the supergirl 26' trailer, someone needs to be fired

they should fire whoever edited that crap, It's like they stitched it together to make Kara everything but interesting or cool.

A typical sci-fi adventure flick you'd see from novel adaptation like Divergent or something, forgettable. The point of the trailer is make you feel: "I have to SEE this!"

What the hell is marketing even doing?

I'm probably one of the most consistent supergirl criticizers on the internet and even I have to admit she deserved better than that, what the fuck.

The music was dogshit too, she doesn't even get a cool thematic score, no original theme to define the sound of her character like Williams did for Supes, nah she gets some wonky song.

Which tells me the OST is likely going to be full of songs and mediocre stock Hollywood tracks if the movie's music or anything cinematic couldn't make it into this trailer.

I hate the teen graphic novel vibe, not enough of the villains & the one that I wanted to see, he's in it for like 2 seconds which tells me he's not going to prominent enough in the film in a way to make it one of the best CBM of this decade or push Kara to proper limits in development or him serving to be her foil--

(because LOBO is also the last of his people, but for different reasons. Will the writers explore this dichotomy to exploit a proper arc for Kara Snore-El? Calling it now, probably not)

The plot as is looks as boring as Kara looks, Krypto literally pissing on Superman (I hate that damn dog).

And it doesn't even exploit the ONE thing people claim is so interesting about her (not rly tho) the trauma of seeing Krypton go poof. (SB-Prime did it better)

It's like the Trailer wasn't even trying. I didn't watch the SuperGunn trailers when they first dropped. But I was excited to watch this one. And this is it?

Superman sees the good in everyone, she sees the truth: the FUCK does that even mean!?

Dialogue was horrible edited movie-nese, gave me nothing to invest in the damn girl.

Since I didn't drop the Superman 25 review yet, I'll say it right now. I did NOT like that movie, saw it three times. It was a mess, a fun, goofy piece ah crap.

And because of that, I'm 1000% game for SUPERGIRLS Movie to be better, more focused, more character driven, better action, better villain (for the luv of god, please give us a better villain ) and take kryptonian feats into galactic territories, show us what a Kryptonian can do in space.

Do I prefer Superman to be that mascot? Yes, he's the only one that deserves to be.

But he had his chance, I as an avid Anti-SupermanTOKEN bot wants Supergirl 26' to be better than Superman 25'.

Why ? Because since WB/DC can't get their boner for this character out their tent, I want these twerps to actually do something right with her that'd force me to recommend it.

Cause otherwise, and I say this often: If you're going to keep bumping Kara infront of the line, AHEAD of Starfire, Raven and Cassandra CAIN--- just to do nothing with her, why even use Supergirl in the first place.

At this point, after 65+ years and for me personally over 20+ watching over this character, THERE HAS to be a time where they accidentally do something right with her that'll genuinely redefine this box they keep her in, not that Self-help "find yourself" bullshit King's Woman of Mediocrity aka "Woman of Tomorrow" did.

I mean genuinely set the bar for how this character is written going forward, PLEASE for the luv of fuck.

This trailer Read like they didn't even try dude.

Is Clair Obscur Expedition 33 The Most Overrated Game Of All Time?

yes, people have been feminized beyond repair. Masculinity isn't a problem until it destroys. Femininity isn't a weakness until it weakens.

women are groomed to be new the modern man by design, & the women themselves can't handle it, loneliness & burnt out. And they shouldn't have to put up with the new norm is basically them being forced to exhaust themselves.

The entire point of attacking masculinity was to supplant men, so women wouldn't have a firm refuge to confide in in men, womens minds are ripe to be beaten with propaganda and society's social defenses would be nerfed with the men being non-threatening.

Non-threatening male, thats the point.

Tell women that sensitive men is what they want 30 years ago, then when they get it, straight women realize dating another woman with testosterone sucks because thats what they get dating a lot of modern men, but thats what men were turned into.

thats the entire point, thats what happens when norms are challenged for the sake of challenge & not improvement of quality of life: Chaos & decline.

1:28:20

"The ‘manic pixie dream girl’ is rooted in misogyny " Projecting politics onto pop culture leads to missing the point of the two not being the same thing

https://dailycampus.com/2022/02/25/the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-is-rooted-in-misogyny

To be fair to the author, writing & characterization is what we agree on. 

They slip in "heteronormativity", "patriarchy", "male gaze" 

They missed the past 15 years of hyper-aggressive female empowerment efforts that are so prominent that people overseas got sick of it. Men expect male characters to be castrated & mocked, men don't "expect-" to be MC's.

how can you write an article in post 2016 & say with a straight face men grow up expecting to be MC? Something that they're grateful or lucky to get in movies #Futureisfemale because the only thing they expect is to be told they don't have a stake & women don't need men.💔That's a prominent part of western culture. 

🚨TL;DR Conflating toxic gender politics with a simple trope cause author refuses to accept the simple fact that a MPDG Is a side character, not a statement.  No more than the apologetic, nervous and soft spoken male character "Butt-Monkey" trope that's male DOMINATED is no more a statement of assault on all men than MPDG is to women. It's just a trope. 

You don't have to like the trope, but turning it into this widespread social address to contrive a moral rationalization is just desperate, no one needed to be a victim to make a good argument here.

basically tl;dr the article lacking proper caveats, honesty, & retrospect defeated the good point is might've had. No mention of Breakfast At Tiffany's or Twilight or My Life As a Teenage Robot, or Shrek's MPDG role, which shows the investment in the trope is a fraction of the desire apparent to complain about it. The trope is just a justification to make something out of nothing,  just a target to project modern sensibilities onto, as is the case every other day for western privileged. Which explains why ppl apparently can't enjoy anything anymore & feel threatened by everything.

The selective outrage & lack of nuance effectively destroyed the credibility of the author's case, just derailed into a gender politics sermon with the trope being the unwilling mascot. 

 

💀Full Response (optional):

1# The manic pixie dream girl is not the main character nor designed to be a 3-dimensional person like Katara or Raven TT2003: MPDG is a vehicle specifically, like the white rabbit or mysterious transfer student or other-wordly bad boy (Edward Cullen). 

Difference is most MPDG have leagues more characterization, stake, & charm than the white rabbit despite both tropes serving the same purpose: Plot activation 

This isn't like me criticizing Horikoshi's handling of Momo Yaoyorozu: a side character,  I'm not sitting here complaining that Momo doesn't have as much screentime as DEKU (the actual main character), but specifically that the girl has one of the most OP quirks & most that gets explored is her underboob, or camel-toe. 

And thus my personal issue with that is a statement of how ALL GIRLS and women are presented in media because patriarchy. Ignorant.

The issue here, is author is overlooking the simple fact that the girls are inherently not the focus, period. Thus not multi-faceted, they are specifically people that are the plot vehicle. 

The real problem  is that this is women characters being in service to anything having to do with male characters in a positive way: that is the real issue.😱 Women supporting men, you'll find is a recurring theme that the author repeats throughout, because that's the real problem. Women not controlling the narrative is the problem.

🚨"The trope typically enforces heteronormative gender roles, making the girl in the movie serve the story in relation to a main male character. Additionally, it indicates that being “like other girls” is explicitly negative which is harmful to girls who want to present in the manner it criticizes."

Inversely by criticizing the MPDG you're also making women who are genuinely like MPDGs explicitly negative because they genuinely aren't like other girls? Did that not factor into your equation that you're creating a new victimhood by complaining about another?

So not being like other girls as the aesthetic focus is harmful to the girls that are, and other shows & movies that's glorifying being like other girls is also harmful to girls who aren't like them. there's no winner

An archetype is glorified, thus another one is put down, why? Because someone decided for everyone else that this should be a problem for everyone.  (And that's coming from me! lmfao)

🛡 More importantly how is this fabrication of a hypothesis any different from the trope of the:

Female self-actualized protagonist being independent/no love interest/ specifically no MALE love interest = thus good✅ according to modern rigid gender normativity 

VS

The female antagonist who either is more comfortable/expressive in her sexuality for males specifically, thus bad👎 or the mean girl being boy crazy is an association of loss of agency is the consequence of liking boys, thus bad.

So you're telling me the MPDG (usually THE ICON of the story, usually most liked, thus the most significant element & loved- so where's the misogyny if her presentation is inherently loved & positive?), that is more harmful than the rigid, progressive norm that: having AGENCY & liking boys CANNOT exist in the same dimension for girls.♀️ That's not damaging? 

🚨🚨The author lacking that caveat Is what ultimately neuters the credibility of the article as a whole. In fact that self-pity patriarchy rant  that wrapped up the article is what obliterated the credibility of the article.🚨🚨

Sometimes a Trope is just that, should it be improved upon? Maybe? At that point just write your own story in combination with the opinion. Imagine how I felt these past 10 years watching My Hero Academia cannibalize itself for no reason.

If I've learned ANYTHING over the years of essaying it's "It got a reaction from me, but it's not about me. Don't make it about you." and secondly, you have to have at least 3 caveats or nuances attached to your complaint, STRAWMAN yourself at least once.

If you can't do that? settle for having a handicapped argument or just say nothing.

🚨"The entire phenomenon is wonderfully explained in Olivia Gatwood’s aptly named spoken word poem, “Manic Pixie Dream Girl.” In it, she states, “and when you are a whole person / for the first time, the movie is over / Manic Pixie Dream Girl doesn’t go on, / there’s no need for her anymore.” 

The author doesn't want to accept that the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is not entitled to depth because she's not the main character, why is author pretending that MPDG isn't a plot device when that's literally the point of any character, male or female, that serves to drive the MC into the main plot? 

That's what All Might was, a plot device. You could easily counter with" but he got more characterization & that's the OP's point."

No? All Might had 10 years of story, 400+ chapters, and 8 seasons 4 movies, OVA+ of material. He's a MPDG role initially but he didn't remain that way.

Nice try, dear strawman.  ***

So why are we pretending that female characters are the only one's serving this function? What did we think SHREK served to Fiona's monotonous life up until that day he showed up? He was the MPDG.

Soooo, if the real issue is about the woman existing to be a vehicle & discarded for the narrative, why didn't OP bring up your Uncle Bens, Planet Kryptons, Tadashi, Gwen Stacy, Lalah Sune, Dr.Erskine, Thomas & Martha Waynes or any plot device character existing just to literally die for a significant development of the narrative:

But you see, at that point then it's not a gender struggle session because that happens to male & female characters, so adding NUANCE to this topic defeats the victim / "patriarchy bad" song.

And the reason why is because of her personality, honesty, unapologetic conduct.  Why make that into a problem? A matter of "gaze" as if it's it'd be any different if it were a lesbian writing her own gaze onto the narrative.

Male gaze bad because it's male. This is waaaay different from me ripping a Manga apart because the author felt it necessary to panty shot an 11 yr old girl.

Or the Captain Marvels or Rey's dominating the narrative, if a woman dominates the narrative as per acceptable norms, if men service women's stories one-sidedly, then the inequity isn't a problem.

The point that's likely intentionally ignored is the dream girl is essential to the plot in the first place.

A female side character does what a any side character does-- that is no different from dehumanized Prince Charmings who just exist to serve the woman's happy ending or libido, male avatars of superhuman feats & labors, or heroes who exist to get beat to a pulp or die for a woman's end means. 

"Breakfast At Tiffany's" has one of the most nuanced MPDG I've ever seen, so much so I thought the movie was going to end on a tragic note. In fact the arc of that movie was the woman being taught how to live in a more healthy way by the man, he was the vehicle & plot device. Holly was both MPDG & not one, but the male character was the underwritten vehicle of the plot, was he a misrepresentation of all men?

The fact that Breakfast At Tiffany's wasn't mentioned tells me a lot about how many fucks to give were invested here. Which is my point exactly about "credibility" being put into question here.

Or the problematic trope of your Jack's dying for your Roses (Titanic), glorifying male deaths for female preservation as a vehicle of gothic romanticism that women perceive as "sweet"- is an attack on men are some stupid crap.  The social hatred or systemic male hatred that men are essentially lower class citizens compared to women on the sole basis that their very well being is inherently socially lower in designation in the eyes of men AND WOMEN, hence suicide statistics and nobody cares because it's not a woman's issue, the media perpetuates this male hatred bla bla bla blaaaaaaa.. see how easy it is?

See? anyone can make something out of nothing and claim it's a social assault on a group.

Furthermore, people that behave like MPDG exist, so is it misogynist to discount the people that the archetype empowers?  Do we think about that?

Or empowerment for women or a crisis for women is whatever a woman with a platform says it is this week on behalf of women, REGARDLESS of other women? Which is what I'm noticing as a trend in how worldviews get formed for a lot of people in the west.

This is why caveats need to be exploited more in articles and people need to step back & accept that not everything is a statement about an entire group of people, because in reality- it's not about you.

It's not about the article being an opinion, 'do you know what you're talking about or not'? 

This isn't a topic about political policy, it's just pop culture stuff, one of the easiest topics to do quick research on so you can present a full spectrum of points. The principle here has validity but the lack of retrospect just destroys what author is trying to say, this is reads like selective outrage with a hint of projection.

Final quote responses: 

"Moreover, this all comes from a very heteronormative perspective, but that is the unfortunate reality of the world we live in." 

Yes, the normal sexuality is reinforced as normal.

Gender norms that function is normal, as opposed to progressive norms that contribute to women's burnout & plummet of life satisfaction, retreat, isolation, resentment & birthrate declines: I'll kindly take the heteroproductive gender roles that made nations and got humanity this far vs the modern ways that's swiftly tearing everything apart that it did not build. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"Assuming straight is the default sexuality is all too common," Cause It is default, get over it.

"-and the manic pixie dream girl trope furthers this idea as well. The trope does not allow for changes to the traditional gender-script, as the woman must teach the man how to live until she is not needed anymore." 

Breakfast At Tiffany's, watch more of the media with the trope you're talking about before you speak on the trope as if you're an expert. 

" Moreover, other than the mocking joke of “he’s not like other boys,” there is virtually no male equivalent;" 

Who remembers "Team Edward vs Team Jacob"? Like I said, "credibility" is obliterated by the author just talking.

"the manic pixie dream girl is yet another way to maintain patriarchal standards for our society. Thus, we must move away from stereotypical portrayals of women in media, and away from the notion of femininity being inherently bad."

Patriarchal standards have been obliterated enough to where enough western birthrates are past recovery rate, don't worry, you're winning. Patriarchy has been losing for more than 20 years.

More importantly, Femininity being bad is the progressive notion that women need to abandon their femininity to emulate masculinity in order to be strong independent women, men wanting femininity was rigid & misogynist. 

Strong independent women couldn't be desirable & feminine, and wanting men.

The strong woman archetype was MPDG on steroids, but that was "empowering" right? Because the toxic masculine woman controlled the narrative, vs the MPDG who supported the narrative of a male character.

So the real issue here isn't agency, it's control. Who's controlling the narrative of the story.

Author is showing their hand more and more as the article drags on. 

It's not about the trope, author is projecting gender politics onto the trope regardless of the trope. Which explains why author misses the actual point of the trope.

This is like an incel making a rant about how the geek who doesn't get the girl is a female supremacist narrative to make boys feel bad about not being their own person vs the rigid norm of what girls want.

Just projecting your politics onto something completely divorced from your worldview and masking it as a social criticism so you can feel justified. 

I see right through it. What could've been a good point on characterization got lost barking up the wrong tree.

Are Villain Origin Stories Destroying Our Kids’ Sense of Right And Wrong? (overthunk it so you don't have to)🧠

So the movie about a villain having a happy ending possesses an antagonist anyway, an antagonist who's most prominent described traits is she's mean & actively obsessed with princes, ie. males. EGASP! that little witch.

One of the step sisters were already humanized in Cinderella II: Dreams Come True, quite sweetly in fact. We gonna pretend that better handled subversion never happened?! Lol!

We've been over this lol, kinda late to the party netflix

RECAP:

netflix steps pov: Antagonists are misunderstood* ✅

also steps pov: Oh the antagonist of a movie about antagonists being misunderstood? -- has an antagonist anyway🚨

• did she "Curse a child with black magic?"
• "attacked a kingdom?"
• "attempted genocide"?Oh no no, much worse! ----

She's obsessed with boys. #subtle😱📉🍼

Dear girls, don't be like the villain, liking boys is harmful to your agency, said the blatant overtone of the trope.

The west's most prominent fetish is *losing on purpose, starts with those signals and narratives.

So making villains fat, ugly & combined with female = a harmful association according to pearl clutchers, but the protagonist being self-actualized VS the female villain liking boys, being comfortable in her sexuality (with males specifically) or maybe mean because she obsesses over boys instead of FOCUSING on herSELF (self worship, worship the self, ideological narcissism)

TL;DR AGENCY+Liking boys (natural female human desire) can't exist in the same dimension??-----that isn't a DAMAGING signal?

That's not problematic ? Lmfao.

And you wonder why everyone's confused, opting out, running away, retreating, fighting, and giving up. Your messages are beyond mixed, from the kids movies to your songs, to your headlines specifically tailored to condition grownass women.

It's not the implication, it's the blatant narrative.

POV: Nevermind if the demon eats literal babies, the demon in fact was the victim the entire time ya'll. 😂

Final Fight Scene | Avengers: Infinity War (2018) reaction mashup

I still say Sentry shoulda been in the Endgame, what a waste. He should've been in this movie & then Void makes a cameo in Endgame going toe to toe with the gauntlet. Punching off stones & the 6 avengers take a stone until Thanos has none left, and STILL Thanos fights, using his power cosmic. FUUUUCK could you imagine.

Female Pedobear, (Everything a man can do....)

 What if i told you; That female pedophiles existed? And should be "represented" just as much as the males in society.

See the creepy part about Female pedophiles, even more so than the males... Is it they're "rare"? No, no, no. They're leagues smarter, because they take their time before their move. They invest in their.... "lover"


The REAL reason for their rarity in the media, is the worst possible reason:

• They just don't get caught, meaning they get away with their abuse and live in a society that pretends they don't exist while the male pedophiles take the brunt of public scrutiny that they should experience too.

And they benefit from biological bias, so if they get caught, and they're white & attractive, they just might not even get equal amount of jailtime, if ANY, compared to a mustached male named "Dave".


Why? Why are they so good at hiding in plain sight, because they play the long game, women are romantic, they want to "know" their target first. 

• They want a relationship, not a fuck buddy.

 
The Males usually go after strangers, that puts em at more risk, hence why Chris Hansen had a career to speak of.

The females sleep with children that trust them, children they have power over: Students, their own children, niece, nephew, etc.
Relationships with other adults didn't work, so now they want a dynamic where they can't be hurt, and prey on innocence because that appeals to their maternal instincts.
Bizarre, i know.

That way they have the dominant position, and can control the child to be silent, with affection, not fear or intimidation, at least not most of the time.

The ones that get caught, are the ones where the truth just happened to come out from either the child or happenstance evidence.

(Like a Teacher being pregnant with baby, it's not the husbands, and the Father is a 8-12 year old little boy who's main concern is playing Roblox)



Everything a man can do, WOMEN CAN DO/DO

Sandman’s First Attack at the Festival Scene - Spider-Man 3 (2007) | Rea...

"Yeah they'll love it." Homegirl bottom left with the pink background, she was NOT happy with Peters showboating, 99% of us don't already but she was not feeling it. $:43 "then you want to marry her?" EXACTLY, Peter was trifling in this movie, i dont blame her.

7:00 "I don't know but i'm not really a fan of Spider-man right now." I get it, sister. I get it lol. Zero judgement here. Peter was wilding in this one.

Spider Man 3 OST Birth of Sandman

"No one talks bout how great this scene is, its one of the most underrated scenes from spiderman movies"

from comic book movies as a whole, fym. Everything in this one scene as a visual storytelling vehicle alone, forget the music, just the VISUALS destroys most of the MCU.

If this was a short film, it'd probably get awards & nominations. Cause you don't even need to know HOW he got that way, the storytelling tells you what he is isn't natural, what happened was recent, & his anchor is his child, & that brings him back from despair. Everything you need is there.

The music at that point is just overkill.

My Hero Academia Final Season Is Garbage

agreed, it didn't even deserve to get past 4 season at the latest. I am genuinely astounded it somehow made it to a final. For what it was worth, it was a ride. Definitely serves a purpose for aspiring writers on how to tap into aesthetic success & designs (which Horikoshi excelled in) but also serves as an example of how to write, and how not to characterize.

So it wasn't pointless, it serves a multi-function, both good & bad, but a great story? It was not. Good? Hardly.

It simply existed.

re/ Men Have Given Up on Marriage — And Women Can't Understand the Message ** recycled "not your fault" points wrapped in Ai self-pity schlock

*Some valid points wrapped in nauseating recycled self-pity & a poorly made "not your fault" sandwich.* Raw deal of marriage, womens double standards ,and society doesn't care. WE GET IT. We know this story, it's been said & done already. Women doing what they do is not a new concept. Now where's the solution? The resolve beyond just complaining that the problem exists & putting the ball in women's court, because convenience. The video enables doing exactly what women do when they talk about you lmfao, shift the ball to their court, so you don't have to do anything. Yeah that'll fix the issues. *Keep in mind, women are allegedly opting out of dating men by 60%+ as is,* so its not just about men walking away, this is about a disconnect on both sides. So enough women get the message, so much so America's birth rates are beyond recovery rate so apparently it's not just about men.

Which is the first issue with this video, the single lens perspective that only exists to affirm frustration than properly adjust it.

_*Instinct is wanting women,* to join to build legacy, defense mechanism is retreat from modern patterns. There's a difference_

Running away is not instinct, that's not a man, preserving yourself from women by shutting them out is not instinct. And some Ai Schlock video telling to you plug your ears to anyone telling you other than what you want to hear-- is literally no different from what Buzzfeed articles do to women's brains._ As long as outlets keep representing only one side of the coin, ONLY the male perspective here or academia and article outlets only represent women & neglect men's life experience in the matter. You'll never get to the core of the issue beyond just recycling the fact that the issue exists and then shift the ball to their court.

Complaints, zero resolve or solution.

*Simply put, the solution is changing the attitude. The video's *focus on yourself endorsement is part of the what caused the problem, you're more married to your self-interest than you're willing to be to another person, pure hubris. Just like most modern women.

Solution: If connecting to women is not working, then being more self-centered is not a solution, it's an escape. And if you genuinely want to opt out? Then don't complain about what women aren't doing for you, when you're not willing to listen.

Videos like this only serve to validate worldviews than reflect how the world is and how to solve your situation. Just fluff and filler in under 30minutes. Men could have the best situation in marriage, both divorcees could get 50/50 from each other, or alimony is gone entirely and still men would mess up marriage on some dumb shit, because the mindset and the attitude is the exact same. Having nothing to offer women but good intentions.

_Think about it idealistically, even if you had nothing to lose, no alimony risk, what would change in the birthrates when the core of the problem is the attitudes people possess? The real issue isn't women using divorce as a weapon, more so the kind of women you choose in the first place._

So is it really the deal solely? That never stopped your predecessors. What's different now vs then-- is the generation. Most of the American women are more undesirable and their options of men are sullied because men have also been defanged, the masculinity for many has been "challeneged" & redefine to where it's a parody of the masculinity women respected & trusted in the first place.

Cause on that same token, are you a 10 out of 10 catch? Or a 6 at the least? What do you think being high quality means?

Solution: Change how you engage with the women in your immediate space in life where matters, not a picture some Ai video fed you. The boundaries you set is how you change your own relationships going forward.

This isn't some cultural shift that's going to happen when society gives up because enough of men or women opted out, no one's going to cave to your demands or tantrums. You change the culture on your level first, because unless the President addresses it, videos like this are just fluff. Marriage is a bad deal but it's not the problem, the people you attract is the vehicle to divorce. Stop giving up because that's easier & change your pool of options. Women in Wyoming aren't like women in NYC. Cali girls are not like the one's in Maine or Spain. The change has to be begin with what you tell yourself is preventing you from succeeding. Maybe you have shite taste in women, ever thought of that? And if the options in your country are that bad? Relocate. You don't wanna be a object of a success or screwed by the system, when that's exactly how men use women in terms of sex for era's on end, not just an object of sex, women were the object of social success that men enforced on each other. Which is where the stigma of being a virgin came from, it came from MEN!

So who are you really mad at here for allowing it to get like this!? Men in power not setting boundaries with women & women's groups is how things got out of control.

All women make real professional sacrifices of career, bodily sacrifices to try marriage. But none of that is mentioned in the video, as if men are the only ones taking it without a rubber in this situation. Flawed video by design. _Otherwise American men aren't exactly the creme of the crop either._ Solution: You're not the only one getting screwed, you're neglected by the society, but you're not the only victims. Change your attitude by hearing what women have to say too. To reiterate: *Focusing on self/ self-worship aka running away from the issue (Shinji Ikari all over again. On both sides.), making demands and complaining about a system being flawed is just putting the ball in someone else's court so you don't have to do better, improve yourself, or get off your ass and do anything------ is the same "perform for me" crap that women do 24/7. Modern men are no different from the women now.

You point out the issue exists, little to no pitches to fix it, just vindicating the people that gave up and that's your input. that's the video. Some walk away for economic reasons, too many seem to think women on Reddit represent all women. Or the women in their state represents all American women. Or American women are the only women that exist on Earth.

Lack of experience, brutal lack of nuance and narrow perspective is the common trope of videos like this (male or female geared), it just repeats what disgruntled people want to hear, over and over again. Like you've grown up with this cultural rot for so long, the best cope is just living with it.

solution: The problem & solution is your attitudes and perception of what really isn't as big of an issue as you make it seem. You complain about what women want & don't want, and their illogical inconsistencies as if thats a new concept and OP doesn't propose that these boys simply assert to women they date what they're going to get regardless of what they want. Which is communication, assertion, being a man.

You'd be surprised how flexible women are when they get over their initial outrage when you don't frame your assertion as an opinion but as a statement of "Just how it is". Men aren't men anymore, & women don't respect you because you just want women to hand you respect right out the gate, you don't want to work for anything. Just like women expect something for nothing.

Current gen men are too whiney about what women do or don't do (because outlets groom enough women this way for it to effect birthrates,) when women are impressionable & inconsistent which is what women do, always have, all it takes is flattery & a scapegoat to own women's allegiance. That's not an excuse, that's the reality. That's how you get Mansults every other year, women being told they're leaving men behind, "flattery & a scapegoat", that's all it takes. *Which is why the media & outlets IGNORE MEN to target women, because they're easier.* Stop ignoring the fact that women are being used, to then blame women about women's own confusion when where they're getting it from is a third party in the first place. And that includes Feminism.

Your retreat & frustration (male or female) is understandable but it's also part of the gender war business, why are you playing their game on their terms? "They" being the media:

POV: always question what the purpose is in constantly illustrating men as women's enemy, always ask yourself why do outlets and academia feel the need to make men counterproductive to women? Solution: Because Men are the first line of defense, if they keep men away from women culturally or manage to break men into leaving by choice, then their grip on women stays firm. Your resentment or retreat only enables your own neglect. The game you need to stop playing isn't entirely marriage, it's this self-pity party that aims a sharp blade in the wrong direction. That's why men serve as the anchor for women in terms of intellectual agency, not that women don't possess it, but men are naturally the primary threat to powers & Governments. Or men should be, otherwise when you're this sensitive and fickle & ready to run because things aren't going your way or someone isn't comforting your national experience: _women might as well should just date each other at that point, if the males are this soft & self-pitiable._ It doesn't mean settle for being the last priority or be a punching bag as a male, it means change the rules of engagement on your level, which is the only paradigm you can control. Let's be blunt: *Men & women look at statistics, you feel it's hopeless, you look for videos like this validate & rub your belly and feel good about giving up. Majority of you likely haven't gone through half the burns boomers have but you adopt the generational struggle just to feel like you're united in being passionately disillusioned over something you can't control. And as an added bonus: You have someone to blame, thus a proverbial "opposition"* It's the lack of control here, not entirely what women are doing, it's that you feel you can't control the matter. And the only way you can feel agency here is just giving up. That's the best you can do to "pwn" the ugliness of the topic that's frankly hurting men & women. The solution isn't running away, it's listening, it's being receptive. 23:23 how are you going to expect women to listen when you don't listen, how are you going to expect women not take implications of what men want as fact, when that's what you're doing? When is why women's perspective isn't represented here even as a frame of reference, just echo chamber. The double standard of women not matching what they expect from men, THIS VIDEO is enabling viewers to be the same exact hypocrite. You want to be heard but not listening. Is the point of the video to TRY to resolve? or just cement seeds of resentment & vindicated indifference and call that "instinct", which is laughable because that effectively helps men by value of absolute 0%.

You're not slam dunking anyone by just retreating into your shell. You are playing yourselves harder than alimony or the "patriarchy" ever could.

re: "Are men jealous that women can create life and they can't?" - 2018

Original post: 2018:— 2025 edited

“Women create life.”

“Women create life.”

This misconception is a symptom “born” of a cultural conflation that breeds unhealthy ego, mistranslation.

• Cultural sympathy
• possible overcompensation
• generally a complimentary exaggeration stemming from the sole fact that carriage is uncomfortable & painful and birth is hell.
• And is primarily what that breeds is this …”credit” system where women are entitled to be credited with “creating” life because of her physical labor, which is predictable because it’s brutal, understandable because it’s better than trivializing the act, but inaccurate, presumptuous and egotistical .

And the fact that this was ever a question shows the danger of innocent semantics, some people actually believe that slogan or expression as fact instead of just digging into the simple question:

“Women create life. But do they? What is she actively, actually doing before the delivery? Which she also does NOT decide when it happens. So exactly is she doing beside being a passive party until suddenly active? In an automatic process that has nothing to do with her will, what exactly is she doing?”

• Carrying life? Yes, non-debatable.
• She’s an Important factor in delivering life? OBVIOUSLY.
• But she herself “creating” ? Hardly.

The expression “women create life” & it’s variations are a social sympathy badge with good intentions, “creator of life” is a romanticized semantic pedestal with no grounds in reality.

There’s no cultural "interpretations" here, there’s giving due respect and then there’s a pedestal for women (as usual)—

• there's overstating one's importance (with GOOD intentions but ultimately conflating one thing for another) and there's accurately applying respect that’s due without pushing borderline deification.

Deification: Which is what this is really about— inflated self-importance, hence the tone of the original question in the first place, as well as it’s oblivious stance on an existential inaccuracy .

And lastly, the expression is a genuine indicator of misunderstanding biology. We focus on the outcome: “where the baby came from physically” & not how passive her role was in the entire thing.

• Otherwise, lock a woman in a room. And ask her to “create life”/ a child. Is she going to "create" life then? If not, then there you go. There’s your creator.
• She’s not creating anything. The heartbeat, the electrical emissions, the movement begins in her body, because she incubates life.
• Which is not a lesser role than a creator, it’s simply more accurate, transparent & less delusional and obnoxious.

Part 1# “Creator of Life fallacy”

To create is to bring into being, generate aka ‘produce by oneself’. Several microorganisms can pull it off, others not so small, many sea life can asexually reproduce.

They are the creators of their young, spawn, clones, successors.

And last i checked, women weren’t asexually reproductive; If they were, then they would be indeed: Creating another person, for it would be without outside help, at that point I’d surmise women were damn near demi-god status, to “create life” by yourself naturally is a serious feat.

But humans, being a dimorphic species: It takes two to create life, not one. Because male & female are two halves of an incomplete “true” human being.

Fact is, sperm itself is not even something that she produces, it’s the production of the man. Her part being more painfully hellish doesn’t give her charity credit points over his role.

(His body created the sperm that allows her to even conceive in the first place, she has no place in the process if he doesn’t plant the seed.)

• The maturation process of a baby, is not a conscious decision on her part, as is sperm production not conscious for men.
• The spermatozoa in junction with other gametes, is simply doing what it’s programmed to do: Survive
• Which is why when a woman doesn’t want the baby, she can’t choose to “Not to create life” or halt the maturation process on her own volition, which is basically a god.
• For she’s not in control, she is not creating anything (by herself). That’s why she needs further outside help or interference, to abort aka assassinate the life to be/not to be.

This “creator” narrative would entail women consciously code, design & specify the integrity molecules/ or genes of the baby: eye color, allergy, strengths, etc. Aka CREATING the child’s makeup with active work, like men do when they “create” cities, bridges, roads, etc.

---

Part 2# “Woman, the Incubator”

Simply germinating his seed with 50% of her DNA, is not creation of her power. For the seed “of life” still originated inside him, not her.

It is joint creation, duo, two:

• Again, the seed, something a man provided in the first place, is not her creating life, that is incubating said seed, her eggs providing a home for the sperm. So she’s a housing unit, a “genetic refuge”.
• Finally: The Woman is simply nurturing what’s already there. No different from a chicken sitting on an egg, incubation. Without the warmth, the baby doesn’t grow, it will freeze and die.

Women are incubators of life, not creators of life. I can see how that slogan would be so so flattering to one’s ego especially since men carry in most sections of society, and childbirth is the one thing men can’t do so women can in a way always claim it & then be called “creator of life”?

I get it. Makes us feel good, but it’s incorrect.

To make a city is a team effort.

• Johnny, & Billy starts a project.
• Johnny, & Billy worked on the project. Johnny provided half the means to complete it.
• Billy finished the construction project, Johnny twisted his ankle.
• Because Billy labored more than Johnny in the end, did Billy “CREATE” the end product as a whole or was the outcome a team effort in the first place?

---

Part 3# “Jealousy fallacy”

Men are no more jealous of that, than women are jealous of the fact that the majority of the:

Electronic privileges produced by majorly males, (including the vibrator) —— women & men enjoy advanced maintenance of advanced society that men die to maintain.

• Scientific advancements pioneered, invented that everyone enjoy (women contribute, mostly men carrying tho)
• First world securities & Protections that both men & women enjoy (women contribute, mostly men carrying tho)
• Less office comfy, dangerous jobs that even the most driven women don’t tread, not even as a dare: Are occupied by men (Women do not contribute equitably, men are carrying the team, dying doing it, but not called “creators” of anything. Why isn’t that a topic more often?)
• As a result, so are the occupational death tolls occupied by men, in fact, every death statistic tbh.

• The Malls built—— That Women, as i see it, enjoy on mass.

(Women work too, contribute) but again, majorly Men work, carry— the more hazardous fields in droves because somebody has to do it, but despite keeping the Country’s lights on, Sewage cleaned, Monoliths built & maintained year round:

The Men don’t hold it over women’s heads, and they are justified to do so. Men aren’t enabled by articles & academia to invent womansults anything & everything every other year to make life a living hell for half of the species, because peace is too boring a concept to entertain for the western world.

Success is an allergy to the privileged world that forgot what real collapse feels like.

SO—

the one thing that some women (not all, cause I’ve never heard any woman In my tribe use the expression, not to my recent memory) like to use as a bragging right, is something that they couldn’t do by themselves.

It’s ironic, it’s redundant, it’s inaccurate, it’s silly, but I get it — is the point.

🛡️Sidebar: Clarifying the reality of this check is not to diminish the very real physical tax women labor to carry & deliver little ones.

This is solely about dispelling a very western, a very privileged delusional self-importance a lot of women (as usual) are allowed to carry in their minds without challenge most of their lives. And this delusion only exists in her heads because it’s planted there by outlets, family members repeating talking-points and societal mouth pieces.

Meanwhile the actual creators are unacknowledged as blue collar NPC’s, the one’s that make your civilizational advanced experience even possible.♂️

So curb the pre-emptive defense mechanisms, this isn’t a declaration of war, it’s an overdue reality check. 🛡️

---

While some women (not enough) rightfully take pride in childbirth, delivering new life. Many women do so for the wrong reasons, and casually repeat this term “create”/”creator”/”creating”.

Which is nothing short of fascinating.

At the end of the day, it’s not a contest.

---

A kind replier in 2018 brought up a point that

“Last time I checked, the sperm needs to be met by an egg, which the woman produces on a monthly basis, before it can become a fetus. Sperm by itself cannot create human life. So, in the equation of sperm-egg-incubation, it’s 2/3 a female function, 1/3 male..”

Here’s the issue with ”2/3 vs 1/3“: Ratios

Inversely, logically, the egg needs to met by the sperm to be of any use just as sperm needs to be met by an egg to then ALLOW the woman to form a fetus, automatically btw, she’s not actively creating a fetus.

And thus with that clarification— Women & Men are too similar/parallel in reproductive function to pit against in yet another silly contest, because that seems to be westerners main diet: strife, competition, & contention.

It’s no wonder your sex relations are amazing & birthrates are through the roof ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The testicles are responsible for producing & recycling sperm when expelled. As are the ovaries produce & replace eggs during ovulation. Common theme is a “Cycle”:

• Production & recycling (Egg/Sperm) 1/3 (For men it’s manual, for women it’s automatic. Both are important to the baby making)
• The Sperm needs an egg to be of use, inversely The Egg needs sperm to be of use 2/3 (Both are important.) As I said, it’s inverse. Both are mechanically useless without the other.

The differentiating factors are as such:

1. The woman birthing the actual child (Final Phase, Omega)
2. But oddly enough the man expels sperm (potential person) in an eerie parallel fashion to birth, and if the first birthing process of the spermlings doesn’t happen, the process can’t begin for her or the would be child, thus she has no place in the process until she is activated. (First Phase, Alpha)
3. He is The Beginning, she is The End of the process, can’t have a pregnancy without a catalyst, can’t have a baby without carriage of seed.

And again, for the last time: if her urethral pathway do not receive the sperm in the first place, egg doesn’t receive sperm, the sperm are useless, and will expire. Eggs are filtered out on a monthly basis thus dying in their own right, useless, serving no purpose. (3/3)

• Point being: (Both are important) & not interchangeable but they are indeed parallel, scarily so.

For the function of joint creation of life. Joint. 2 makes 1+ and even if it was 2/3 to 1/3, is that supposed to be an unsubtle powerplay?

I repeat ,if men had this attitude regarding civilization itself, nothing would get done, it’s just ugliness and division mindset very common in privilege world that thinks it can afford to play gender war mongering every other day with people’s minds, it’s disgusting.

It’s not contest, because it’s literally not a contest.

You’re on the same team, make a mental note of that, instead of discarding that reality to make or fight battle that doesn’t exist.

2025 edit:

• the threshold of life
• Life giver
• deliverer of life
• carriage of life
• & very very generously: "Life bringer”

those are romanticized, respectful and accurate forms of address for mothers without giving them deification honorifics they don’t deserve that logically, biologically and very very literally makes no sense.

“ life givers", I particularly like that one and “threshold of life” is my #1, stumbled on that in a passing thought in 2023–24, the most accurate. The female genital pathway is traditionally the literal threshold unto life itself.

Some women do die giving birth almost as if giving up their life to deliver the baby.

• Even if she survives, so much of her energy is expended to transition the baby unto life, the mother in a way is giving life force in a sense (a romanticization, but it's simply an illustration, still makes more sense than "creation"),
• her nutrients were shared with the baby in similar fashion and through “microchimerism” the baby’s conception gives the mother legitimate buffs, like regeneration & some immunities. It’s some cool shit, ngl.

“Microchimerism is the two-way exchange of cells between the mother and the fetus (and back) during pregnancy. These fetal cells can persist in the mother's body for decades, lodging in organs like the heart, brain, and bone marrow.” - ♀️+👶🍼=💪

Which is why I used “ possible overcompensation ” lightly.

I chalk the expression in question to just social charity brownie points, because women on a microscopic level are pretty awesome, like comic book level shit.

Having a baby results in “microchimerism”, no, they don’t build cities but Women are plenty cool as is without needing out of proportion semantics or a new cultural self-help slogan to exaggerate what already is borderline science-fiction level abilities that somehow is not getting the highlight it probably should get in woman worship culture.

• So inflate an inaccuracy but overlook actual, factual cool feats of women’s physiology? Gynocentrism is weird lol.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7543167/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4989712/

TL;DR “Threshold of life” makes more accurate sense than the “creator of life” expression.

The original expression works as meaningless hyperbole romanticism to make women feel good about themselves in a biological ritual that in reality requires no active skill or qualification, just passive availability up to a fixed point.

So while the “creator” narrative is a strictly ‘socially understandable’, yet albeit obnoxious attempt at a compliment stemming from the unfair physical brutality of women’s role in the matter, unfortunately the delivery, implication, “credit” system is also nonsensical social coddling.

In antiquity, people were uneducated, passionately in awe of everything they couldn’t rationalize properly. Back then people could afford to be ignorant because they had no means to correct themselves, so I’m sure to them childbirth did seem like women were “creating” life in the womb all by themselves somehow, engineering every single detail, unconscious, like deities oblivious to their own power. To natives, cave people, impressionable people of simpler times, where everything exotic was worth religious reverence. I’m sure that childlike fetishism “creator of life” actually made sense to them once upon a time.

But today? Willful, Classic western societal gyno-ego stroking..

“Challenge norms, except the one’s that flatter my ego.”

It’s only when many people (ie. the title of the question) apparently take it very seriously or literal enough to form a worldview around it or use it in a sentence with a straight face, at minimum; Or at worst: let it go to your head? Then we’re beyond hyperbole, & then there’s a problem.

That then leaves the realms of non-existent jealously or possibly wanting men to be jealous for some reason (2/3 1/3 language, overcompensation / competition, us vs them language) and enters the domain of concern on part of what signals society is pushing in the first place, still pushing, why, and does it even know why to begin with. 🗿