarchal supremacy. That's the accepted rigidity.
The woman being the modern man at the expense of her own ability to be vulnerable, which leads to burnout, exhaustion, resentment etc. etc..
Elizabeth Comstock wasn't like this, Sarah Conner wasn't this, Katara wasn't this, Toph wasn't this, XJ9 wasn't this, Starfire & Raven weren't this, Kim Possible, Sandy Cheeks, Marlene Angel, Lois Lane, Cassandra Cain, Balsa Yonsa, Wonder Woman, Mira (PRIMAL) etc.
Decently written characters (girly & tomboy or a combination alike aka reality) aren't written to be parodies of men to be strong, thus not masculinized to dethrone a man or a boy's place in the story---- That is a very important point.
๐จWhich is the 2nd function of the archetype after mocking women = rendering men irrelevant to the woman, thus he has no stake, dethroned. Thus she's independent, can protect herself, no one to depend on. Which is not healthy for women, even as an overtone because women need a rock to lean on, which is why "burnout" is not a married woman phenomenon, it's not a straight woman phenomenon.
Single women suffer burnout, and so do lesbians. This is a modernity situation.
Which is parallel to the disconnect of sowing resentment in women in realtime, it's all a operation communicate a divide that men are irrelevant to the modern woman. Women don't need men, men are the side characters, thus it's not equality but the ushering of a new supremacy.
This is why the people complaining about patriarchy are full of shit.
If it was conspiracy bullshit, your birthrates would prove me wrong.
They can't because the op is working.
If it was conspiracy bullshit? Why does this archetype tend to be surrounded by weak males likely to emphasize the illusion of her competence only in the presence of idiotic males specifically? Rarely are women cut down to put her on high.
Men are the standard competence in the minds of these writers, so they have to lessened & shrunk so she can exceed them. Not work with them as an equal but tell them how wrong they are
Why is lessening of the male necessary to inflate her importance? That's literally the same shit Macrocreeps do in their fetish cult: And if thats the kind of abusive culture they're raised in, I 1000% see why they got infected with such a r#tarded fetish. It's literally a social virus cosplaying as a desire for female empowerment, when it's blatant misogyny.
It's a manifestation of the Modern Strong Woman Archetype of a Woman that's simply an out of control, miserable parody of a dysfunctional male- that has to loom, destroy & sow misery through violation and "HIERARCHY".
Because for women to be strong the men need to be handicapped, women need a crutch to compete or excel.
And the giant even violates & kills women and children too, sooooo where's the empowerment?
Spoiler alert: WOMEN DO NOT NEED A CRUTCH.
And Femininity for all of history-- didn't need to hijack masculinity to be a strength, humanity needs femininity to NOT be masculinity. That's why Femininity literally, quite painfully and beat for beat, by design-- IS NOT MASCULINITY.
Macrophilia is misogyny cosplaying as empowerment and so is the archetype & gynocentric "ally"/"empowerment" society that birthed it.
Katara is well written & a likable, reasonably relatable character (for everyone) for a reason despite how overbearing she is; she is flawed and an emotionally fortified powerhouse, a warrior.
She's written to be like an actual person because (again) she's held accountable when she's out of control by the boys and girls, and she isn't left behind in power scaling so the boys shine brighter (My Hero Academia):
She doesn't emasculate the boys around her constantly so her agency isn't threatened (#Fragility). Katara is a realistic balance that reflects how a young woman is realized.
In contrast, even when the Strong independent woman archetype is a feminine character, they're the most overbearing, disrespectful, snarky, miserable person. (eg. All's Fair ) Always has the last say, never wrong, corrects men on everything, rarely in stable relationships, "woman-"plains constantly and just an all round horrible existence.
Who writes that, that consistently, from movies to tv to games and believes they're helping girls? Who does that?
Not every woman has to be the same dainty or girly archetype either, fact is, a tomboy doesn't have to be synonymous with a "prick" to be feminine or taken seriously aka "strong", so if anything it's tomboy slander.
(I'm making an active effort to stop saying "strong female-" which is just a masculinized mantra. Propagandists are good at their jobs, but not that good. I'm frankly sick of it before I'm even old enough to be sick of this shit.)
