Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[thebobmaster]

Just remember: any problems women have had since the 70's is not actually a problem. We cured sexism and inequality in the late 70's. That's why when men get sexually harassed and assaulted, they have to deal with being asked what they did to lead their attacker on, be questioned about what they were wearing, be asked how much they had to drink, and so on.

I am, of course, aware of the other problem with males being sexually assaulted (as in, the pretense that it doesn't happen). But to claim that women got equal rights in the late 70's, and therefore no longer have any room to ask for more, is just ludicrous to me.

 

[Silvanus]

I find this is society in general. And old school fathers.

Why you depressed? Man Up!
What do you mean you don't feel good about your job? Man Up!
Feeling sick? Man Up!
Feeling scared? MAN UP!

Ya got that right. And it was generally my experience of high school male attitudes, as well.

I think there is a difference between "anti-feminist" men and people who are anti "Extreme feminism". I feel like most men, myself included, are completely down with everyone having equal rights under the law. Which is mostly the case now i believe (minus maybe abortion issues and other leftover things). But this extreme view where certain fictional characters are oppressive, and there needs to be equal or more women in a film or TV show, that kind of stuff is just stupid to me and every attempt at that kind of garbage is just garbage.

People develop their ideas about how people should be from the culture that surrounds them. That includes media.

For instance, you and I agree the "men shouldn't talk about their emotions" attitude to be damaging, right? That derives (in part) from cultural depictions. For centuries, every western "hero" was male; and heroism was done through beating up the baddies and being stoic and not needing any help. And the victims, the ones who get kidnapped or who fawn over heroic men, were women. This all develops the idea that kids grow up with, that if a guy shows vulnerability and emotion, they're being girly or feminine or unmanly.

It's not about individual fictional characters. It never was. Just as it was never just about Beowulf or Odysseus; it's about the fact that the archetype is overwhelming and everywhere, to the point where it shapes cultural attitudes. It's not garbage to recognise that and want diversity rather than staid homogeneity.

And i can't speak for women, but jesus, why is the media trying to ruin female attractiveness? It's like if a woman dares to try and be sexy it's just to be an object for the male gaze which alone is crazy talk. The whole fucking thing is just crazy to me and I don't understand that side of it. Unfortunately this crazy side is what gets all the attention because people like seeing a trainwreck or some shit. I dunno.

This I just think is completely untrue.

A few female characters were designed to not be intensely classically attractive. That's literally all that happened. They've been designed around physical aesthetics for way too long anyway.

 

[Buyetyen]

This I just think is completely untrue.

A few female characters were designed to not be intensely classically attractive. That's literally all that happened. They've been designed around physical aesthetics for way too long anyway.

Obligatory reminder to the Male Grievance Brigade that there is free porn on the internet. You do not lack for whacking material, boys.

 

[CriticalGaming]

That derives (in part) from cultural depictions. For centuries, every western "hero" was male; and heroism was done through beating up the baddies and being stoic and not needing any help. And the victims, the ones who get kidnapped or who fawn over heroic men, were women. This all develops the idea that kids grow up with, that if a guy shows vulnerability and emotion, they're being girly or feminine or unmanly.

This is most cultures I believe too. I mean in Japan it's always shit like the incredible stoic samurai saves the village from invaders and such. In Russia you certainly can't be a "soft" dude. I mean it's fucking everywhere.

I think that's part of the reason why men tend to be in charge careerwise. Women are judged based on appearance (generally), while men are judged on the value of their wallet. How much are you making? Why aren't you in a high powered job yet? Not a millionaire? Fuck you dude.

And the thing is that both viewpoints are superficial, appearance for women and wealth for men are both equally as superficial in terms of standards. That's why I say we all have our problems, it's just we all have a different struggle. Some people overcome those struggles, while others make excuses and blame other people or the whole world for their problems.

Didn't get the job? Can't be my fault, must be because I'm x,y,z.
Getting made fun of online? Can't be something stupid I said, must be because the viewers are pieces of shit.
Nobody saw my movie? Can't be because I made a shit movie, must be because the audience are a "sist" of sort sort.

And the biggest problem is these excuses get media attention. Articles, news reports, all that shit. It gives people attention, and people like attention so they keep repeating this cycle, trying to one up each other on who can have the biggest thing happen to them.

I saw an article about Math being Racist. What the fuck? How is 2+2 racist?

This I just think is completely untrue.

A few female characters were designed to not be intensely classically attractive. That's literally all that happened. They've been designed around physical aesthetics for way too long anyway.

