Robert Rodriguez - The Lava Girl (the subtext of lavagirl)

Having watched this recently this year after almost a decade. Now that i think about it, the whole "girl's arc is realizing her potential aka she's special" trope is usually trash but Lavagirls realization tied damn near directly into Max's own sense of self & lack thereof.

So unlike Sharkboy who possibly represented the kid Max wanted to be, unapologetic, oozing with confidence, badass, overqualified.

Lavagirl was the avatar of his own self-esteem, an inner powerhouse making a comeback.

Over the course of the movie, him affirming his own confidence through the adventure & remembering what Lavagirl actually is to Planet Drool- really gives a more meaningful context to the whole thing beyond just "her realizing" she's special.

Which is where A LOT of movies with this "empowerment" fetish, lose the plot.

And because she laid down her life to save her bff, so not only it made sense in narrative but it was earned. This campy af, low budget movie had no business having that kind of heart.

The movie is hammy, it's writing is garbage but it had well intentioned subtext to learn from thats still relevant in adulthood, and in some ways, it has more relevant messages for one as an adult.


"Lavagirl: Max! I am light. Thank you.

Max: You were always that. It had nothing to do with me.

Lavagirl: But now I know. So thank you."


Homie Max even after becoming a dream god, still so humble. Love that exchange.

Why Thanos (IW) works and All For One doesn’t *2025

 

Thanos works better than All For One because simply: Thanos had a code, he had restraint.

Why does this matter? Because people surviving him made sense, he’s easily older than All For One, more genocidal, but he is not as psychotic as All For One is, AFO was cartoonishly evil.

A mature villain with a code, one who “respects” his enemies’ resistance, and even when agitated & or loses his temper, he still doesn’t go out of his way to murk someone unprovoked and the movie began with him killing & torturing people, yet in his own bizarre way, it was for a reason.

example: he won’t sadistically kill someone unless personally slighted or disrespected. Especially someone who’s failed him multiple times. (Loki)

That comet shower could’ve killed someone, so could that black hole he yeeted at Strange. The IW cast had plot armor too, yet when he had them at his mercy after the adrenaline died down, he was leveled out. He stayed his hand.

They got to live because he allowed it.

AFO? Was blue-balled, there’s a difference between allowance & mercy and being thwarted, cockblocked by NPC’s that’s not in the same league.

AFO shows no mercy, it’s not even in his character to do so, that’s why it doesn’t work.

AFO reminded me of a demonic Vampire Count for the longest time, that’s how eerie he is and you’re telling me he failed to kill Jiro of all people? Lmfao.

Thanos’ sparing those he knows isn’t a threat on Earth, even him choosing to leave Titan vs ending Quill after getting the time stone, he chose to leave even though Quill shot him and pistol whipped him in the goddamn face before.

Peter’s fire & willingness to oblige Gamora’s request back on Knowhere, Thanos verabally said “I like him”, and let that man live, likely on that fact and the fact that they both cared for Gamora. It makes sense.

That is why Infinity War isn’t ruined by as many contrivances like My Hero Academia final arc’s plot armor fest. (tho it has plenty of it’s own)

I shit you not- All For One had a chic in his grasp, to take her quirk and just crush her throat afterwards:

But because there were like a bunch of heroes (aka Gov. Military Police) watching, he had witnesses there to scare the shit out of, killing her would’ve been an easy vehicle to amp up the stakes.

Like Madara did in that desert fight scene with him vs the ninja alliance.

She wasn’t a 1A student, just some random nobody but even SHE was coddled by Horikoshi. Immediately saved by Hawks.

KH refused to let AFO cook, every step of the way. Even the meaningless randoms had the protective hand of God hovering over them.

why even make AFO that strong and that evil if he can’t prove that shit in practice beside just being an asshole with the CrAAA_aaazy evil faces he makes.

Jiro, Tokoyami, Hawks, survives AFO, (Endeavor surviving makes sense, he’s a beast but even then, all he is is a pyrokinetic, that’s not in the same league as AFO realistically) and even random NPC’s are surviving this guy. (the gif with the hero chic is from Season 7 e12)

Nick Jr. level writing and that’s an insult to Nick, because all I know is one of Avatar The Last Airbender’s most significant plot threads was a goddamn ethnic-cleansing to prevent the coming of their world’s iteration of a god, a genocide.

As the years go by, and people get the Horkoshi-”sensei” boner out their mouths & magically figure out that My Hero was ALWAYS garbage after crying “hater hater” or “I have faith in horikoshi sensei” for 10 years —

Don’t forget how it all started:

It was a silly ass, fun, contrivance driven, goofy story about how a kid with no quirk actually had the best quirk: “Luck”

Bro was so blessed, Jesus asked for Izuku’s luck stat to be nerfed.

Meaningless school festivals, exams, training camps, field trips, with the occasional edgy villains but then back to our regular broadcasted “ACADEMIA” that’s how it started.

