/e "Stop Emasculating Men, Then Wondering Where All The Good Men Went" | Women are human too *2024*

 

Stop Emasculating Men, Then Wondering Where All The Good Men Went

BY: GREG ELLIS

Women Are Human Too — With Human Flaws

As Macrocreeps will communicate inadvertently through their misanthropic/misogynist propaganda cosplaying as a hobby: women are goddesses apparently, allegedly.

Can do no wrong, above us greasy mere mortals known as men that are here to serve. According to society, women's shit don't stink.

Women are held accountable legally, but in public discourse, rarely. Politically? Academically? Culturally? Gets even messier.

"Equality" is a red herring, if you're not held accountable, you're coddled. A coddled is a liability, not an equality. But equality is fetishized more than accountability & merit when accountability equally is being an equal.

Paradoxically the west wants & advocates what is pushes away.

As a society, we buy into an unspoken and pervasive bias in favor of women: as the fairer sex, they must be inherently more righteous and loving than men. Which is why things get feminized & Ai will admit that the academic sphere adheres to female lens approaches as the masculine are inversely perceived as negative.

Yet we are all human, and capable of being slaves to base passions. Just as men’s, women’s passions can manifest in destructive and ugly ways.

Every toxic manifestation men can do women can do, this is also why toxic masculinity is also a gaslight. Socialized behavior of men doesn't explain why women do it to, so is it a boys are taught to be toxic?

Or is academia trying to make what is a neutral human fault a male problem? Thus giving women yet another false sense of security?

Well this isn't a modern phenomena, bias toward women is in our DNA, they bear the babies. So we associate women with children and babies, it's why we treat women with the same tolerance & lack of accountability we spare for children (culturally & socially), humans don't treat women like children consciously but the double standard is infantilizing.

The western worlds "First woman to (do something a man did already)" fetish does the same infantilism effect. Notice how those headlines rarely share what exactly she did or earned that was so special, you usually have to read the article to find out what she did or if she was useful vs the primary importance being fetishizing her sex in the position. What she actually accomplished, if anything, beyond the position was irrelevant to the headline. And girls are taught to think that treatment of them is normal, a constant inferiority complex.

And others claim women being more emotionally attuned means they can't make sound rational decisions, all lies.

The problem is society has progressed but it hasn't "advanced", this is why standards get lowered, gender roles & norms get uprooted. It's not advancement, the rigidity is what made the empire you suckle off of. Where do you think you can go by getting rid of what got you here in the first place?

Not every tradition is worth upholding (ex. Aztec human sacrifice ) but some traditions you can objectively attribute to prosperity (ex. Nuclear family but this time + upgraded with some egalitarian values vs destroying the trad unit and replacing it with egalitarianism, which is not sustainable)

• progression just means you moved in a direction, it doesn't mean it's the right direction.

Advancement is to go in a better vector than previously, to advance is to evolve.

Civilization hasn't evolved, we infantilize women then wonder why some women act weird, or get burnt out when they have no support system because feminism taught them hyper-independence was strength which is more like toxic masculinity than what we're told is toxic masculinity.

we wonder where Karens come from, why young Women are so entitled yet so useless in a utility sense of a relationship. And anything that requires too much of them is the relationship failing them or men being a burden, when she is the weak link that can't perform without reward.

Because raising a child is an asymmetrical duty, a child can't reciprocate. If you're caving inward because you have a scoreboard & according to you, your partner isn't 50/50 on everything. You're not built for cohabitation happiness.

Your era groomed you to be alone forever.

We're raising them to be passive bystanders in their own lives and encourage them to be bosses and produce absolutely nothing.

The same energy we exert to keep men in check we need to exercise it to keep women in check as well.

Because infantilizing women ,giving them trophies for being "the first women to-" [insert thing a man has already done] is just treating women like actual children. Everytime I bring it up to Ai, the Ai concedes every single time. Not because I'm looking for a cosign, I want to be wrong, but this objectively is condescending & women get pounded with this constantly.

Their accomplishments matter less than what are in a position, a token, which is fetishization. Figurehead energy.

They're winners for playing, not actually doing anything worthy of praise. The fact that Valentina Tereshkova contributed to  aerosol layer studies within the atmosphere with her observations, atmospheric composition took strides because she paid attention during her space mission but that matters less than her being the first woman in space-- she wasn't the first to a solo space mission, she wasn't the first person in space & she was a woman. She was the first woman in space after men did it first; thus technically proved it was safe for women to do it too whenever one would do it.

And the "first women to" implies we're impressed that she did the bare minimum men did, which implies a contrary attitude that she couldn't do it? And if it isn't that deep, why is that constantly the narrative as if we're still in the 1930s?

When will women doing anything not be worth news, when they're not the first to do it in the first place.

It makes women like Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna's feats look minute despite them being advancers of their field, because the default is women are praised every other week for doing essentially nothing but joining an activity. You rob the exceptional women the shine they deserve & by proxy you make a woman's achievement in the eyes of men look like they never earn it.

The bias isn't the entire issue. It's the hypocrisy, by trying to empower women, you make empowerment meaningless.

Recognizing this doesn’t negate the plight women have endured in a historically male-dominated world, but it being male dominated is why we're not in caves. We can't use "historical" as an excuse forever, it's why you'll remain stuck in suspension.

You want progress while keep the past in your pocket as emotional black mail.

It simply suggests women hold no monopoly on virtue as a bizarre form of social karma.

Women’s ascendance past centuries-old barriers is remarkable and praiseworthy, but it's not impressive when the women who actually took the risk are in rest & their more privileged successor are trying to hijack their struggle as their own when there's less risk. But they talk as if they're one opinion from assassination.

Almost all the men I know look with pride and amazement at the mothers and daughters in their lives, and understand the “Me Too” movement is a long-overdue reckoning for bad men. But why must success for one sex automatically include derision for the other?

The laudable, original objective of the feminist movement urging us to better our traditional manhood has warped into an assault on everything masculine. It strips away empathy for boys, who must navigate a world that assumes the worst of them because they're not woman enough, which falsely presumes womanhood or more women is the answer society needs, the numbers show that is not the case. You need men, the world is male dominated because men have the drive to carry the world, it's why men get blamed for everything.

You blame the authority, not the help. Women aren't held accountable but men are blamed (even if it's women's fault) because male-driven systems is why you have advanced society.

A womans word alone can send you to jail and if she lied well oh well, you lost years of your life and her identity will be protected.

Remember, women are oppressed in first world countries.

And don't you dare tell a woman she looks nice today that's considered violence.

See we drive men and women apart, we don't challenge articles that are doing nothing but inflating the problem, then wonder why society is going down the crapper.

It's a real mystery.

Ostracizing Masculinity

Men kill themselves higher rate than women. They also make up the vast majority of combat deaths; more than 97 percent of American military fatalities in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom were men.

And nobody cares because men suffering is beneath our notice, it's normalized into the culture. So normalized there's a fetish that specializes in emasculating & dehumanizing men to the furthest extent possible as an inferior derivative of the human species and painting women as omnipotent & superior, even actual goddesses.

(overcompensating much?)

Male suffering is all part of the plan baby, it's how you bring a country down to it's knees. Better believe it.

And if it's coincidence, that's even worse.

• The quick ascendence of this concept to cultural gospel is reflected by how common the phrase has become.
• Although The New York Times has since removed its calculator for word frequency in its coverage, screenshots posted to Twitter suggest the term “toxic masculinity” was basically nonexistent in the media until recently. Though a man did coin the term in the 80s
• After that, its prevalence appears on the graph as a slope verging on vertical.
  
  The same is true for related terms like “patriarchy” and “male privilege.” A Google search for the term “toxic masculinity” yields more than 7.5 million results.
• Start scrolling, and you’ll see articles like The New York Times’ “The Boys Are Not All Right,” Scientific American’s “How to Fight Toxic Masculinity,” and The Atlantic’s “Toxic Masculinity and the Brokenness of Boyhood” — which appears to have been stealth-edited with the new title, “The Miseducation of the American Boy.”

“Toxic Masculinity and the Brokenness of Boyhood”

Brokenness of Boyhood, listen to that language, the insinuation of inherit defection. I can just taste the venom through my screen. Holy shit.

Imagine it: "The Brokeness of Girlhood"

Now mind you, the inherent toxicity of women manipulating people, their propensity to be passive aggressive, jealous, vindictive, violent, slapping people, & turn people against each other, plot murders, warp a situation by feigning weakness or using tears to turn a situation- which actually makes them smarter predators & leagues more dangerous than men.

Which is why female PDF's I'd argue are not minorities, you just don't catch them.

Feigning weakness are things girls learn subliminally as children to both navigate males & also to just influence the behavior of their parents and then authorities to the best of one's ability. It's a survival technique to navigate communities & even please people. It's women can be convincingly two faced.

• A woman manipulating someone isn't inherently malicious, sometimes women use it for for someone's benefit even at her own expense. They did it at work, as mothers, etc.
• It even happens in classrooms or parties. Women are not stupid and it's a natural instinct of women , but it's actually very dangerous.

The entire point of GONE GIRL is to show how effective a woman can be if she really wanted to mess someone up without putting her hands on anyone.

See the problem is we've made it so "toxicity" is only defined by what men normally do wrong, not by women's standards too.

So that way when it's time for women to take accountability, it's never time, because there's always an excuse or a phantom patriarchy to blame.

The “toxic masculinity” narrative deepened further in 2019, when the American Psychological Association, for the first time in its history, developed official guidelines for working with men and boys. The document is discouraging, calling for recognition of “the impact of power, privilege, and sexism on the development of boys and men” and casting what it considers “traditional” male behavior as inherently problematic.

When men showing emotions has always been a thing, the problem is they don't express them like women, & we attribute that to negative affects later in life & not the fact that society actively neglects boys & men.

That's the point. That's how you destroy what makes a Country a threat. Masculinity.

North Korea is not shaking in their boots because we have Sensitivity Classes or because THE VIEW has an opinion, hell, this is only an argument if pretend women never start fights, or are stoic, repressed their emotions or cause trouble.

I repeat, men being stoic is toxic, Ai even makes this mistake. But women are enabled to be stoic, to be independent, to do everything, to have everything. Why is toxic masculinity only a good thing when women are told that's the modern woman?

When people say if women ruled the world-

Harnessing electricity would've been postponed, don't kid yourselves. We might be a more cultured world but a less evolved one, civilization wouldn't be anywhere near the internet or sewer systems.

With women on top, it'd likely be more fair, and that's a big if. But our advancement ?Technology? Say bye bye to your vibrators kiddos.

All in all, America is very effeminate, that's partly why it's failing. Partly, more nuanced marriages isn't why American is collapsing, feeling they had to destroy masculinity to install egalitarianism was the mistake.

Where Is the Empathy For Men?

Ignored, Americans have an inclusive, sensitive, tolerant society (Gemini A.I will tell you this bullshit)-- Unless Men or White people are involved in the conversation.

It’s debated whether certain masculine behaviors are born of dubious socialization or are the function of natural, hormone-driven biological traits. Meanwhile, many of the people shouting about toxic men also inexplicably claim there are no differences between the sexes.

Which one is it?

The idea that men can only redeem their fundamental brokenness by acting more like women is not limited to the gated community of elite academia. It permeates the nation’s mainstream reading lists, even therapy's rigid feminized models of care.

Just one example from late 2019 was the book “For the Love of Men” by Liz Plank. On the very first page, we are told toxic masculinity is more dangerous than nuclear war, followed by chapter after chapter of dodgy research in which toxic masculinity is essentially defined as any behavior Plank doesn’t like.

there's legitimate criticisms on women's part, men do commit majority of violent crimes but they also build the cities in full, bridges, die doing it too- are men going to get articles on mass press that fact ? No.

Men are the majority of violent crime perps by 80%+, and 80%+ of men are not violent criminals & sexual violators. In fact they're more so 85-90%+ the reason why your national power grids are still online. Wil feminism admit that while complaining about child labor wage gaps? Nope. Will Academia give men their due respect for doing what women (in all fairness) choose not to help contribute to because they reasonably don't want to? Which is fine, but don't present this specific "toxic masculinity" bullshit doesn't apply to women, then frame the term as if it's male issue when it's not.

Then IGNORE the burdens men shoulder almost exclusively over 80/% while women cruise on their backs and girls aren't encouraged to be self-aware that they are indeed, not the main characters, not perfect, not the solution to everyone's social contentions but part of the solution.

The narrative is brutally, intentionally backwards. How do i know it's on purpose? Who the fuck lies like this on accident, when they're supposed to be the "experts".

#MenAreTrash looks better on a T-Shirt, meanwhile they're out right now building your goddam malls

First world societies need masculinity when matriarchy fails civilization and then in peacetime men need to closely emulate or turn into women or else they're problematic.

When patriarchy is the foundation & matriarchy fits under it, the two (like capitialism & socialism), like meritocracy & equity, like men and women. The two can exist together but cannot, YOU CAN NOT remove the masculine after it's done doing the hard labor, move in the feminine as the upgrade then expect the feminine to be both the feminine & Neo masculine.

Then when things eventually collapse on the feminine watch, women are blamed when they can't be men. When the average women isn't asking for men to go away, women simply want a seat at the table & a voice to speak, and a toolbox to contribute.

Masculinity doesn't have to go away or be redefined in the image of women for that to happen.

That's exactly how it does and doesn't work.

Where is the empathy for men? The question doesn’t require us to disregard women’s historical suffering, but it also warrants that women today are objeectively not the women from 1758.

It's okay to admit women have unequivocally better now, challenges still exist, but women in first world countries are not victims. We can't use "historically" as a shield to get what we want by force, that's being a WEAK-LINK.

Rather, history simply acknowledges that in modernity most men are neither predators nor abusers, and asks the same empathy and sympathy for men that our feminist society demands for women.

"Modern" doesn't have to mean regression, failure, decline, & "mistake" but that's exactly what happened.

"-and asks the same empathy and sympathy for men that our feminist society demands for women."

keywords: "asks" vs "demands"

So we're asking people to exercise equality between men and women......fancy that. Which begs the question, if equality is what we're begging for, what is it people have been dealing with if not a gyno-egalitarianism state? Which is becoming more matriarchal in sensibility despite how many men are still in power. You'd be surprised how many elites & their cabals dabble in goddess worship, matriarchy, what do you think the Statue of Liberty is? A Sun Goddess, that's not Christian. That's paganism.

Better ask somebody.

Anyways, equality is what our foremother's wanted in the first place but their daughters inherited a hybrid of privilege and Platinum First Class Protected Status, damn near ranking above the elders and children.

We're asking Feminist society to do it's fucking job like the good old days, lmfao. 

'Deku vs Shigaraki Alternate Ending | My Hero Academia' | Rough around the edges in pacing, but an improvement.

Objectively this is better & less contrived as an ending, especially without the Avengers Endgame crap, his losing the arms, then Eri magically coming in clutch. AFO going lovecraftian but no one of note (usual) no one dies, thus AFO looks more of a joke.

And in this timeline, AFO is not even involved here, so Shigaraki's agency is left intact, I haven't seen many people here mention that yet.

The immediate rough edges is how quickly Deku concedes to Tenko's proclamation of Deku's limits, it's not somethingMidoriya  would verbally admit given he's believed his delusion of saving everyone his entire life; he wouldn't just submit to that reality that quickly. But the thorn would stick.

If anything, this is why more people of note should've been killed, namely some students from 1A- so Deku's concession to the reality has more weight.

Otherwise he realistically wouldn't admit it verbally to Shigaraki but as it drags on, he'd gradually have to face facts, Tenko's words would sink deeper, and he'd amp up his tactics to "end" Shigaraki to save everyone else. Resolving that he'd become stronger in the future to "save who he can" because strength is ultimately what determines how much one can do & where the limit is. 

But even then, that's no guarantee, if Izuku had Supermans power & outmuscled Shigaraki, & took him to prison. That's still not saving his mind. You can't help someone who not only believes they're right, but that their wrong is justified (thus they feel vindicated as fighting for something) & thus is their ideal, their belief. Which is leagues more dangerous than a criminal with a basic need gap (like a sick wife, the fix is the money to get her medicine or Deku organizing him getting financial support, thus no criminal activity is necessary) 

For someone like Shigaraki? You can't just erase that resolve because they're crying inside and you told them so, that's WHY they believe in their ideals in the first place.

That's like accusing a flame for burning something, because fire as a state of energy burns matter. Pointing out that fire burns is not going to put the fire out when that's essentially what it does. 

The caveat is: a flame doesn't choose, a person can, but Shigaraki proverbially as an entity is essentially the culmination of trauma into a force of nature, like a flame. 

The willingness to find one's actions a problem in the first place is the first step, even the best therapist can't get anywhere if the subject doesn't want to make progress.

Or sees progress as regression from what they perceive as "evolution" or a state of themselves as beyond the average person. These are all gray areas the manga pretends doesn't exist while trying to set a precedent of "saving someone" beyond punching them out (which was 99% of the story anyway, so not only idealistic, unrealistic but MHA is also massively hypocritical. Given his final assault on Shigaraki was a flashy punch anyway.)

This is the issue with making Shigaraki as complex as Horikoshi chose to write him.

But this way, as the video presents the two speaking in an astral plane, Izuku seems more honest & visually it's more digestible to the reader and viewer for Deku to basically 'spell  it out' for lack of a better expression. But narratively it lands harder if he had to admit to himself after denying his own limit even existing.

And I personally think Deku should've gotten roughed up a lot more before the final (instant win button) punch, but that's a fight choreography preference than something that holds the sequence back. 

Excellent artwork too, those evasion maneuver panels look good. 2:50 And thank op for not having Izuku call out every single move & minute attack he executes. It gives the his callouts more weight. Even little things like are improvements on the original even if OP didn't realize it.

Overall,  no need to pre-emptively save face by saying it's not better than the original. 

I can say for certain, what you did is better than the original ending. 

It's not disrespect to admit KH laid the groundwork,  but you improved it best you could within reason and it objectively an improvement. If OP wants to stay in their lane & not state it's better, fine, good on them. At minimum it's an "improvement" but as a third party myself? Rough around the edges, but compared to the canon? It's better. ✅Deku grew tf up, not by abandoning someone, but realizing his ideals are not the arbiter or everyone else's beliefs.

/re "If Mary Jane face model looked like this in spiderman 2 would people still have complained?" | The problem isn't just her face

Source

#1 & #2

Depends, the original doesn't look as bad from certain angles lol.

But her magic taser crap, dollar tree lois lane-isms, her whiney scream dialogue, awkward scenes, zero presence in her scenes etc. etc.

Another dated, de-feminized, millennial/modern caricature called "MJ". And being MJ, she needs more endowment along with the face upgrade. You can have attractive women without going full Manga industry "piece of meat" treatment but that doesn't address the narrative issue. Her face is just a symbol.

Point being: She could look like Christina Hendricks but the writing is still garbage because the staffs idea of agency is her running around being Bargain Bin Lois Lane with inspector gadgets, which ironically should've been the whackier more fun parts of the game, tbh.

If she looked like that image from jump, the goal post would shift to "mary sue".

Personally, If i had to choose, I'd rather keep the Marlon Jane face in MSm2, and get a better written character, and more importantly: Presence & charisma, which she does not have.

But visually these two pics are upgrades, first one's better but the second one stays truer to the Msm2 model they went with.

Lastly, to get ppl to not "complain-" would be to overhaul the story, instead of the wannabe Kim Possible crap (& yet she's not even 1% the character Kim is in just the first episode) Give her some wit, femme fatale sass & some meme-worthy moments in the cutscenes. More banter moments with Peter so we can build up that chemistry (which they DO NOT have in the game).

Give her one liners, something! Give something the player can enjoy vs the player just watching an industry approved movie with interactive walking simulators & braindead Arkham sequences.

MJ really is just there despite how hard they tried to make her relevant and morally justified; the feminist rigid norm of the overworked careerholic woman in a dry relationship, the man is only one apologizing, and her arc culminates in her insulting Jameson & Peter telling her she's so cool.

Repeat after me: "Just because it's not Trad, doesn't mean it isn't a rigid norm."

Women not having flaws, never being the problem in relationships, overworked- is not flattering, that's not a character written like a human being, that's a talking-point in the form of a character: aka rigid norm.

All that effort & MJ just ended up being a plot device anyway.

That's really the worst part of it, the writer tried too hard because they were limited by the times. Zero nuance & it has nothing to do with her face, That's where the complaints would go if she was pretty from the start.

Mj isn't a source of strength or synergy, levity, or social cohesion. I say why not have her be the nerve center of the squad? And to be as such requires her actually having a personality vs the very feminist gen-trope of being married to her career pursuits to the point of burnout.

Which is where Peter comes in as a masculine warmth & levity, the mild-mannered cushion; so when the Symbiote comes in, there's a vacuum that threatens their bond, that relational serenity & eventually her safety.

But the point I'm making is-- something has to be there in order for something to be threatened in the first place.

Ifbthey have no chemistry & just act like platonic roommates; at worst Symbiote Peter just had a really bad attitude.

And him/Venom attacking her needed to come with ongoing physical evidence of harm to respect the gravity of that situation that builds towards his decision to let the suit go, or have that situation be the last straw.

Have Peter be on top of her, one killshot away from ending her life & then he wakes up.

Or: she tries to physically scratch at the symbiote to claw Peter out in sheer desperation, then wakes him with a calculated punch on his body, to target a wound she knows he had from a previous fight, using pain feedbacl to override the suit which is some serious combat IQ, all without a taser.

Mary Jane almost breaks her punching the symbiote & waking Peter up (meme worthy), then he sees what he's become.

Where's the Watson grit!? The kind that drove her to try to press Morlun of all people just to get her arm broken, that's peak MJ.

The MSm2 we got didn't have the spine to go there; Kraven loses his head, but MJ can't get too roughed up lol.

The story wants to insert her everywhere else she shouldn't be to inflate importance, but Peter coming to from his darkness was because of Morales (?) and not Watson's importance in Peter's life?

But she's his partner, not Miles. Sometimes the feminine approach is the stronger course of action and would make for a better conflict resolution than Miles throwing punches with Parker & hitting him with the Talk-No Deku technique.

Thus winning a fight he had no business winning and should've been written instead as Miles trying to survive Peter.

[Alien Cosmic Horror < plagiarized Jessica Drew powers] ZERO stakes, pure Gary Stu.

TL;DR point being---- whether ppl realize it or not, what warrants the complaints is more than just her face & the missions. I think her profile at this point is just the easiest target as a visual mascot for all the issues combined.

Which makes sense, I get it. But her face is more symbolic, it's not "the" problem.

For Mandom James Watsons face, she could look like Jessica Rabbit but if the writing's still slop, it'd just be a typical shonen anime at that point. All style, zero substance.

But like the Peter face change, it's not the change itself, it's what it was changed into that is the downgrade, on both accounts.

.

Smallville || Echo 9x04 (Clois) || Clark Asks Lois on a Date [HD] | National Date-ographic 'Female assertion'

  0:18 And here in the Metropolis plains the female asserts claim over the male by orally marking his food she provided, a subtle display of dominance to test his reactions & boundaries; the male, you see, is accustomed to this behavior. Very fascinating, his mannerisms during her responses.

1:40 Ahh, look closely, and here the female further asserts boundaries regarding mating outcomes.

The male has scarcely managed to initiate courtship, but she displays a pre-emptive maneuver of an alpha female, guarding her reproductive intentions with charisma than aggression or dismissal.

And thus reading his reactions, successfully enticing his interest: she leaves the social exchange with feminine alure; subsequently making her quality of value exponentially higher to the male.