Just like Avatar Aang isn't the most macho male character on Earth but he is an example of masculinity in a male youth that not only is uplifting, welcoming, but unifying just like Katara, Sokka & frankly all of the main protag cast in their respective situations/developments as boys & girls. Young men and young women.
The same especially goes for Teen Titans 2003 cast, I can't stress that enough.
If you think it's misogyny for a woman to be turned into a parody of a man, *imagine how insulting it is as a man to be told that certain traits is toxic masculinity (stoicism, conquest, domination, cutting people off, mistreatment, violation) only for it to be presented as virtues or overlooked only when a woman does it.
Thus it's not toxic masculinity, thus the concept is moronic, it's just dysfunctional human traits: a true mask off moment.*
๐๐ You've been gaslighted again.
Both sides get spat in the face, and that's sold to you as empowering.
The "Strong modern woman archetype" as an accepted concept is a reflection of the independent burnt out woman that's equally expected to emulate masculinized traits to compete & succeed in society.
Not emulate actual MASCULINITY (honor, building, responsibility, achievement for legacy) but masculinization at the cost of her natural birthright power as femininity, a parody.
Saying there's no difference between men and women is how this trend got it's foot in the door decades ago.๐๐
If this is bullshit? Or just baseless conspiracy ? Then naturally your western loneliness rates, your birthrates, your sex relations would prove me 1000% wrong by not being in the toilet right now. Hell even Japan, South Korea, Germany, NORWAY & Denmark with their parental leave programs thus making efforts to solve this "economic" issue academia swears on God is a driving force for why birthrates are dropping but those same countries that address it are still tanking because the problem isn't economic, it's sociological; Progress & egalitarianism is inherently flawed and economics & womens education, misogyny are all red herrings to avoid admitting we made a mistake in trying to turn women in parodies of men,
Feminism, Media, Academia, Western hubris, progress-- somewhere along the way: Made a serious mistake. And the "strong woman" , the "giantess" are an easy mascot to point at and say ...."that's not feminism", "that's not female empowerment" that's a symptom of something gone horrifically wrong.
The numbers can't prove me wrong, because consequence requires action. I can't invent the decline of first world society, because where it is now was 100% earned.
That's the crux of my point. It's not conspiracy when the statistics don't show success because masculinity got redefined and challenged until men became a question mark instead of a constant. And in dismantling the male, the female was set up to be the new modern man of the future, with no one to share that future with.
The archetype isn't causing the decline, it's a symptom of it; and the numbers reflect the symptom, the disconnect, because it is a consequence of it.
¯\_(ใ)_/¯ I want to be wrong, trust me. But it ain't that simple, it's a way bigger than just some characters.
This is sociological engineering people, propaganda is not a myth, it is a very real art, very effective science that goes way beyond just your Presidential Elections. This is why I always bring it up at the most random times, because so much of it is bled into everything you digest into yourselves.
Those poorly written mascots represent the modern woman that the current progressive zeitgeists accepted rigid norm of what a woman is or what they want them to be.
But it doesn't reflect reality entirely, but just enough to reflect the decline. Just enough for women themselves to ask "What the hell happened?"
That's why it's not men vs women, that's why I don't buy this "gender war" bullshit. It's a business, not a conflict.
Its really both sexes responsibility to check this, but men can't do it alone forever, they just look disgruntled and will be dismissed & dehumanized via labels as usual.
Thus a feminine perspective is needed because women are the targeted consumers, thus have slightly more weight in the ring in this situation, women 100% have a stake in this conversation.
Males are not the direct target of this propaganda; but men's frustration is a calculated predictability to justify making more of it. Women have been stepping up in the past few years calling it out๐ Good.
๐ But YOU need more women speaking up in order to make the industry sweat and hold the norm accountable. At minimum, represent that sane women are no longer a silent majority.
[I'm Really Tired of All Men in Movies Being Failures, Actually:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1v93ZbeDGk ]
A united front is exactly what they (conglomerates, writers, powers, studio heads, propagandists, puppetmasters, trolls with capital) don't want (hence the constant emasculation of men & masculinization of women), a united front is something you don't see enough in your media involving these archetypes; so a united front is exactly what needs to happen here against it.