If it stayed kiddy & stupid (minus the pedo bait treatment of the girls) I wouldn’t be on MHA’s ass this much, or as much.

Waaaaaay more than luck Jiro. You little snot.

So why — WHY even turn MHA into a serious tone narrative, a gritty type of show, add more characters, making more work for yourself.

A story that shows blood but rarely spills it (unless it’s a randoms randoms random like “Native” or a scumbag like Midnight who never should’ve existed because her death meant less than nothing) but you have beings that can level cities. Why go there, when you can’t deliver on that tone.

Horikoshi wanted the escalation of a seinen while adhering to the goofy writing of a 1 week old saturday morning cartoon.

Thanos was holding back and still won —

while BRO AFO was in his prime via rewind

& still couldn’t get those people out his face. He knew his time limit, he didn’t have the crutch Thanos had (the gauntlet) AFO was the damn gauntlet and still didn’t cook, not even with Yagi, couldn’t even kill an oldass, handicapped, quirkless that he has a personal hatred for.

Fail fail fail fail fail. THIS IS our final boss?!

He just didn’t fly over the clouds to get to Shigaraki, just allowed himself to get bullied. Lmfao.

Blasts a damn mountain buster cannon at Tokoyami & Jiro and all they walk away with is some bruises & a lost ear lobe. Not even severe burns, but an ear lobe is gone.

As much as I love the meme of it looking back on it year after year, it’s still —

Unbelievable how hoe’d All For One was.

And after that brilliant buildup from Season 1–3, the shadows, the menace, the pulled strings, his authority, and this is how he’s treated in the end.

I’m not saying Endgame was any better, most of Endgame was also trash in contrivances but Horikoshi had the reigns here, he had a time deadline, yes — but he & only he chose to do that to old boy after all that good buildup.

Cause remember even Movie 1 ‘Two Heroes’ hyped up All For One possessing that Temu Magneto, literally possessing him like a ghost.

The movie was gassing up this dude’s appearance in Season 3, thats the rep he had.

And that’s how he went out. Twice. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I ain’t saying give him a happy end or a respectable one but if was gonna be that evil & cook a scheme that delicious, let my man’s finish his plate, all I’m sayin.

Otherwise Endgame Thanos lacks for the exact same reasons AFO does.

Trump & J.D. Vance Just Nuked the Conservative Civil War | Episode 95

americans are way too feminized, & by extension making "feminization" a bad thing when it shouldn't, by allowing it to escalate to daily pearl clutching and emotional outrage, & offense every 2 seconds..

all of this would be prevented if they just told people "No" more often. liberalism is a karens ideology, very very hysterical, well intentioned, self-obsessed, self-righteous and emotionally charged belief system that can get out of control & lose it's original good intentioned purpose. And destroy more than it creates.

Chronicle (2012) Movie Reaction Mashup

the source of healing & resolve is usually the source of the pain itself. And the source of that vitriol for him, was his father. Therapy could've possibly helped the boy see past his father, but what Andrew needed beyond an appointment, was hope & a better father, or a supplant father figure, a mentor, simple as that.

No one needs to sit in a chair, & pay me in order for me to tell them that, common sense stuff.

Therapy is a business, not a charity.

The go to isn't therapy 24/7, it's purpose, it's hope. Something you achieve on your own time.

Andrew needed hope, emotionally available hope.

So much of what we blow out of proportion in our minds can be fixed with our own will, you just need people around you with wisdom. And if you lack that network, then therapy is the way.

But just running to therapy skips the natural resolution process which is two simple things: Purpose & hope = something to live for.

Andrew just had bad luck & bad judgement.

"Mankeeping Is Why Women Are Done With Dating?" * The Hypocrisy of women complaining about lack of reciprocity

“”According to Pew Research, only 38 percent of single women in the US are currently looking for a relationship. Among single men, that number jumps to 61 percent. The gap says a lot. Women aren’t opting out of love. They’re opting out of being someone’s therapist with benefits.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/mankeeping-is-why-women-are-done-with-dating/

Vice magazine asserts that 62% of single woman are opting out of dating because: they don’t want to be a male’s “therapist with benefits”.

Maybe I’m suffering from willful male blindness, but IMO, Vice’s assertion is highly unlikely.

Your thoughts?”

No blindness, the topic has validity & a hypocrisy.

🛡️There’s a double caveat to this that we miss: It’s no doubt many people in general are emotional vampires, & there’s no question that men aren’t reciprocating the support they receive specifically at the same rate, not that they don’t support women social/emotionally/physically at all, but not the exact same frequency, that is 100% true.

Why? because men aren’t as cognizant of emotional laboring as much as women are with the same intensity that women do.

That’s not on men, that’s just women’s wiring; but for men, however, one can be mindful to be more supportive. It not being a conscious concern is no excuse to be inconsiderate.


But the caveat to making this a national discussion (as if it’s not disgusting to consider caring for your children or giving a damn about your partner is now labeled “unpaid labor”, which is beyond alien and unacceptable)-

if you’ve had mothers or sisters or female friends at minimum, on top of partners, you’ll know that women cost every labor there is for men (including their monthly hormonal imbalances that you are expected to display understanding & patience with) and they do not always give that respect back either at the same volume, if at all. You can spend thousands on a woman, grand gestures & get none of that reciprocated. Buying women drinks most times isn’t reciprocated.

Soooo where’s “Womankeeping”? Is it woman+keeping? Or is it just giving a shit about the woman you are with?

Is it man+keeping? Or is it just giving a shit about the man, and the agenda this year is making being a partner a matter of burden & unpaid labor- as if the Federal Gov. should be paying women to do something as simple as care about other people or raise their own damn children.

Western Women are being groomed to be incompatible with stable human connection.

So women complaining about reciprocation is both understandable here, but \*ironic in grand scheme because one-sided deals once upon a time was just called

-

“the dating game”

and no one questioned that because women benefited.\* Point being: *It’s only a topic now because women are complaining or being signaled to complain about a disparity. So this isn’t about reciprocation solely or fairness, this is about women’s lack of gain & because women are the disgruntled, & due to that fact, only now does society give a damn.*

A relationship in modernity basically means “Her comfort & convenience”

🛡️ **The second caveat point is: Lesbian **women tend to perform more social/emotional labor than men regardless of relationship type**.

So what have we learned? Many Men don’t reciprocate, because women (gay or straight) do too much no matter who they love with. TL;DR men aren’t the problem here, actually-- because no matter who she dates, gay women tend to give more equitable emotional contribution, yet still give emotional labor inequivalently because that’s their socialization and instinct. Even two women can’t pace the other at exactly the same or “equal” volume. *Stop whipping men for not thinking like women, when lesbians go through the same exact challenges, with no man to blame.*

🛡️Thirdly, a lot of it has to do with personality, and the people you attract. I know a lot of emotionally available men, too much so tbh. And I emotionally/socially labor for almost everyone I know but I wouldn’t call it a “burden” just because they’re not doing the same for me at the exact same frequency. That’s dumb and petty.

Why? Cause how am I going to incriminate someone for not doing what I chose to do? AT THE SAME FREQUENCY? Not that they’re not doing it 0% which is neglect and abandonment but they’re not doing it at a volume I deem acceptable per what I chose to do.

**the common thread is moderating how much we give.**

(which is why some women opting out is a good thing, let the weak-links leave, let part of the problem remove itself. Let them be happy alone & free.)

\# Now to be fair, the common context is lack of “reciprocity” of being a one-man emotional support system, not the labor itself (allegedly), so let’s not misrepresent the case the they’re making

* However it is also true that American Women want their needs met at the exact same time, AND THEN DON’T RECIPROCATE what they do get from men, especially financially, psychologically, time labor, & physically. etc. So why are we sitting here pretending women have a moral high ground on **RECIPROCATING** of all concepts when getting something for nothing is damn near iconic for most western privileged women. 👁️👄👁️

Burnout is not exclusive to women in relationships, why do we think men have Mancaves in the first place? To get a break from social/emotional laboring for the woman. Where have you been the past 65 years? Always a victim narrative when outlets hijack the talking point, I don’t know how American men put up with it. Or how Society accepts this narrative that taking care of your own child is considered “unpaid labor”?

That’s not at all disrespectful, to any of us? Why doesn’t anyone ever challenge this crap? Just because they have credentials, doesn’t mean experts don’t have moments of ignorance.

If i’m not acknowledged or given a trophy for being a basic level decent human being, and or I’m not getting paid for it-- What the fuck kind of attitude is that?

Women are being set on a path to be the worst society has to offer.

Why do I say that? Think about it, for a while, I genuinely believed American males were the total issue and they just couldn’t handle American women but then I realized---

* Many foreign men of education & quality pass on American ladies too, hard pass. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Who wants to procreate with someone who’d think raising an innocent baby, not someone else’s baby, THEIR own child: was an unpaid gig? that’s disrespectful, and the very notion should be criticized.

Caring for your future is something you have to be acknowledged for. That’s the mentality of a teenager, not a woman, not a mate, that’s a liability. That’s signaling a conflict with evolutionary advantages.

(and it’s not even American women’s fault, their venomous culture grooms that into them. It’s making them incompatible with human connection. Giving a shit about anything or anyone, & it’s not given back *because how tf is a baby going to reciprocate caregiving? thats how stupid this is*, all of which is now a labor, or so women have been told to think. That is why American/Western women are undesirable, it has nothing to do with your education, and everything to do with the lack of maturity, respect, and that disgusting egotistical attitude.) You can’t just bring up reciprocity but not consider for a second what you haven’t given back the entire time. The fact that men have ALWAYS been emotional sponges & dump sites for Women’s trauma.

Especially as a woman in a first world country. Not second, FIRST world.

🛑 Side-bar:

“What women want isn’t complicated. They want shared effort. Mutual support. Emotional responsibility that doesn’t get passed off like a group project. When that doesn’t happen, they’re choosing solitude over stress. And they’re not apologizing for it.

Some women are called bitter for stepping back from dating. Others are labeled cold. What they’re really doing is protecting their capacity. The choice to stay single rarely comes from defeat. It comes from knowing exactly how much energy they have left to give. Until that imbalance shifts, more women will keep walking away. Being alone is easier than managing someone else’s emotional life. “

You don’t apologize because a lot of us think one’s will is above challenge, when do American women ever apologize or humble themselves to be part of the solution? Vs exacerbating the problem that exists to make it men’s project to solve.

Despite what we give (as stated as a caveat), we want simple things in return that we’re not giving back via what he’s doing at the same time, so it’s shared effort but on women’s terms, not what’s fair.

We want returns on our givings, but not considering what we give back by what he does. So what you want isn’t complicated, your attitude, & lack of self-awareness complicates what you say you want.

Because once upon a time men opening up was something you claimed you wanted, or you were told to want that, even the VICE article claims:

“Some men have started opening up more, which is good. But too often, that openness lands in the lap of the person they’re sleeping with instead of a friend or a therapist. Vulnerability without boundaries can feel more like a burden than a breakthrough.”

TL;DR you got what you wanted or what feminism/society/ whatever article told you what you should want- you got it, now it’s a burden.

Maybe stop listening to articles telling you what to think. This is why you should take outlets with a grain of salt, stop being told what you should want, stop listening to agents telling you you’re never the problem.

Beyond this topic, this is why you’re in this situation nationally, listening to these outlets.

Which aligns with opinions like this:

“Newsflash. Plenty of women DO NOT complain about men not opening up and being emotionally available. There is a vast lot of women like myself who want nothing more than for our men to SHUT THE HELL UP about their feelings and be adults. We want husbands to be our partners not children of larger growth that we have to raise.”

So stoicism or men opening up when they were ready / not crying into women’s bosoms every other hour wasn’t a problem? Hm. Funny how that works.

So, as usual, women were told what to want by progressive outlets or spoken for on their behalf by articles & outlets like vice (with good intentions, mind you), as to what women should want-- and usual, women, ever so independent of men but so obedient to their societal masters, questioned nothing and just ran with it.

Now you’re in this situation because of the exact same reason.

STOP LISTENING TO THESE OUTLETS WITHOUT YOUR OWN DISCRETION, STOP SACRIFICING YOUR AGENCY TO BE TOLD WHAT TO THINK ABOUT HALF THE COUNTRY. Because if men did that to you (& the Red Pill scene did plenty of this) you’d call it misogyny.

Listen to the facts, not the propaganda, make up your own damn minds.

And if it’s validating your experience? Don’t omit it, don’t ignore what it’s saying that’s true but be extra careful, because the universe isn’t your own singular simulation of life. Maybe you just have shite taste in men.

Bias is something even more dangerous, because vindicating women is how women get manipulated, it’s all about dropping your guard through flattery to then install fallacious suggestions that dramatized the truth into something fraudulent, then the whole thing gets muddied in-

*us vs them*, all over again and again and again.

That’s how Politics & Fear mongering works. It’s a science.

Studies are an insight into patterns & phenomena so one can have a view of reality, but these experts’ views of the facts are not reality itself, this is why you do your own research.

What these “experts” tell you isn’t infallible, nor above error. Even academia can miss or look over very simple, very basic nuances that can hinder whatever point they were trying to make, which damages the good of addressing what it is they’re criticizing.

So what what I’m saying here: the people in this study that started all this- didn’t say it before me.

Why? Because they lost the nuance because their view of the facts was their reality, not what the reality is in retrospect in mirror of the facts:

https://gender.stanford.edu/news/structural-burden-mens-declining-social-networks

So what happened is one is allowed to ignore nuance to make women’s immediate self-interest the only thing worth discussing here, a topic concerning the COUPLE isn’t about the COUPLE, just the woman’s best interest. That’s a modern relationship, her benefit, his servitude.

Which is why the main issue here is she’s serving his needs, and not the societal norm which is- HE’S supposed to be the slave to her will, when neither is okay, but it’s only a topic because she’s not on top. See how this works?

And that’s what is this really about, and that’s why Westerners will never make progress as long as you keep up this contrived, fake drama, Gender War mongering.

And we isolate ourselves so you can maintain a bubble of control. Where your only partner is self-worship and self-interest.

“Some women are called bitter for stepping back from dating. Others are labeled cold. What they’re really doing is protecting their capacity. “

You wouldn’t need to protect a capacity, if we managed it properly in the first place, women are only the victims of articles & outlets out to ruin the only chance at women’s happiness with men. It’s always, always, ALWAYS a fight with you Americans. It’s truly a social disease.

It’s always someone else’s fault, or there’s this coddling, smothering justifying framed in a victim narrative. It’s nauseating how women put up with this kid glove treatment, told to be Bosses & CEO’s but you never shut down these talking points.

All this justifying why women turned tail, when in reality, it’s simply failing a simple test of our relationships, women gave up and ran away, that’s what it is.

And for some? They genuinely function better alone, or some situations were really bad (abusive), but for most in this specific context, it’s just running away in lack of ability of seeing through what you chose to participate in. Giving a damn didn’t come with a paycheck, a key to the city, or something to feed thine ego.

Then the media is spinning this in a way that makes women the unsung heroes.

• Which GUARANTEES women never improve how or who they choose, because someone else is always the problem, every single time. Every single year, every single occasion it’s another article about men doing something wrong, women are always vindicated in the matter.

That’s unnatural, there’s no quantifiable way that women are never a factor in how things go wrong for women in the lives of women. Pure infantilism. Pure enabled delusion.

Almost as if that’s the new rigid norm now, women being coddled by the zeitgeist.

Which is fine, unhealthy but ok, your culture does that, but women’s agency to change the course of the situation they’re involved in, their stake in it is the sacrifice for them never taking accountability for their part in the matter.

It’s an unnecessary sacrifice, all we have to do is try them with the same energy we spare for men.

And if that’s a problem? If that’s misogyny. Maybe how you come at men (tone & delivery alike) is what needs to change too.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/mankeeping-is-why-women-are-done-with-dating/
- Mankeeping Is Why Women Are Done With Dating

🛑

All this is- is the articles addressing women being burnt out because they ended up with a needy man-- not a man, *a NEEDY man specifically & the emotional cost of women in that situation is a real concern (that I’ve witnessed btw) but it gets dramatized beyond reason to broad-brush MEN, the enemy of women.*

• Americans tend to take relatively simple situations like this and make it into a national pearl clutch to further demoralize your males from trying or give your women yet one more thing to be bitter about when in reality, they’re the common theme of the problem, not men. Big shock.

• Not that women are the bad guy here, but the source of the pattern, very simple.
  
  
  

If men started saying women trusting them with their trauma/vents/dumps/shoulder cries or their monthly hormone spikes (which women can’t control) was a “burden”, or dealing with women was an unpaid labor, or unacknowledged trifle he shouldn’t have to put up with when what he wants he could just get from a sex doll-

“So what purpose does a woman serve? When a VR Waifu can woman better than a women during a time where women think everything is a labor?”

Imagine that as an article, that would make women feel horrible, & even if it didn’t for the minority that would just cry “incel”, it’s a disgusting and vile thing to imply, let alone say, or believe.

• I repeat: “Lesbian **women tend to perform more social/emotional labor than men regardless of relationship type**. “

• TL;DR The issue isn’t men, the common theme is women overextending. But when the narrative is making men the problem-- that nuance will always be smothered & suppressed, perhaps on purpose, but I’m going to hope that isn’t the case.
  
  
  All you can do is be mindful to be more available, but don’t stress over “equal labor”, because again, her lack of reciprocity isn’t a problem in the gaze of society. Strive for fairness & consideration but keep in mind, men & women have different natural proclivities. Just do your best.

Lastly, to reiterate:

All one can do is just advise us be more mindful of being available emotional support as much as we can.

The pedantic/childish element here is while you can be mindful to be fair to your partner, but there’s no realistic way to keep score of who’s supporting who at what volume, EQUALLY, at all times, again, it’s asinine.

You’re fetishizing equity & over-complicating your own formula, while ignoring your own lacking.

Because what she’s not doing at the same rate you do for her, that isn’t a national concern, very convenient criterion.👁️👄👁️

Because lesbians face the same labor challenges, I repeat, so it’s clear men doing more isn’t the sole solution as much as it is Women, in reality, simply moderating how much they give at a time in the first place.

Articles won’t state that simple fact, but they will propose:

“Some women are called bitter for stepping back from dating. Others are labeled cold. What they’re really doing is protecting their capacity.”

Women are the victims. This is why no one abroad wants western women, they’ve been bred to be undesirable. Not intimidated by education or this hybrid sense of independence (because conveniently dependent on Papa Government.) as much as it is women of western world are martially incompetent, and again, they’ve been groomed & molded mercilessly to be like this.

Look at we’re talking about, their society literally invents words with “Man” as the prefix to condition an association of resentment with half of their country, when the lack of reciprocation, women do at the exact same time. But these articles hold back women’s role in the matter & only focus on one party. Who does that?

Why settle for a perpetual victim, when you can just go to another country & find a woman to be happy with instead?

Because no one can control or should have to control how much she gives, than she herself.

Don’t stop giving, but moderate how much, that’s just common sense. Why couldn’t VICE say this? Because their agenda, like everyone else, every other month, every year, it’s not about a solution----

It’s about a new divide.

Men aren’t the problem, if they’re not matching what you’re doing, and you’d face the same issue with another woman, eventually---

Then Women need to gauge their emotional/social reserves better.

