"I don’t think they're trying to make strong female characters. I think they're trying to make emasculating female characters. Making them masculine and overpowered is the least subtle, most obnoxious way to do that. So of course they're gonna." -@jeffjones7108
Agreed, been said this.
The preconception is that these characters are made for women & girls but they're made in spite of women & girls. A true strong female character is not strong, she's well written & thus emulates strength on feminine terms, feminine traits (tomboy or girly) aren't "soft" they're more subtle, thus not weak, simply the other side of the coin to masculinity.
A true well written female character unifies both sexes, this is why Spider-Man, Batman, Superman aren't for men. They're for everyone.
Fact is, there's no good will in surrounding strong women with weak men and or the common theme of a strong modern woman is being a parody of a man.
One hand it's conspiracy to claim that it's on purpose, but what does it say that peoples definition of a strong woman is she exists in the vacuum of equally competent men, no challenge. What exactly is the conspiracy when it's this consistent & backhanded to women anyway that they're only strong when she has no competition?
You could just write a stable woman at default: that simply isn't girly, which is a tomboy and is completely valid & different from this "Strong woman" gag.
But they're not doing that are they? It's not about development, it's about message.
It's not about freedom or fluidity of roles, modern voices that hates patriarchy believes in roles 100% & love rigidity more than anyone; it just has to be on their terms aka "Modern Strong Woman Archetype", the new rigidity, matriarchal supremacy. That's the accepted rigidity.
The woman being the modern man at the expense of her own ability to be vulnerable, which leads to burnout, exhaustion, resentment etc. etc..
Elizabeth Comstock wasn't like this, Sarah Conner wasn't this, Katara wasn't this, Toph wasn't this, XJ9 wasn't this, Starfire & Raven weren't this, Kim Possible, Sandy Cheeks, Marlene Angel, Lois Lane, Cassandra Cain, Balsa Yonsa, Wonder Woman, Mira (PRIMAL) etc.
Decently written characters (girly & tomboy or a combination alike aka reality) aren't written to be parodies of men to be strong, thus not masculinized to dethrone a man or a boy's place in the story---- That is a very important point.
π¨Which is the 2nd function of the archetype after mocking women = rendering men irrelevant to the woman, thus he has no stake, dethroned. Thus she's independent, can protect herself, no one to depend on. Which is not healthy for women, even as an overtone because women need a rock to lean on, which is why "burnout" is not a married woman phenomenon, it's not a straight woman phenomenon.
Single women suffer burnout, and so do lesbians. This is a modernity situation.
Which is parallel to the disconnect of sowing resentment in women in realtime, it's all a operation communicate a divide that men are irrelevant to the modern woman. Women don't need men, men are the side characters, thus it's not equality but the ushering of a new supremacy.
If it was conspiracy bullshit, your birthrates would prove me wrong.
They can't because the op is working.
- If it was conspiracy bullshit? Why does this archetype tend to be surrounded by weak males likely to emphasize the illusion of her competence only in the presence of idiotic males specifically? Rarely are women cut down to put her on high.
- Men are the standard competence in the minds of these writers, so they have to lessened & shrunk so she can exceed them. Not work with them as an equal but tell them how wrong they are
Why is lessening of the male necessary to inflate her importance? That's literally the same shit Macrocreeps do in their fetish cult: And if thats the kind of abusive culture they're raised in, I 1000% see why they got infected with such a r#tarded fetish. It's literally a social virus cosplaying as a desire for female empowerment, when it's blatant misogyny.
It's a manifestation of the Modern Strong Woman Archetype of a Woman that's simply an out of control, miserable parody of a dysfunctional male- that has to loom, destroy & sow misery through violation and "HIERARCHY".
Because for women to be strong the men need to be handicapped, women need a crutch to compete or excel.
And the giant even violates & kills women and children too, sooooo where's the empowerment?
Spoiler alert: WOMEN DO NOT NEED A CRUTCH.
And Femininity for all of history-- didn't need to hijack masculinity to be a strength, humanity needs femininity to NOT be masculinity. That's why Femininity literally, quite painfully and beat for beat, by design-- IS NOT MASCULINITY.
Macrophilia is misogyny cosplaying as empowerment and so is the archetype & gynocentric "ally"/"empowerment" society that birthed it.
Katara is well written & a likable, reasonably relatable character (for everyone) for a reason despite how overbearing she is; she is flawed and an emotionally fortified powerhouse, a warrior.
She's written to be like an actual person because (again) she's held accountable when she's out of control by the boys and girls, and she isn't left behind in power scaling so the boys shine brighter (My Hero Academia):
- She doesn't emasculate the boys around her constantly so her agency isn't threatened (#Fragility). Katara is a realistic balance that reflects how a young woman is realized.