Grand, nature is. So grand.

And that'll be all for now, thank you listening to National Date-ographic.

/re " Everything In Society Has Been Feminized-" | Men need to re-learn the power of telling women "No"

The problem is these moves are female driven but ultimately being made by men that own these entities & women as a group are the mascots for the change.

Which makes women the scapegoat for the failure & the infractions:

• ergo: "See ? See?! When you make it female, it fails." 

Which is as much a red herring as the forced changes.

Thus the illusion is women are the face of the issue but women aren't driving this entirely, even less so the average woman, because all the men in charge need to do is say "No" & if women are in charge, it still wouldn't have gotten this far if men didn't cave and lower standards.  

If women pushed for Girls to be in the Boy Scouts & the answer was "no, period". Women would complain, there would be articles and women would get over it, no choice but to.  that's the energy that needs to be had here. This isn't about rights or inclusion, it's about conquest.

*But the gap is the average man can't control that, the men in charge of these IPs do.*

• If there's been one million men that did something more impressive for over 100 years and a women does the same thing but mediocre:
• She's celebrated because she's the first woman or girl that did it. 
• Mediocrity is a woman's peak, all she has to do is participate & that's all it takes to be a pioneer now. 
• Being useful is not required, & the women actually pioneering are swept under the rug. (Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna)

That's the level of stagnation girls are brainwashed to believe is their "modern" destiny, a figurehead, a protestor, a nobody. Why? Because it the work for the most part has been done already by people who actually suffered & took risks to get it done.

But the useful women that actually earned their accolades are damn near myths, not because some Patriarchal enclave of old white men are afraid to get the word out that women did something useful beside make meatloaf in human history; if that's the case, those hypothetical "they" would just wipe the internet of their names, because who reads books anymore. 

TL;DR Those women are myths because everyday modern women don't care what women do until some plain jane gets a "breaking boundaries" headline for signing up & being the first girl to do it. 

Everything women do is a statement, because they're bored & there's next to nothing to do in their first world countries. Adopting struggles from other countires because you have little to any in your own. Burden of privilege.

The illusion of being exceptional vs the exceptional are almost illusions after their 15 minutes run out.

The loudest ones doing the least, standards lowered, not held accountable as much if at all. 

Whatever women want, they eventually get, the world revolves around them, meanwhile they're not building or producing parallel to what they inherit and are given. 

Despite how much even the women of merit "contribute" they're still not building much of anything still, they usually repurpose what's been founded already, which is why the hard labor field gender ratio statistics are brutal. Women have pioneered but the vast majority come along after the hard work's been done already & are held up as if they're pioneers.

AI's usual excuses is Historically, women were held back from laying down those foundations. But the truth is, women simply do not think like men. They lack the testosterone to be pioneers to the same extent that men are, that testosterone extremity is why males dominate violent crime statistics, and women dont.

Women simply do not have the drive that men do. And thats not a bad thing, the issue arrives is when women are attributed accolades that they don't deserve and the reality that everything they know and society. And civilization, as a tangible reality, is not because of women and girls are not taught to acknowledge that, but mediocrity is worth praise, that's the problem.

 Otherwise: what's womens excuse now? There's no excuses now, we're not in the 1600s. Plenty of women are dwveloping breathroughs via tech, bio-medicine, etc. but what are they building thats equivalent to what they're handed constantly? There's zero excuse.

Gender roles dont require women burn themselves out trying to be something they are not; women can contribute what they can at their own pace without having to be an extremity like males are. 

But when we gaslight men that they're falling behind women in some way, the natural inversion of that claim needs to be a question: What exactly are women building equivalent to What men have done? And are still doing without womens help?

When the standard of success is a feminized Lens (therapy, soft skill fields, education), we can selectively paint a tailored reality where women are always ahead and men are always behind. But what women aren't doing is never part of the equation because life isn't just about the comfy luxury of therapy, degrees vs a certification and never getting your hands dirty so the country's lights stay on another 2 days.

That's not healthy.That's not sane, that's not fair to women or men.And it's not functional, and it 's not sustainable. Its a rigid norm.

That is the threshold where women become a blatant weaklink--- when there's no accountability or boundaries, when women aren't ever told "No", and they ignore how much they're not doing in society but they're told they're ahead by selectively chosen statistics, aka bold faced lying by the media.

 That is the turning point when women become a liability. And when that's your norm from psychology, to broad academia, to pop culture, to the damn Boy Scouts? You're cooked.

Feminization by itself isn't a bad thing, your mother did it in everyday of your childhood, it's what made you feel safe since infancy, that maternal presence, taking behavioral cues from your mother is feminization.

But the cultural exploitation of it or the lack of the masculine to balance it out, all of which without boundaries is why it's an antagonistic force, same could be said about feminisms current flavor.

Masculinization without parameters is equally smothering, but the masculine builds, the feminine exploits what's already built. One builds, the other mainly consumes and "repurposes".

It's just more acceptable to say men are behind based on selective statistics, than admit women are a blatant societal liability because they're allowed to be. 

And girls are shielded from that reality: they genuinely think theft of boys spaces is inclusion but preservation of women's spaces while absorbing everything men have- isn't a double standard.  Thus that's a liability, blatantly a burden.

TL;DR A bratty little sister that always gets her way, everything she that goes wrong in her experience is the brothers fault. But while the brother comes to resent the little sister, the actual source of the problem is the people allowing the entire situation & telling her she's an empowered "princess": The parents are the problem.*

*the problem, truly, are the people "allow-"ing it in the first place, & after 15 years+ of decline, profit and efficiency is clearly not the reason. 

A female dominated field is progress, anything male dominated is something that needs to change* 

It's pure warfare. Women are being set up to be the ultimate weaklink of civilization or at minimum: the face & mascot of decline, when that's not their cosmic design.

It's pure evil,  not because of  a change to a stupid fictional universe, I could care less.

 The good movies we like already exist, just go watch those, just go play those older games, read those comics, watch the good shows that we have already. 

So more importantly, the predictable resentment these changes brew in men is as much a calculated outcome as the "mankeeping" term is for womens reactions, it's pure propaganda, it's science. It's machiavellian probing.

• People's reactions are the chemical outcome that these changes depend on, and people keep feeding into the formula. 

Men's scorn is exactly what these agents want by taking something from men & boys or sharing it with girls & women aka repurposing it for women & girls; and men & boys just have to deal with it. And that's "equality". 

But again: who's allowing them to do it, who's allowing women to think that's right? A group? A Political party? An ideology? It's definitely not just women allowing this because women aren't the vast majority of elites that control everything.

Why aren't the men in charge saying "No"? which is my point. Liberalism is not Leftism, Leftism is the radical feather of the liberal wing, it's important to know the difference. 

There's a reason why this has been permitted, no boardroom fails their industry on purpose because "progress".

The warning, there are some women that advocate for cultural invasions, but they can't do anything they're not allowed to.

So demonizing "feminization/ Fem" eventually leads to resentment of the association of "fem" to Women. I already see it through what feminism did via "patriarchal/patri" / Father/ Men.  

• Despite feminisms resources are plentiful because of the father system, feminism has the luxury to poke the bear & not get it's head bitten off. 

But that luxury extends to women invading spaces they have no business touching, at least to this extent. (example: girls don't belong in boy scouts, boy scouts should be for boys. What women allegedly were after beit a badge or funding, they should've done the work vs taking a shortcut via invading Boys spaces. But a franchise wanting to shake up a formula by appealing to girls too is not a bad thing. the issue is how you're doing it.)

Speaking out, keeping your kids away from these hypocritical organizations, boycotts, replacement organizations are the best chances you have against this.

Cultural Distancing, put on your mask by not feeding into it with your energy every single time you feel the urge to speak.

You might even have a better response than what would've been your gut reaction if you just wait at least 2 hours to 24 hours before posting your reply. 

Because speaking on it alone won't do anything, these organizations can afford & have afforded decades of this: or will collapse trying, because in the end: that's the gambit- 

A normal business model takes a chance to change it's target audience if the previous one fails to fund product, to betray the previous audience that never left to actively replace them for a new audience is an ideological decision. And over a decade of failure without admission of mistake or changes to the approach shows it's not about money. 

It's collapse for a statement for a gaslight for a red herring, all for no one. 

/re " LowTierGod Reacts To Hate Comments Under His Recent IG Post..." | You are not a woman

 "why is your shit private, you are not a woman"

aaand here we go with the gender gatekeeping bullshit. 'Only women can do ABC because in my isolated world I decided as such with no logical argument as to why, none.' Just pure semantic reasoning. I don't do it, so all men should do the same because i decided as such. only women can have private profiles. He says the most dumbass shit so casually., and it's lowkey sexist. Imagine it, because he decided only women should have private profiles, men doing it is men lessening themselves or stooping to a behavior that's unsightly, or a statement of fragility for a man but thats normal for women; which says what about women having private profiles? Bro is slick dissing & don't even catch himself. When all this is is he's mad because he's locked out of something & he wants to make it "be a man" situation (which a lot of ladies do when backed into a corner) because he wants to emasculate the people speaking on him. The way this dude speaks a lot of the time when frustrated I often hear from women when they don't get their way. That "you're the man" or questioning someone's gender integrity/ masculinity rationale because they can't control something in a situation. The vast majority of ppl i've ever heard or see IRL argue like that are women, which isn't a crack at the ladies in this context (despite that behavior not being acceptable for any adult) more so it's interesting listening to LTG speak on what guys do & how that looks of those men, and yet he sounds more like a sista than a brotha when he makes it about men's choices in life as a regular coping mechanism when triggered-- even down to something like damn private profile. Junior high schoolyard crap. The irony isn't lost on me, talking shit while private is funny but man or woman how is that in any way a good look? Why even take it further when the best point you could've made 'throwing shots while private' gets defeated by making it about gender for no reason but ad hominem.

/re "LowTierGod Addresses The Fake Accusations Surrounding Him" | LTG & Fake transcendence

re: "you are not the only one with clone troll channels; jfc, ltg is not special. Wings of Redemption been on that timeline for years now. You think these dudes are gay & thats why they on ya D. At least thats a reason thats remotely flattering albeit creepy (hence troll).

By the "i didn't comm" logic Imagine the strength Wings has by being that ugly, swatted, troll channels, lost gigs, they made actual fake news footage of this dude, Wings has legit mental issues and he didn't comm anyway.

Way more of a testament vs the "average" person, way less to lose than LTG, brutally lower social stakes than LTG but wings is somehow still with us by his own admission---- thus LTG swear he's this unique victim, like what's been happening to these Lolcows started with him & him only or the formula of the harassment is this next level schematic when it comes to Lowtiergod.

"only one", aaaagh come off it already lol.

bro entertains human drama, defends himself, takes pride in "accolades" per human societal standards (meaningless in cosmic macrocosm), is rightfully frustrated when people lie----

that isn't to say he shouldn't feel pride in achievement, that isn't to say he shouldn't feel frustrated when lied on, but this same dude will THEN say he doesn't feel human emotions in the next breath. Total blur.

I 100% believe his arrogance is real, but it's the fake transcendence; thats where he loses me.

/re "Snob vs Virtue Signaling: The value of Relationships (compilation)" | Egalitarianism, like Matriarchy- doesn't work, not on it's own.

 

If you get into a relationship to be an adult, you're going into it as baggage. Example: To be wise(er) you have to bring wisdom to her life in the first place; to expect reciprocation from him, tally up how often you do exactly that before expecting it from him.

These days a lot ppl are actually grownup enough professionally to try, but but too self-absorbed, intimidated by gender roles & expectation, way too fragile in the face of inconvenience and waaaaay too hyper "independent" focused to remain in a relationship or alternatively: be a proper partner to go the distance; which involves interdependence, not independence.

these days it's the complete opposite, most ppl are grownup enough professionally, degrees out the ass. But too self-absorbed, intimidated by expectation, gender roles & too fragile in the face of inconvenience and waaaaay too hyper "independent" focused to even be a proper partner; which involves interdependence, not independence. Which is basically any functioning family or community. The very thing that helps make a relationship work (interdependence), people are taught "independence" aka hyper-isolationism (specifically first world women) which maps out perfectly why too many people claim alleged "loneliness" or being "burdened" when in reality they were groomed to be single & alone and thus have zero stamina for another person's needs, thus by extension incompatible with a relationship:

good luck finding someone with no needs and doesn't inconvenience you ever. So some see relationships as a status statement (which is natural, because that's how community's use pressure to keep people within a boundary to perform, but it can push people away if the pressure isn't benevolent. If there's no pressure, people end up aimless, which is partly how people end up lonely. Pressure is inconvenient, but it has a purpose.

• Think about it: If there's no pressure to meet a standard in any video game you play, why play any video game if pressure alone is always a bad thing? No pressure is more likely to make someone give up, because what's the reward if there's no standard or role to play the game by? And if the risk outweighs the reward, why try?)

Some can manage to maintain relationships still, have kids, all amidst the sociological, economic chaos; but apparently not enough do so to represent a formula of success because the closest to it (while flawed, it worked) was abolished & now a lot of ppl don't know how to get started and or just give up before they get started because of horror stories. The others are straight up taught by their culture not to be compatible with a relationship & then mask that as "agency". Some people are built to where they don't see being single as a void, but most people rightfully are legit social creatures in the desire for a perceived intimate missing piece. But for too many, to try is a gamble because the "norm" where everyone understood what it was, was dismantled. Now the norm is equitable uncertainty.

• *Just as subjective as a lot of Anime fan criteria of what's "good" anymore. Very egalitarian, very equitable, up to interpretation, no concrete system; unstable, unreliable, no pressures yet no consistency, no point. The result? Low quality options because norms, standards and rigidity became a threat--
• yet people live rigid by their own habits & expectations everyday.
• So therefore the excuse to abandon the trad ways was a bullshit gaslight. If the habit or expectation you have in question is not trad but consistent? Congratz, that's a rigid norm. Be very afraid, norms are the work of the devil, ooOOooh. And if your norm pressures someone else to perform or else there's consequence of you not liking them? Or judging them for not meeting criteria? Or you actively cut them off or criticize the partner or even resent them for falling short or them being neglectful? Congratulations, you're now oppressing someone under said norm.
• Thanks for playing.
• But remember, traditional norms are bad because rigidity & oppression. Simply Ignore that they work & cling to the new equally rigid system that clearly doesn't work.*

(which is why egalitarianism, like matriarchy are not legitimate as systems in the same way as the nuclear trad/patriarchal system is in how it builds. The formers are connective patchworks to fit under the traditional).

Not cause they're new, but because they have no structure. You'll find more empires built on meritocracy, utility, & trad values (patriarchal) than equity, subjectivity, & egalitarianism (matriarchal). Not an accident.

(upload version in case the url goes offline, channel taken down later on, hopefully not)

Making everything subjective is why it's so difficult to achieve a working formula, and "progress" is the red herring 'experts' use to avoid saying "We made a mistake".

It's a sick joke.

excellent video, as the social decline increases, it'll only become more relevant, unfortunately.

"My Adventures with Superman is ...a whole lotta wholesome nothing burger, mediocre (for now, hopefully)" *2023*

99% of this is originally posted from 2023:

"I was curious at first. But now it's here, and it was:n't it.

It's the lite version of Invincible x New 52 Superman comics (which is where some of the inspiration for the show came from)

Wasn't dogshit, let's get that out the way, it's only 2 episodes so far.

It means well, the execution/ order of events of the origin /how the show so far is written, are the biggest agitations for me.

EP1-2

• Decent animation…✅
• Jack Quaid works in some scenes, but others, he doesn't. But he's not a bad choice for Clark specifically, he's decent. I need to hear him as Superman when in rage, or a very dire situation with a rival.
• LOIS-Chan, an aged up Luz Noceda + Genki Anime caricature = Lois parody/ She's underwhelming, bland

• Music is very underwhelming 90% of the time

Yet the music during the Jor-El scene EP2 was cool✅ Sounded creepy as fuck

• The dialogue feels off✅ too current gen
• How he got the suit is too rushed
• Ma & Pa Kent✅ Ma Kent being chunky was a RANDOM design choice, but it's been done in the lore before and it reminds me of Inko (aka best mom), heavy built mums are cute sometimes. Realistic. I like that Martha is involved in Clark's discoveries also.
• Clark doesn't have a grip on his powers, knows how dangerous he is, but goes to the city anyway. Odd.
• Lois & Clark just have the hots immediately because, "purdy". They're cute, but it's shallow. Better to have an actual relationship first before jumping straight to that, forming respect, takes too long, too old fashioned but it works.
• Jimmy, "James" is black for some reason. A conspiracy nerd, and that's his entire character. so far.
• Perry White, is black, for some reason. Zero energy, just a lump of jadedness. Fine, whatever.
• The comedy is well paced, sometimes, other times it's cringe. Sometimes very fasted paced, very modernized.

Snarky "lawl" humor, characters talking a lot but not really saying shit. Again, dialogue is very modern, thus very centered around being ironic, or overtly clever in some way, and it's forced.

Like a boomer trying to write "young people talk."

• The villain is severely underwhelming, an alternate take on Livewire. Not impressed so far, she's not interesting at all.
• Very little background characters on some settings, just empty husks of a city at times, DCAMU had the same issue, but the characters are just static cutouts. Budget limits. Looks odd in a city, but then in EP2 there's people around during Leslie's meetup sequence.

• The plot itself is standard, doesn't really kick off anything interesting, just The Animated Series Episode 2-3 again but more rushed. Except these kids have something to prove Scooby Doo adventures with the Lois-Chan squad

Not a fan of "slice of boring" anime. Unless it's unique like Usagi-Drop

The best praises I can give this show's first 2 episodes are:

SOME of the animation is ok, most of the character designs are dogshit, the sfx are sometimes good, then it's lacking in some scenes.

The Kryptonian Technology having an ancient vibe to it is cool, and I like that Jor-El isn't immediately speaking English. Makes him seem otherwordly.

As does the mysterious Bio-Boost (Superman Blue) effect this particular Superman has when his eyes glow and he activates some kind of augmentation power.

• Can't wait to see what that's about.

Jor-El looking rugged is actually something i really, really liked.

My biggest issue, is the handling of the introduction to Clark and the show's decisions regarding what exactly Episode 1 was and did in execution.

Again, The Superman Blue aesthetic with his electricity aura moment piqued my interest the most, cause it's different, but ofc they don't develop that in EP1 to reel you in.

No explanation on his Blue aura, which is a new thing for Supe animation.

Have Clark ask what the fuck that was, pan the camera on Jor-El's face, cut to the next scene for dramatic effect, have the remaining events play out and then by the end of the episode show Clark learning what it is.
Boom.

And that alone would've been better, can't argue it wouldn't be interesting. Cause it's not a complete info dump, or instant gratification, cause it's not instant.

But it happens gradually in the same episode, not blue balled for another episode, and it's NEW lore, most importantly.

It's not something we've never seen before, at least in this medium.

• Superman Blue hasn't been a thing in mainstream animation, not even in TAS. This is prolly just a visual coincidence or a easter egg, this likely isn't Superman Blue, cause Superman Blue is a mutation.

But exploring it, would've been enough to mix the formula beyond Office shit.

• Cause another thing that i noticed, where are the other Planet employees, maybe i need to watch the episodes again, but Metropolis, feels a bit....empty.

Otheriwse very weird decision to withhold a more interesting element in the introduction to the series compared to Lois-Chan, James & Clark getting into trouble, which is less interesting.

That electricity superpower is something you do in the middle of the episode (SETUP) so that the rest of the episode is spent exploring and building up to what it could be then end on a cliff hanger after a reveal. (PAYOFF)

But most of the episode was spent on the mediocre slice of life plot beats, so the content that's actually interesting is left for the end, or a glimpse of it.

The point is to have an intrigue to begin with, and the Lois squad solving Scooby mysteries isn't it.

Part 1 Episode 1 felt like it jumped the gun, in a rush to go nowhere, because we're on adventures with a Clark we don't know.

He wasn't established first, he was introduced as a child, but not established.

• AMERICAN ALIEN left a similar impression, i was skeptical at first.

But #1 impressed me. Spent more time with the Kent family than expected, Jon wasn't the biggest fan of Clark, they let it play out, and it was resolved through organic means. Jon grew to like Clark through a fun little sequence, after choosing to accept Clark for what he is, and not basing how he sees the boy off of paranoia:

After reading that strip: If most of Episode 1 was spent setting up the Kent family/Clark like that before the time skip: It would be a better story/ stronger introduction to the character. And his parents to boot.

In just two episodes I notice the show's writing is in a rush to get somewhere, hence why 3 minutes into the show before we even get to know Clark he already bumps into Lois.

And in the process it overlooks the importance of slowing down and absorbing what was already presented to the audience. Just 2 min ago.

• Non-linear storytelling is can be good, but it doesn't work for every story. Most times when you introduce something, it helps that element to commit and explore it before moving to something else. Cause that scene in Episode 2 with young Clark, should've been tied in Episode 1.
• There's no downside to developing something thoroughly, but there is flaw, and a severe lapse in judgement to jump from one thing to the next.

The Intro scene of Episode 1 is perfect✅

Very much like RED SON movie, intro scenes with Young Clarks are majestic, well shot, good direction, good animation. Excellence.

Regarding "Lois-Chan",

So far, Lois is essentially not "Lois Lane" in execution.

They're trying to "create" Lois Lane, present her coming up from intern status, fine.

And yet the result is literally not Lois, just a genki anime girl named Lois, that looks more like an aged up Luz Noceda.

Hereby dubbed "Lois-Chan"

And it pisses me off that people are thirsting cause Lois is a "tomboy" now, when she's been a Tomboy since the 40s.

This one has a haircut, and now magically she's a tomboy.

Dear Normies, please be seen and not heard.

Cause you same people will forget this show exists 72 hours after the finale.

People don't like my criticisms sometimes, that's fair, I talk a lot.

And yet I'll be the one still mentioning the show 2-10 years from now while everyone is hyping something else, forgotten it completely.
So who really gave a shit & who didn't?
Rhetorical. But think about it.

Part of the appeal of Lois is she's a tough city-girl tomboy that wears skirts and girly shit, whatever she wants.

The subversion is that she's not fitting the stereotype, independent, self-made, is the entire point.

But what people are going gaga for, is this version is basically being 2 stereotypes at once.

If yer attaching to the fact that she's an anime stock character, fine, but don't be one of those people that says this is the "better/best" version when the most you've likely seen of Lois is whatever you watched.

Lois-Chan & Clark,

One hand I like that Lois likes Clark, than Superman. She fucks up with her lies, and apologizes later after throwing a tantrum in James' ear about it. But she says sorry.✅

• What I don't like is the over-emphasis of the attraction like this is a CW show.
• Meaning, Its not subtle at all, less about her drive and agency & instead it just turns her into a Genki Senpai NPC, Haruhi clone, zero imagination was put here. And she has zero presence, this is not Lois Lane, this is Haruhi Suzumiya reincarnated.
• (Again) a stock anime character.

For an alternate take, they waste no time, and they're almost immediately DTF, very rushed.

Not digging that decision, especially 3min into the show and we don't even have a grasp on Clark's roots and neither does Clark.

Very sloppy prioritization.

The new series Clois is the hallmark of modern storytelling in some ways, instant gratification: Rushed, they get along, they're wholesome and cute & yet have zero chemistry.

They instantly fall for each other and it's kawaii fodder that everyone's eating up because dopamine fest.

Which is where the "So wholesome", "wholesome this", "wholesome that" comes from.

Same exact feedback from multiple people, why? One trick pony.

Not earned. It's already established that they like each other within the first few seconds they see each other. Wow! Okay, that was quick.

They have zero chemistry, they just blush whenever they hear each other's name, and act cute. And that's all it takes. Superman's always been a Shonen Protagonist but this show in a good & cringe way , makes it official

She can't even send a text to the guy without trippin, mind you, she does NOT know this guy, she met him like what 48 hours ago.

He's just "beautiful", very surface level stuff. Very superficial, you're hot, so now you matter to me. One-dimensional

Too easy, Not earned. Not exclusive bad writing to modern writers but very very modern anyway.

Literally just happens, and i'm not exaggerating: He goes to a store, and she literally, LITERALLY just shows up. Before we even get to know the guy in isolation.

TAS, Smallville, L&C = Banter, back-and-forth, cheeky looks, competition and a rivalry, time to build the dynamic = Chemistry

The show's writing is overall rushed, safe, it's not setting groundwork it's just going full speed. Too eager to take off, with no foundation or hook.

It almost immediately has Clark & Lois ready to take each other's pants off with one look, they knew each other for what 2 or 3 days? And he's on the couch validating her and singing her praises- like they have history. (EPISODE 2 btw)
Of course she doesn't compliment him back. It's just him kissing her ass.

Which is a Red flag that you don't know how to write a relationship, a man just validating a woman in bulk isn't chemistry, feeding her ego isn't romance.

• Just because they look cute doesn't mean it's selling anything.
• A relationship is about 2 people, not just one being put on a pedestal.

And then before they could go anywhere with the scene, before she could reciprocate, take whatever it is they have somewhere, ofc James barges in.

Red Flag #2 that you likely don't know how to write a relationship: Interruptions

Because you don't know how to wrap up the scene properly or commit to it.

DekuxOchako anyone?

And it's fine if you don't know, there are things i'm still learning through fucking up & research.

But if it's new territory, look at better examples, like some 40s movies, look at the chemistry of those couples, the back and forth. The time the relationship is given to breathe, look at recent decent examples of smaller couples:

1. Aang & Katara
2. Marcie & Bubblegum
3. Robin & Starfire 2003
4. Makoto & Batou
5. Eve & Mark (Comics version)
6. Ashi & Jack
7. Clark & Lois (Superman & Lois)

Clois so far, juvenile. forced. locked eyes once, now we're on the "you like him/her don't you?" phase of the game, literal middle school tier shit, and they met like way less than 48 hour span?

Maybe form an actual relationship first to warrant all this.
And i love wholesome, but i'm not a sucker for it. I don't take bait.
Not calling 2 episodes of a show the best version of something just because the characters blush every 2 minutes and stress over sending a simple text, it's cute, and it's fun. And it is, but at the same time, what is the mfing rush?

Otherwise, because Lois & Jimmy are stock current gen blobs, they're the epitome of typical. Lois was not written woke, that's a surprise, but she's not interesting.

She speaks her, she has drive, she's a leader type. Sounds like Lois, but it also sounds like Haruhi Suzumiya, which who she more accurately resembles, reserves a room for their little group and everything.
A Genki stereotype who just serves to have big eyes, bounce around, blush every time Clark is mentioned like this is a tween show because "quirky".
And that's all people care about beyond Clark being a "wholesome" hunk. And he is.

She's quirky but she doesn't have the cut throat Lane charm, so she's not even entertaining, she's just short and cute.

• But she's not a pet waifu (which is what most ppl are stuck on)

She's a woman. So I'm gonna need more than just cute and googoo eyes for Clarky boy. And hopefully we'll get that in later episodes.

• In this regard, it felt like a teenager/ or fanfic writer in general wrote this version of the relationship, as it is in EP1-2, it's so rushed. With all the emphasis on the poorly paced romantic overtones, "Let's prove ourselves & get that story" this show reads like a CW script that got animated.

Raceswapping "Oh Noooo-",

Not wasting too much time with this, all imma say is, if the point of continuously recoloring white characters is representation, you're a tool.

Not impressing this poc with a DLC recolor of white characters, you're annoying me by doing that.

Why does that annoy you?
Glad you asked,
Maybe air another Static show, or a show for Rocket, Vixen, John Stewart, ICON, Mr.Terrific, N52 Solstice? (Indian girl), Cassandra Cain,
But instead you do the safe thing, and recolor cause all you'll get in reponse is detractors that complain but watch it anyway. Or nitpickers that complain and won't give it a chance.
Translation: ZERO Risk. Instead of making pet blacks, usually side characters or knockoffs.
Take a risk, and give the existing blacks, people of color a chance to reach broader audiences of all colors.

Give Cassie Cain her own show, animated for god's sake, animated please (2026 edit: rated-R, don't be a coward DC animation)

Try that. Make it good. And then I'll bite.

Clark's decision to leave, or the writers decision regarding Clark.

I'm confused as to how/why he's this old but still hasn't gotten a grip on some of his powers, let alone strength, one of his firsts.

The point of his time in Smallville to Metropolis is learning how to control it then feeling comfortable to leave after. Otherwise why have him discover his powers that early at all, with all that time passed and he's done what exactly?

• This is why establishment first is key

And yes, I know we'll get context later- but that's the point. To get people invested "NOW", you don't rely on belated context later to try to be clever or something.
This is SUPERMAN, not Dr.Fate, Batman or Swamp Thing.
It's okay to be more direct.

Storytelling wise, makes zero sense to do that.

Otherwise think about what this is saying about Clark:

• It's dangerous to leave the nest and still be this sloppy, and Clark would know that. A loose cannon like him with no grip on his potential, can kill someone.

But this Kent looks reckless and stupid to be a willful loose cannon.

(But this is what happens when the writers want a wholesome clumsy cutesy Clark Kent for the "uwu kawaii" audience, without thinking about ramifications) How it makes him look.

• Otherwise him being clumsy was the act he puts on intentionally to misdirect people. An act, meaning he was in control.
• Here, he's actually clumsy and he's destroying almost everything in his apartment lmfao. He's an actual danger, what happens if his Heat vision just spasms? We haven't seen that yet.

Very unwise decision on the writers part.

Revealing Omniman as a Hero, setup.
Then end with a twist slaughter as established in Episode 1, payoff, good.
The double twist that he's actually an agent is saved for later, good. Why?
Because he was established with the basic information first, so the 2nd twist is the double payoff. And we see his trying to mold Mark as hints, which is more set up.
Him being evil wasn't saved for episode 2-3, the HOOK was given to reel you in and it worked.

The hook for episode 1 was Clark glowing...ook, now here's the issue. If we knew what the hell it was prior, or he did. Or it was established that he couldn't control it earlier then it happens later again, maybe it would've had some more weight.

It's just random. I believe more set up was/is needed going forward.

Now just because you personally don't like something doesn't mean it's bad, but the punchline, i don't dislike it.

It's not bad. It's just sloppy. under-written, bland and very rushed.

• 2 Episodes in, a lot happened and it doesn't feel like anything.

And the most people keep saying over and over again is "Wholesome", there's been hundreds of wholesome anime that nobody gives a shit about anymore.

So that means nothing.

Wholesome for the sake of wholesome doesn't mean it's good. Stop repeating the same thing everyone else is saying, and actually have something to say that's not emotionally-centric or related to what gives you the butterflies.
Cause if a show is reliant on your feelings, instead of what it's actually doing right in execution, that's how a show becomes irrelevant in seconds when people stop typing the hashtag. Feelings are fickle.

Cause frfr, fuck me and what I think for a second:

If YOUR script is just plain surface-level shit that you can see in any Office Anime, but the content that would set it apart (The Alien lore), the good stuff is what you choose to hold back for some reason.

What exactly are you doing different or that's not beyond the formula? And why would you hold that back?

And if the entire point is the office shenanigans, why would you limit your show to what anyone could see by going to watch Servant x Service? Which is basically what this is lol.

It's been done and it's just underwhelming.