🛡️Caveat: If the person you’re with finds issue with that moderation, they feel entitled to your support flow, then have a conversation about it and set boundaries. That’s the time to test them & set boundaries, but don’t exhaust yourself then run away or get bitter because you allowed yourself to get drained. And then claim it’s you being educated that you’re insufferable & impatient because you expect a therapist to bail you out of giving a shit/ or too much of a damn about the person you’re sleeping with. When once upon a time men not telling women ANYTHING was also an issue.

Pick a lane. Stop playing with men’s emotions, Americans have this “men perform” syndrome, what women want on this particular week, men have to go Optimus Prime mode & just transform on command.

It’s disgusting.

• * Because if men wanted to complain in serious context that women don’t reciprocate on how much men do, perform, and spend for women-- my charge would be: *women aren’t the problem, stop doing so much then. No one can control how much you choose to give than you.*

Same goes for women here, putting the ball in men’s court just makes women a passive party, no accountability & takes agency from women, because they then sign of relief that yet again “He’s the problem, so he has to do for me me me me me me me”, as usual.

• No charge to improve, just victim narratives & vindication for opting out, because women are never the problem and not responsible for anything.

Same old crap that stagnates women’s ability to improve as options as is on the global market, let alone desirability in their own homeland, the same “not your fault” crap.

You don’t want to be a therapist, but him being an ATM, bodyguard, sponsor, therapist etc. all of that unpaid, unacknowledged, unsung labor stays right? Can’t even say he’s doing it with benefits, what benefits at this point?! What do men in American even get out it these days or what are they allowed to want?

He’s the man, unpaid is the default. But it’s a crisis when your labors are unpaid. We can not have this attitude & expect a future. Or maybe? The point is to destroy exactly that.

We can blame it on “norms” this & “systemic” that, that’s just deflection to alleviate choice and responsibility, to make it about a boogeyman, someone, anyone else but me.

• Socialization has a significant hand in your cultivation, why & how you think what you do, but it doesn’t dictate your directives, because there’s plenty of personalities that defy the norms. I’m one of them.

You are not a robot, you make your own damn decisions, own it. If you’re giving too much of yourself, moderate it, talk about it, boundaries, & if opting out is the logical outcome best for you? Do it. Being with someone is not meant for everyone.

Very painfully simple solution your outlets & authorities WILL NOT share because your agency is what needs to be repressed, so that you remain obedient to whatever they peddle to you next time on American’s favorite sitcom “Men are the problem”.

Don’t stop giving, just control the volume. DUH.

I do it everyday, I moderate my energy levels that I give to people, instead of opting out of being there for them as a whole, sometimes I don’t pick up certain phone calls, just to establish boundaries.

I just control the volume, I, me, my responsibility.

That’s part of being a grownass adult. Not a reckless amateur therapist with no filter of their own output, then surprised or angry or burntout when a lack of a filter or a backbone results in exhaustion.

When you use an office water dispenser to fill a cup of water, you fill up the cup until it’s enough. You don’t dump the entire tank of water into the cup until it’s empty. You MODERATE the output.🧠🧠🧠

Room for improvement is imperative, for both sides, men can be more mindful, but don’t let your country pressure you, or coddle you into complacency, bitterness & victimhood 24/7 and abuse you & your opportunities with any men on Earth just because you’re not the man in the situation. Take responsibility for what you choose to give in the first place, and don’t allow these agents to make you think human connection without a damn reward is a labor, don’t let them turn you into that monster.

And don’t let your country gaslight & abuse you yet again for the hundredth time- just because you’re not the woman in the situation, just be mindful of your contributions, do your research, and be considerate. Don’t be the tool, you don’t exist for women’s whims, don’t let these outlets beat you into submission, don’t be bitter against women, they’re being used.

Both sides are in the middle of something fierce and the resource is your defeat, isolation, and resentment.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ No one’s the villain, don’t allow your “experts” to sabotage you with good intentions.

Soma 2015 - a Tedious & Mediocre gem

 Finished it today. Great movie, plenty creepy; but a mediocre "game".

The ending was abrupt & wet fizzle but fitting, because Simon spends a lot of the first few events of the game killing people to get an outcome he wants so the ending is just pure karma.

The characters are flat, tedious objectives, the enemies had good enough variety visually, some of them operate by sight, some by sound, some just don't like movements.

That variety is appreciated but they didn't lean hard enough into the inner ecosystem of WAU's kingdom & the diversity of said creatures, I was actually surprised at how basic the roster was for the enemies. But they are plenty creepy, what defeats that is how annoying they are.

Can't tell you how many times I ran into a few head first out of defiance cause I really REALLLY wanted to beat the snot out of those screaming, shrilling spazoids. Wasn't even scary anymore.

• Otherwise they are mostly the same chase bot, they are at their scariest just before you face them, like a brief glimpse of one through a window, or their silhouette. While isolated in an empty hallway, knowing you have to go in that room to get what you need, Cath is on sleep mode, and it's just you.

#That is the horror of SOMA at it's best, until you get used to it.

The fact that you aren't human but all you can do is run & hide was a horrible decision. Not taking advantage of the techno-organic angle, I'm not saying give us a damn plasma rifle but a taser, a gauntlet, 10 second cloak or limited resource means of defense would've added variety & tactics without becoming braindead.

I mean jfc, you are in a state of the art Lab facility. So you're telling me we can fist WAU a hundred times for HP but not get a buff? DO SOMETHING WITH THAT concept to enhance the player's experience!

The word is "monotonous"

* Vs a contrived sense of tension because you simply aren't allowed to resist enemies who at best just push you really hard, then walk away, which shiver me timbers-- really isn't that scary. Which is why I say they're scariest BEFORE you get to them.

It's tedious. Especially when some enemies literally teleport, which is just frustrating.

The setting is great for horror, the atmosphere is the #1 best part about it, not even close to Dead Space 2008 but it's still good atmosphere.

In fact if all you heard were monstrous voices in the walls, shadowy figures peeking around corners, the sounds of things being knocked over by something but you didn't see any enemies clearly but always anticipated one because of the acoustics, that might have-- MIGHT have been better slow burn horror.. serious mind games. Like Dead Space 2008.

* Another good part of the game is getting nuggets of what other people's lives were like & seldom seeing their fates, but that's not the same as getting invested in who these people were, it's just easter egg hunts of something more interesting than what we're currently doing.

The difference between that and what Dead Space did is we knew those crew were gone, but these people are on the ARK. And we get bare bones lore at best.

The story is otherwise bland & boring because we're just thrown into the mix without having a vantage point of legitimate motivations, and a lot of it has to do with the character we play.

Catherine should've been the MC, & we see flashbacks of WAU's takeover (not talking a highlight reel but just enough to give us context), life before, all throughout the game.

Visuals to give us something/ something better, more tangible to invest in.

Teamed with us getting more focus on someone who was directly involved in the establishment, vs some rando who time traveled technically & frankly has zero stake in anything, and isn't interesting in the slightest. We should've been Cath or Brandon.

Would've made for stronger characterizations & investment if we got Catherine at the helm instead, hear her various dialogues about seeing people she used to work with trying to kill her, the psychological horror of a familiar space becoming your tomb.

Now what we got wasn't all bad, her existential comments on being a disembodied voice were good moments, having her reality paused everytime she was "disconnected" was interesting, but that intrigue is what? Less than 3% of the total interactive experience? Cause most of it she blacks out while we're doing all the work.

There was absolutely nothing here to get truly invested in beyond "what could this be about" or just the superficial appeal of the environments atmosphere, then you get what the hype was about and it's just some typical superficial robo crap. The more it unfolded, my immediate thought was: "that's it?"

I can give it this much, it begins very very strong and it ends.......seldom satisfactory, again ,it fits. But the meat of the matter is just a nothing burger.

The issue with this game is it's build up is top notch, but it builds up to a lot of mediocrity. The most interesting stuff in it, we hear about than seeing it, a lot of telling, not showing. The glitchy talking robots in the beginning, unless I missed something that element was dropped damn near instantly when we got to Catherine joining the party. I would've loved to hear her talk to more possessed bots.

I get a lot of the intention is the hollow isolation, atmospheric expression, vs upfront narratives, but you need a hook beyond atmosphere & being told everything in heavy handed exposition.

The faint hope the ARK represents is clear: but we're too disconnected from the people the ARK is the symbol of hope for-- WHY should I care?

If Simon was silent as an MC, then I wouldn't demand much, like Isaac Clarke 2008. But Simon talks, and he's really not interesting, a lot of times he's annoying, he likes to make things about himself a lot when talking to Cath.

A lot of the problem here overall is the game reads like it was trying to say something than be something. The puzzles & tasks were frankly stupid time wasters, there were many events where I find out I had to play keep away with an enemy just to do a frankly simple task, & it really made me just turn off the game. Cause it's just runtime padding, pure filler.

It's not like Scorn where the world itself is worth investment, you're told nothing but what you see alone is worth pages of context.

Soma? None of that. If we had more allies, even if they were just cortex chip personas, (because in the beginning , again, we got a lot of robots with diverse personality but as we go on we get less of that) hear their fears & opinions, maybe some of them sacrifice themselves & their place on the ARK for the ARK's exodus, that might've given waaaaay more story investment than what I just finished.

And then for me personally, the post credit scene was the one part of the game that I didn't want to end, all this hype & ARK talk, to the point where it got pretentious:

Finally I get to see the damn thing, & I genuinely wanted to see what they had waiting for them in that city, whether or not if the sim would even be compatible with the people living in it, would people revolt? Get bored? Destroy it? Regrets? Virtual kids? Like how advanced is this thing?

That was always in the back of my head throughout the game, I actually thought WAU would corrupt it in some subtle way, so when we launched it into space WAU technically would've won.