In contrast, even when the Strong independent woman archetype is a feminine character, they're the most overbearing, disrespectful, snarky, miserable person. (eg. All's Fair ) Always has the last say, never wrong, corrects men on everything, rarely in stable relationships, "woman-"plains constantly and just an all round horrible existence.
Who writes that, that consistently, from movies to tv to games and believes they're helping girls? Who does that? 
Not every woman has to be the same dainty or girly archetype either, fact is, a tomboy doesn't have to be synonymous with a "prick" to be feminine or taken seriously aka "strong", so if anything it's tomboy slander.
(I'm making an active effort to stop saying "strong female-" which is just a masculinized mantra. Propagandists are good at their jobs, but not that good. I'm frankly sick of it before I'm even old enough to be sick of this shit.)
Just like Avatar Aang isn't the most macho male character on Earth but he is an example of masculinity in a male youth that not only is uplifting, welcoming, but unifying just like Katara, Sokka & frankly all of the main protag cast in their respective situations/developments as boys & girls. Young men and young women.
The same especially goes for Teen Titans 2003 cast, I can't stress that enough.
If you think it's misogyny for a woman to be turned into a parody of a man, *imagine how insulting it is as a man to be told that certain traits is toxic masculinity (stoicism, conquest, domination, cutting people off, mistreatment, violation) only for it to be presented as virtues or overlooked only when a woman does it.
Thus it's not toxic masculinity, thus the concept is moronic, it's just dysfunctional human traits: a true mask off moment.*
ππ You've been gaslighted again.
Both sides get spat in the face, and that's sold to you as empowering.
The "Strong modern woman archetype" as an accepted concept is a reflection of the independent burnt out woman that's equally expected to emulate masculinized traits to compete & succeed in society.
Not emulate actual MASCULINITY (honor, building, responsibility, achievement for legacy) but masculinization at the cost of her natural birthright power as femininity, a parody.
Saying there's no difference between men and women is how this trend got it's foot in the door decades ago.ππ
If this is bullshit? Or just baseless conspiracy ? Then naturally your western loneliness rates, your birthrates, your sex relations would prove me 1000% wrong by not being in the toilet right now. Hell even Japan, South Korea, Germany, NORWAY & Denmark with their parental leave programs thus making efforts to solve this "economic" issue academia swears on God is a driving force for why birthrates are dropping but those same countries that address it are still tanking because the problem isn't economic, it's sociological; Progress & egalitarianism is inherently flawed and economics & womens education, misogyny are all red herrings to avoid admitting we made a mistake in trying to turn women in parodies of men,
Feminism, Media, Academia, Western hubris, progress-- somewhere along the way: Made a serious mistake. And the "strong woman" , the "giantess" are an easy mascot to point at and say ...."that's not feminism", "that's not female empowerment" that's a symptom of something gone horrifically wrong.
The numbers can't prove me wrong, because consequence requires action. I can't invent the decline of first world society, because where it is now was 100% earned.
That's the crux of my point. It's not conspiracy when the statistics don't show success because masculinity got redefined and challenged until men became a question mark instead of a constant. And in dismantling the male, the female was set up to be the new modern man of the future, with no one to share that future with.
The archetype isn't causing the decline, it's a symptom of it; and the numbers reflect the symptom, the disconnect, because it is a consequence of it.
¯\_(γ)_/¯ I want to be wrong, trust me. But it ain't that simple, it's a way bigger than just some characters.
This is sociological engineering people, propaganda is not a myth, it is a very real art, very effective science that goes way beyond just your Presidential Elections. This is why I always bring it up at the most random times, because so much of it is bled into everything you digest into yourselves.
Those poorly written mascots represent the modern woman that the current progressive zeitgeists accepted rigid norm of what a woman is or what they want them to be.
But it doesn't reflect reality entirely, but just enough to reflect the decline. Just enough for women themselves to ask "What the hell happened?"
That's why it's not men vs women, that's why I don't buy this "gender war" bullshit. It's a business, not a conflict.
Its really both sexes responsibility to check this, but men can't do it alone forever, they just look disgruntled and will be dismissed & dehumanized via labels as usual.
Thus a feminine perspective is needed because women are the targeted consumers, thus have slightly more weight in the ring in this situation, women 100% have a stake in this conversation.
Males are not the direct target of this propaganda; but men's frustration is a calculated predictability to justify making more of it. Women have been stepping up in the past few years calling it outπ Good.
[I'm Really Tired of All Men in Movies Being Failures, Actually:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1v93ZbeDGk ]
A united front is exactly what they (conglomerates, writers, powers, studio heads, propagandists, puppetmasters, trolls with capital) don't want (hence the constant emasculation of men & masculinization of women), a united front is something you don't see enough in your media involving these archetypes; so a united front is exactly what needs to happen here against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment