Comics Matter Zack, Richard C. Meyer and The Grift-Vengers: poorly explained

 

"they got it backwards.

Zack actually moved on, and he's not wrong that the Grift-vengers are suspended comfortably in 2018-2020 but his own reasoning ability did indeed get worse and his ex-wife hate boner makes his coverage of said "birthday party clowns" (ook?) perpetually suspended just like them.

Difference is their content has better production value & they have & show receipts; they are drama kings yes, but they're not lying about the industry as a complex.

⛔Their problem is they often  Project that reality on mediocre projects that in fact doesnt fit their narrative. Thats where they get it wrong.

⚠️But Our Boi zack? He moved on, but he didnt evolve.  And the reality of the industry didn't just disappear because Zack chooses not to see it or doesn't realize it or chooses to ignore it because he prefers things to be better than they are. Zack will actually still criticize things from the media but if certain people do the exact same thing he does, then its a problem.

Anyone who speaks the contrary is the enemy; If you're the wrong Messenger, You're the enemy.👈

*4 times out of 20, Zacks criticism has applicable weight beyond "dur, you're old (said zack, the spry 19yr old male)"*

(ex. Nerdrotics pearl clutch tweet over Karen and Matt screenshot, which in reality was a hallway walking shot that barely lasted 3 -5 seconds, that was a valid criticism on zacks part)

majority of the time its bro confusing obsession with  accountability.  clownish. Even worse, Lolcow-ish on his part.

Comics Drama Matters era.🌭

_For the grifters: almost everything new is a threat to be wary of,  And if you do happen to catch yourself excited for something, You have to have just enough cyncism & "maybes" to keep anyone from unsubbing_ (just ignore the fact that they On occasion do report things that they like & the subs resonate with it)

And for Zack, everything the grifters report as bad is actually good in La La Land even if it's dog shit and he himself likely wont watch it 3 months from now, a year, if ever again.

🎉If the industry complex says so, then we "enjoy" it & forget about it or dont like it, but its ok when Zack doesnt like something.

🎉If the griftvengers or the wrong ppl says its bad or mid, then we rebel and say its secretly good (self tell) or just a childrens movie ( Not an argument) or they're just old and will die anyway (get therapy). And when they praise something, we simply ignore that, conveniently. Or? Turn even that into a problem.

Very simple formula, bros channel is a dated time capsule in itself.

same insults, same talking points, stuck. what year? current, moving, no evolution, stuck anyway.

so that guy had it backwards but they are not wrong entirely.  And while it is unfortunate, it's definitely not not entertaining. 

Just remember & take with a grain of salt, that toxic positivity is more potent, because you don't need to blame it on anything, nor need an argument nor a reason, its far easier to bliss and consume. But be wary of extremes on either side of the binary.

 There's no good or bad guys, you either have an argument or you don't.

/re "Strong Female Characters Are Just Toxic Men" | I've long said this

"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 just "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?

And the majority of men in her orbit are weak, so you're signalling to men that not only to be with a strong woman means you must be weak (the "step on me mommy/boytoy/bottom male" aka License to be a burden generation of manchildren that women can't rely on) or the opposite & more likely reaction: Males see a realized woman as a threat.

How else are they supposed to see it when the trope is just as weaponized in fiction as women's dominating talking points are used as a blunt instrument against men in real time.

It leaves the realm of entertainment & enters "tangible message"/ zeitgeist/ culture after the 6th time it's in a movie. 

 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, the egalitarian aka women do what they want and men stay in their place we tell them to remain in.  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 2003 wasn't like this
• Raven 2003 weren't this
• Kim Possible wasn't this
• Sandy Cheeks never had to be this & she's a damn squirrel
•  Marlene Angel, Lois Lane, Cassandra Cain, Balsa Yonsa, Wonder Woman, Mira (Tartakovsky's PRIMAL), Numbuh 3, Numbuh 5, Sally The Car for fuck sake was a strong woman archetype, a Lawyer. etc. etc.

Sally 100% worked because she was allowed to retain femininity while challenging Mcqueen's ego constantly (strength) WITHOUT being a ballbusting mouth piece. She was on the receiving end of  embarrassment which humanized her too. That is soooooooo important, these strong women archetypes are never on the receiving end of mockery or deprecation in the narrative or contradiction or held accountable--- so they're NEVER HUMANIZED. 

So what it boils down to is: "what exactly are trying to say to us? Dear writers, dear Hellywood, dear academia, dear dear, sweet & rotten current state of feminism."

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, because that's what this is really about, second to abolishing women's vulnerability to paint an illusion of strength (but if men do that, that's "toxic").

🚨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 inflated  situation.

Which is parallel to the disconnect of sowing resentment in women in realtime, it's all a operation to 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.

Because notice how how something "male-dominated" needs to be addressed but women being ahead isn't a problem. It's not about equality, it's about replacement, that's also what the strong woman archetype is representative for, that's why she has to be surrounded by weak men.

That's why each generation of male has less testosterone than the last, that's why how men express themselves have to be like women, that's why boys have to sit still like girls; that's why masculinity has to be redefined & challenged until you don't have men anymore, that's why modernity is failing sex relations because egalitarianism (by herself) doesn't work. That's why the strong woman is surrounded by the weak man, that's the creation of modernity, academia & feminism.

I'm not making it about men, this is all part of the picture, you have to look at it 3-Dimensionally, it's just about men, it's just about women. Can't paint half a picture but have a full conversation, it will never happen.

TL;DR That dynamic is the future. It wasn't evolution, it was a design, a rigid norm, a supremacist ideology. Patriarchy (& all it's flaws) still built a nation--

Tell me, in just 30-50 years, what is exactly is any of this "progress" doing?

This is why the people complaining about patriarchy are full of shit. The strong woman archetype is a parody of an obnoxious patriarch & the weak male is the neo-woman. Because notice how one hand it's "equity" this and "equality" that but in this case there has to be someone in charge, and there has to be someone subordinate. That's not equity, that's hierarchy. Hypocrisy.

If it was conspiracy bullshit, your birthrates would prove me wrong.

 They can't because the Operation is working. 

• If it was conspiracy bullshit? I repeat 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, cooperate, uplift, but empowerment is reserved only for her and women--- just like it is in political reality. The men must be corrected, educated and told 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  misandry first, then misogyny, and eventually a death cult of misanthropy worship.

 It's a manifestation of the Modern Strong Woman Archetype: 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" ( a patriarchal, masculine dominant concept).

Because for women to be strong the men need to be handicapped, & lessened women need a crutch to compete or excel. Because according to Macrophiles & modern allies, women are that pathetic they have to dwarf society itself because otherwise she can't make the cut.

And the giant even violates & kills women and children too, sooooo where's the empowerment?

But yeah, keep preaching how Giantess is actually about Feminism & Empowerment (I shit you not, real people with state ID's have said / & tried to argue this. What happened to us.)

All of that lore that you're living in without a care in the world: all ties into this one archetype, this one attitude.

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.* 

👁👁 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.👈👈 

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.  

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 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 out👍 Good.

👍 But YOU need more women speaking up in order to make the industry sweat and hold the norm accountable. At minimum, represent that sane women are no longer a silent majority. 

[I'm Really Tired of All Men in Movies Being Failures, Actually:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1v93ZbeDGk ]

 

A united front is exactly what they (conglomerates, writers, powers, studio heads, propagandists, puppetmasters, trolls with capital) don't want (hence the constant emasculation of men & masculinization of women), a united front is something you don't see enough in your media involving these archetypes; so a united front is exactly what needs to happen here against it. 

"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.

Transformers One has a Very Cringe Girlboss in it... (Response)

 

"Transformers One has a Very Cringe Girlboss in it...

She checks off all the boxes, including hitting male protags, being better than them and humiliating them in general.

Yes, it's Elita-1, the pink Transformer in the main Team of Protagonists."

Please, tell me, why do so many "men" enjoy these type of characters? Because this trope has started happening more than a Decade ago."

Waaaay more than a decade ago (But props to them for noticing it at all), the moments by itself it can be ignored (in context, she's obnoxious but that's just their dynamic, despite the fact that she comes off as abusive), but this isn't just a one or two time gag In some stupid kids movie I'll never watch again, the issue is it's more than what she says, it's the writing, the overtone & the fact that she says it without challenge or resistance from the people she's talking to, she gets to say it and she walks away with it as if in the right, it's not organic at all, ZERO chemistry between the characters. Very forced, telegraphed, mean, toxic even. But it's okay because the petite little female robot being a jackoff & domineering is supposed to be funny or bold. This is an overarching culture skill issue that's been beaten into people from shows, music, games, movies, comics, everyday life, politics, News etc. slowly and thoroughly. Much deeper lore. And It's not Girlboss (which is just another Infantilization of girls campaign slogan like #Girlpower-- cause notice how men don't need all these nickname slogans to get shit done, society infantilizes women and gives it a catchy zinger to make it look cute and people repeat it like NPCs), it's just bad writing that's very dated to this specific era of cultural incompetence that seems hellbent on enmity and division. # Most men don't enjoy it, they tolerate it because they can't do anything about it. The REAL target is the children, adults have defenses against some propaganda to reject it, children have absolutely zero defenses, they don't know what they're looking at and will internalize it. She even says Orion himself was incompetent at some point and yet again no one challenges her, Orion doesn't even give her a nasty look or anything and at NO point in the movie is her short comings put on display repeatedly so she gets humbled. *She's safe from criticism but she's running her mouth on all cylinders when it comes to the guys.* Orion even takes a shell for her at one point, and my immediate question was: "Why? How are they even friends, are they friends? We see why D16 & Oriion are friends but we never got to see why in Primus' name does Orion even talk to Elita that casually at all." If she became a Prime she'd be the most powerful being in the TF-multiverse no question, just more power stacked on what is otherwise perfection. This is the problem with modern writing, some think female characters with bad attitudes & smart mouths is progressive, bold, strong or quirky and it's just annoying. Because no one would want to be friends with someone like that. (ex. Bakugou) It's very awkward. And the "I'm better than you in every way" gag screamed contrivance. I did NOT see that coming, and I'm not sure why I was surprised given how she treated Orion the entire movie. Zero respect even after he becomes a Prime, no apology, nothing but suggests to be ranked as a Commander after he offers for her to be a Major- I've never seen anything like it. The ego. Just a vain, horrible character. Can't stand her. I like Airachnid, but I can't stand Elita. Every franchise gets infiltrated with this eventually, every single one, the times deem women being unlikable scabs is what a woman should be. Because notice the universal trait of this archtype is ego, but these same women will check a male characters ego while overlooking their own. It's just suffocating how transparent this propaganda is. # Toph & Katara didn't have to tell us anything. They demonstrated it, they proved it, they were flawed, jerks at times, they learned lessons. They weren't better or perfect or just tolerating the flawed antics of the boys, they were grounded & strong as shit in their own class. And they got called out when they were out of line, that si why those girls STILL hold up, they were written as humans, not deified paragons of goodness & all that is right. Which is way better than telling us they're the shit. Men are the enemy or the incompetence, the weakness, or for the women to be empowered the men have to be removed for her to propped up on high. In what timeline would a genuine patriarchy ever allow that kind of disrespect or double standard for so long so OFTEN that it's become the predominant culture to where other countries expect that from you & laugh at it, or emulate it themselves then surprise surprise they're also in decline. Coincidence i'm sure. Matriarchy cosplaying as a patriarhcy. Men, the same people that build the cities, the same people that are supposed to want to deal with women at all to keep birthrates up. Those are the people society wants to antagonize and piss off constantly. That's smart. I can't see that going south ever. **women in actuality are not asking for this, thats the actual tragedy,** women don't sit their basements making up scrabble words like "Mansplain" which only serves to divide & antagonize, making up new words to push men away-- this stuff trickles from up top downward to trend and infect the masses. That's how it works, usually. Movies are just an easier way to do it, because sometimes the trickle effect doesn't always stick. Point being, Elita's attitude is indicative of the times. The industry is providing these narratives & terms on behalf of women, but not for women benefit, hence why in many ways despite the west being so gynocentric, women are still struggling & not exactly in paradise. # Not because of 5 seconds of dialog in one movie, but the cultural attitude behind it, where that energy is coming from, hence how consistent this attitude & overtone has been for decades **When in reality, when men are weak, that hurts women anyway. When women are weak, that holds men back. You can't neglect & abuse one side and expect success for the whole. That's now how that works. That socio-math is way off.** # Which is also part of the punchline of this trope propaganda; Nobody wins. Pure social conditioning, it's disgusting, And so subtle, such a minute part of the film yet it sticks out like a splinter because it's so unnatural. just like this fabled gender war/sex war people think exists. Shackles & contrived nonsense. And again, this isn't injected in just one movie, if it was, this wouldn't be worth a thread or addressing at all. This is a cultural infection. And it won't stop. It's why characters, narratives like this will never stop or go away. The people that own everything you see, won't stop. It's sad. But not hopeless, just watch Transformers Prime and other media that's older & aged better, media you can trust to have their shit together. TF-ONE definitely looked nice, nice gags here & there, I did NOT like the voice acting choices (Alpha Trion's VA was perfect), just a star power marketing gimmick. But it looked nice, and that Prime vs Megatron 1v1 was fire. I'll give it that, it was at it's best when it focused on Orion & "D", thought it read like D's turn was set up fine but his sudden turn to being hostile to Orion felt too rushed, they should've let that cook a little more. Otherwise The Cybertron games still has the better story, Voice acting, & better writing. (Though they could've used more Arcee)

FLOP ERA- YouTubers Sacrifice FURIOSA As Collateral Damage In Their Endl...

Correct, it's not a war because the masses couldn't fight the takeover if they tried (and the takeover exists, it's just beyond something as petty as movies)

Point being, the powers that be that control the narrative that drive the disconnect between the sexes technically already won because the damage has been done since the 70s (hence the birthrates) and the changes that actually matter happen in policy and political office, The Houses. (immigrant crisis in America for example)

Pop culture is simply a minor vehicle to keep people distracted from that fact or? Show the people what's going to happen eventually whether or not they catch the warning and or?

Sometimes? A movie is just a movie. And so these grown men that constantly perpetuate this division and resisting anything female led are ultimately just playing into the plan, exacerbating the disconnect. Creating loyal hatemongers, cult members that instinctively cringe at a woman leading too much of anything when they'd simp for it if was an anime instead (The industry of objectification), and there's a good couple of good anime that are indeed similar to Furiosa (Now and Then, Here and There or Desert Punk or Berserk/* for example)

Just Playing into the agenda that they claim to be aware of, and yet are part of the problem. What's really going on is that these guys fed their audience a narrative of a film that probably wasn't that good (Captain Marvel), kept doing it because it got views and now conditioned them & themselves to digest only that. And so that's where their bread comes from, it's no different from the Progressive, they are simply feeding the followers a consensus

Anime Community #21f: What happens when you don't want to gatekeep

What reaction did you expect when Anime becomes mainstream?

The good shit and bad shit becomes more blatant. Duh.

Japan raised the age of consent after 100yrs in 2023 because of rising assault charges against women & children in the past 30 years is out of control.

 
Hm GEE I wonder why??! Can't crack this mystery. Just can't put my finger on what the primary, overarching cultural influence could be to enable unstable ppl to act out what they might be consuming through media over and over and over again & encouraged that depravity is a positive quirk.

 

It could be a mega- industry hyper-sexualizing and dehumanizing women and children as young as 11 yrs & under? No no no it couldn't be that.

Just can't figure it out, the world may never know.

Hold up.

So you mean to tell me that content written & authored by an amoral bottom-feeder then adapted by soulless sponsors, animated by drones and consumed by teenagers and legit PhDs in the making is NOT okay ?   

 Almost as if everything was gucchi because anime fans in an echo chamber say the same thing, question nothing and consume everything handed to them. 

 NOW let's gatekeep because our weird niche is being rightfully torn a new asshole.

 Jokes aside, Genre exists for a reason. If you don't like it, go to another genre. But it's literal children being presented in a hyper-inappropriate content, yeah? 

It really shouldn't be there, because let's be frank here: When that kind of content is that rampant for any predators to consume at any time, don't wonder why Japan's women & children are suffering a sexual assault influx. 

 Don't wonder why, even for a second. Actions have consequences. Corruption eventually catches up to you, individual or society.

This isn’t the West clutching their pearls again. This is about human decency.

This shift in the medium should’ve happened YEARS ago. 

The WORST case scenario is people see that kind of crap and say “meh, it’s fine”

THE WORST case scenario is apathy. Thankfully society isn’t that far gone yet, YET. Even that’s going to be worn down, give it another 20 yrs.