I thought since how heavy the ARK is emphasized, it would've gotten more time to cook with the player actually doing something with it, guess not. obviously not.

Whereas, the other 99% of the game I couldn't get through it fast enough, while trying to give it a chance & absorbing much lore.

The talking robots were interesting, not knowing they're robots but oddly enough, after we meet Catherine, that slowly waned away, which is unfortunate.

The one person I might've felt 'something' for in terms of hook, was Brandon, that dude is a unit for what he did in that situation. How he was handled was a degree better in characterization than the others. Mainly cause of that module sim we put him through, the lore in his room, his dynamic with Alice, and where he ended up. We were slightly more interactive with him, which provided more characterization, which is what I meant by that allies pitch. This game felt like it undercooked what it had at it's disposal on purpose to sell the isolation factor.

Overall Soma is a minimalist approach to a horror game, unfortunately, as good as it begins, it didn't execute that great throughout.

Tedious & Mediocre, glad I finished it, glad I tried it. Never playing it again.

The Rise Of Female Loneliness - (It's amazing how different the narrative is when we address women's loneliness vs men)

4:40 To be fair "discouraging" someone from prioritizing oneself is not forcing someone to do that. Especially a stay at home person in post 2010, and NOT in a third world country. Society's "progress" had a hand in sabotaging women on the way to this point, but that was simply the consequence of what women wanted.

Otherwise, way too many options for women to then say you can't prioritize yourself because of metaphysical ""them" / "they"/ "society" discouraging or making it difficult, when in reality you're just too busy because of the life you chose. Imagine me blaming beauty standards for men is something done because of society, because i chose to compare myself to action stars. Is that society's fault? Or mine for doing that to myself? The gap here is accountability vs victim narrative. If you have kids, thats a given you'll have less priority but that doesn't mean you can't have any, otherwise it's an excuse. Same with men blaming women's standards, you'd be surprised how flexible women are when they actually like you. You have to find a balance yourself, if you stay at home as a wife with no kids, or have kids & you're just that coordinated, you have greater opportunity to modify having priority vs a woman in a cubicle. And even what kind of work you even choose to pursue matters, we need to think about demands of the actual career before hopping into it, how much time would you want to yourself 10 years later when you want to be with someone & slow down? Standards & expectations aren't the devil here, they're guidelines, stop blaming them and start using them. *These are things one needs to think about, none of this is something society owes you. But again it did have a hand in making it more difficult for people by allowing "progress" to go in this direction.* As if anyone in 2025 expects perfection from women when what men want is an afterthought or something to be dissected as problematic to only further discourage them from even bothering to date, since their needs are irrelevant. "Beauty standard" is code for "ideal", men will settle for anyone willing to both pay attention and perform without making their life a living hell. It's that simple. Comparing yourself to some model on Insta is a choice that stems from pressure, but it is a choice. But don't then settle for being unkept or unattractive or bland, then wonder why no one's approaching or paying attention vs the women that do try.

*You cannot have it every single way and still come out on top. Politics lied to you, women are not the main character.*

The difference between male & female loneliness or how it's addressed is victim narrative, men are usually painted as not doing something or AFRAID of rejection and women have this overtone of something being done specifically to them that's preventing their success.

aka NOT MY FAULT syndrome. Which just robs women of agency to fix the problem. You are not victims, your era failed you, yes; but not in the ways you think. This exhaustion was fought for, being able to feel that labor that men always felt came with the equality. "CONSEQUENCE" is the word missing from this video, overall decent points but the delivery & overtone is too self-defeating, some of it true, yes. Majority of it is an excuse to just externalize, so you can feel you did nothing wrong. We should take a note from Rocky's speech & stop finding someone to blame because we aren't where we want because of soft "discouragement", which is just an excuse to say one feels bad because not moving resulted in them remaining still & achieving nothing.

whats happening is the progressive world we fought for on womens behalf wasn't all sunshine and rainbows in the outcome,

what men had going on at work wasn't exactly ideal for living to the fullest for women's specific experience. That's what happened.

That's what this is really about, women not being allowed to just have it both ways as a norm package. You have to cultivate that situation, carefully & timely; it's not a birthright society owes you or us. You are not owed professional AND martial success when convenient because you might feel standards or expectations should be men's burden but not yours.. Having to bust your butt isn't fun, I 1000% back that superwoman syndrome situation, yet that came with the independent agenda. We call it superwoman but it's really just being an adult. Sacrifices have to be made to survive, and we blame having to make those exhausting sacrifices on society's rules of engagement forcing us to bend, when this is what women fought for in the first place, the opportunity to even do this much.

Post feminism-regret maybe? "What was intended vs what women got" Maybe that's worth a video for OP, if they didn't make it already.

It's not always something being done to you, i won't sit here & pretend there aren't female specific hurdles men will never know (just remember there are hurdles men deal with that women won't ever suffer either): the word is "consequence" of progress but you are not powerless in the matter either.