I get the point that him finding out is the arc, but if him finding out is just third party to the scooby gang mysteries, it's not really a main story development than it is a side story, isn't it?

Cause notice how that's the arc, title card rolls, then 3min later timeskip, and we're meeting Lois instead of establishing further Clark's motivations that we just got 2min ago-

Now we got Taskforce X, Amanda Waller, all of this but we don't have a full grasp on Superman's origin or what that blue shit is, which are the BASICS.
Jumping the gun across the board. What is the rush my guy?...

Again, plays like a CW show that's paranoid of cancelation at any second, so it's just firing on all cylinders to justify it's place. Except regarding the information that would make the show interesting. Cause again, Episode was prime territory to set up the lore, and establish Clark instead of nuggets per episode.

Clark gets the origin rundown in Episode 2, narrating it as it happens, which is distracting, he sees the ship launch. We get that, but nothing more than that. It's cut off again.

Then he just...gets the suit for some reason, he didn't request it, it just happens.

And Jor-El doesn't speak English, so why does he get the suit?

Martha patches it up, he gets a phone ring, then he almost immediately goes to save Jimmy and Lois.

Just quick quick quick, gotta go fast. Zero time to absorb any of what just happened.
Again, Speedster level pacing. Rushed, sloppy.

What's the rush.

Episode 1 gave me the impression, that they wanted to emphasize Krypton's lore.

Episode 2 has a very good scene with young Clark being spooked by the craft and runs to his parents, and i will assume he never went back to it in what.. 10 years?

They finally give us the rundown later in Episode 2, finally, yet it was literally the shit we've seen before already.

Not impressed. At all. Run of the mill anime with a super-powered person in it.

And ironically, I talk about instant gratification, but it sounds like I want the info dump of Krypton & other things at once. Have your cake and eat it took Eh ?

No, cause i already pitched how to do it and make it work.

It's not what you do, it's how you do it. That's why the Episode 2-3 of this (below) show wasn't a pacing nightmare:

Cause it's not revealing everything at once.

After i watched "My adventures", i went to the original 90s series as an experiment (watched the episodes 2-3) We get to see the parents find him, some of his school life, using his powers, save a little girl, meet Lana,him finding out about his past flies for the first time, he moves to the city he meets Lois, meets Jimmy, meets Perry, and now we see Lex, Corben, a fight scene, Supes causes a Plane sabotage because he was also a SuperRookie at the time.

That's just Episode 2 btw, one Episode.

• With everything I just dumped, you'd think The older series was rushed & sloppy with how i described it, but it was better in writing because of how it structured the events.

Slower paaace, it wasn't in a rush.

• The origin wasn't chopped up and scattered, it was founded first like a cement flooring, then everything else was built on that. Thus better pacing. The current events wasn't hijacked by the past, and the past wasn't hijacked by the present.
• One was established so focus could go into the timeskip events without disjointed transitions.

So much is done is less time.

Just poor decisions all around.

Not bad, mediocre. Sloppy.

Clark is a vacuum because we got see him as a kid, but before we could learn ANYTHING to get to know him, timeskip. Which defeats the point of establishment.

So now all the info we get of his background is going to chopped up, diced, and edited all over the course of multiple episodes.

Main issue with this show so far, is a very sloppy script trying to do everything at once, at a breakneck pace and holding back on the potentially new lore/ content we should be getting exploration for.

• It's not enough that Clark is adorable & Lois is "uwu kawaii waifu"

And i'm not speaking for myself, people, time and time again hype something up defend it religiously, then forget it 3 days after it's done.

Look at My Hero, after Season 6 ended, who was talking about it? No one.

On a positive note, I am excited to see what they'll do (for better and for worse) with the rest of Superman's rogues gallery, and who they'll choose to use. Or if this series will spawn a TV-verse

Imagine Blue Beetle or Shazam in this style.

I would 1000% want that. Especially Captain Marvel/Shazam

Otherwise, this is the dumbed down version of TAS with some not so charming modernization, because as I watched TAS EP2-3, the similarities with MADWS is very apparent.

• Homework notes were taken, and that's good, it's just they didn't copy the shit that worked in the original lmfao.

And the modernization isn't the entire issue, it's the writing decisions, as i've explained in full.

The modern animation is a testament of modernization, but that part is the better aspects of the show, ironically. As are the SFX, some of it, but those are aesthetic observations.

Everything to do with the actual show being good or bad, writing wise? It's basic so far.

All in all, the potential is still there. Not impressed so far, but it's only 2 episodes.

We'll see where it goes, not tryna see this fail or be a bum take where the most people can harp on about is it's "wholesome" 24/7

Hopefully, like Invincible, it makes a tone shift and pops off. And Jake Wyatt, the writer, can probably change some writing decisions along the way, everyone does it sometimes.

Personally,

I'd love if they give us Helspont in this take, seeing the heavy inspirations of New 52 Superman in the show, i'd appreciate if they introduced a beastly Helspont to the normies.

He's someone that legit gave Supes a concussion with a bitch slap, into the moon, i shit you not.
Read that Annual if you don't believe me lmfao.

2026 edit: 100% Called it.

Wyatt & Comp. were a plot driven storytelling team. Even in Season 2, it remained rushed, poorly executed, memey, wholesome and absolutely mediocre; too focused on plot, barely any time to cook with trauma, or character elements. Too much in a rush to go absolutely nowhere; plot contrivances out the as, which is more likely to happen in plot driven storytelling vs character driven.

(ATLA Book 3 Finale had two of the worst contrivances in the entire show despite it's character driven storytelling, which is to make it clear that both plot & character driven stories can have contrivances. However, those two were some of the worst offenders. Unlike My Adventures with Lois-Chan, ATLA had a track record of very few contrivances, 99% of the show wasn't asspulls & convenience, very organic for the most part. So the finale's asspulls could be forgiven. After Three Seasons of quality, it could afford those contrivances.)

My Adventures however was too focused on tropes, moments & gimmicks to cook with the story, themes, subtext, source material (or IMPROVE said material aka Kara is a BORE-EL, and they had one of the best chances in her history to set a new precedent for the character and they whiffed it anyway, which I knew they would.) & neglected to cook with the characters to make the best journey possible-- with an ANIME SUPERMAN no less., how often do we get a shot like this? Two seasons in, no excuses.

What a waste. Saw it coming.

Watch Superman The animated Series' first two episodes, just the first two & maybe Season 2 Episode 22 as a bonus .

It's not the information given that's the issue entirely, because again, at the time It was only two episodes of a brand new series but even then I saw the signs.

For TAS: just pay attention to the pacing and how it's written. Notice how it's not in a rush to get anywhere, why? Because back then, that young Superman story was telling an actual story & not sprinting through a story to get to the plot. Called it.

You don't need to watch 50 episodes or read 200 chapters/issues to know what you're getting into. Writing is like food, you don't need to finish the whole plate to know it's spoiled or a culinary delight. A smell, an inspection, maybe one or two careful bites, a taste test: that's all that's needed.

Two words: EXECUTION & Priorities. As the writer: what are your priorities? cute moments to meme? Just having fun in the studio at the cost of the outcome? Making animated fanfic vs a 3-Dimensional Superman story, an airtight story, (not perfect, but well written), a competent journey for the characters.

I saw it even back then 2023, Jake Wyatt's priorities were misaligned, I saw it in plain sight. That has nothing to do with him being a bad writer or good writer, it means his talents needed better leadership vs his talents being the lead, which is clearly what shouldn't have happened.

It meant well, that's obvious. But it was a mess and still is a whole lotta wholesome nothing burger.

I guarantee you if Joe Kelly (Superman vs The elite & Action Comics #775), David Slack (Teen Titans 03') or Aaron Ehasz (ATLA): if one of them were the head writer but Wyatt & his team were the subordinates: not fired but instead worked under the oversight of a more honed-in writer & other co-writers they trusted and have worked with. The show would've been an easy recommendation at the time then, and even now going forward.

It's not always what you do, it's how you do it. Execution and priorities.