The reason I say this is not because of games like the Last of Us or whatever, that's the developer's choice I don't like it but at the end of the day it's not my art, it is because if Lara Croft's next game had her in her traditional tank top and short shorts people would throw a shitfit about her being designed to appeal to the male gaze or whatever. They want women to loook as ugly and frumpy as them and anything that is too hyper attractive is viewed as a sexist problem.

Meanwhile every male character can have six-pack abs and more muscles than I think the human body even has, and that's totally fine. Nobody is asking for more ugly motherfuckers.

If they are allowed to make the men look like super models then the women should be super models too!

 

[CriticalGaming]

That's why when men get sexually harassed and assaulted, they have to deal with being asked what they did to lead their attacker on, be questioned about what they were wearing, be asked how much they had to drink, and so on.

This literally happens. Again look at the Johnny Depp trial. Amber beat his ass and they are trying to make it HIS fault.

 

[Buyetyen]

Meanwhile every male character can have six-pack abs and more muscles than I think the human body even has, and that's totally fine. Nobody is asking for more ugly motherfuckers.

If they are allowed to make the men look like super models then the women should be super models too!

The men are all buff because it's a power fantasy, not a sexual fantasy.

This literally happens. Again look at the Johnny Depp trial. Amber beat his ass and they are trying to make it HIS fault.

Fortunately he just won as of writing. I agree, he got a raw deal. I want him to get help. And this is not mutually exclusive with acknowledging how many other abusers, male or female, get away with it because our system is broken.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Not feminist, because feminist tends to down play the male characters or make them look like morons.

Speaking of agendas....

 

[Silvanus]

This is most cultures I believe too. I mean in Japan it's always shit like the incredible stoic samurai saves the village from invaders and such. In Russia you certainly can't be a "soft" dude. I mean it's fucking everywhere.

I think that's part of the reason why men tend to be in charge careerwise. Women are judged based on appearance (generally), while men are judged on the value of their wallet. How much are you making? Why aren't you in a high powered job yet? Not a millionaire? Fuck you dude.

And the thing is that both viewpoints are superficial, appearance for women and wealth for men are both equally as superficial in terms of standards. That's why I say we all have our problems, it's just we all have a different struggle. Some people overcome those struggles, while others make excuses and blame other people or the whole world for their problems.

Didn't get the job? Can't be my fault, must be because I'm x,y,z.
Getting made fun of online? Can't be something stupid I said, must be because the viewers are pieces of shit.
Nobody saw my movie? Can't be because I made a shit movie, must be because the audience are a "sist" of sort sort.

And the biggest problem is these excuses get media attention. Articles, news reports, all that shit. It gives people attention, and people like attention so they keep repeating this cycle, trying to one up each other on who can have the biggest thing happen to them.

OK, but then if you acknowledge that these ingrained stereotypical attitudes do have an effect on how people are seen, and put people into these boxes, then what's wrong with efforts to actually address those attitudes? Addressing an issue isn't "giving excuses" to the people affected by that issue. Its just... addressing the issue.

I saw an article about Math being Racist. What the fuck? How is 2+2 racist?

Yeah, the USA Today piece. It was a silly article with a positively stupid headline. But it wasn't saying maths itself was racist. It was merely saying that if you couch questions in real-world scenarios that have relevance to the students, they get better grades. It also mentioned that "privilege tracks" were a bad idea. None of it was actually calling maths racist. That was just a thick headline.

The reason I say this is not because of games like the Last of Us or whatever, that's the developer's choice I don't like it but at the end of the day it's not my art, it is because if Lara Croft's next game had her in her traditional tank top and short shorts people would throw a shitfit about her being designed to appeal to the male gaze or whatever. They want women to loook as ugly and frumpy as them and anything that is too hyper attractive is viewed as a sexist problem.

Meanwhile every male character can have six-pack abs and more muscles than I think the human body even has, and that's totally fine. Nobody is asking for more ugly motherfuckers.

If they are allowed to make the men look like super models then the women should be super models too!

Male characters are not designed to appeal sexually to women / gay men, though. Female characters designed for sexual appeal still massively outweigh male characters designed for sexual appeal.

 

[Hawki]

I mean, all of these franchises clearly have an agenda behind them.

Um, not really.

Take the Wheel of Time as an example. Every publicity article I read about the Wheel of TIme pushed the series as a feminist fantasy series. It was so bad that the Guardian ended up doing an article pointing out that the books aren't actually all that feminist.

Was that from the creatives themselves, or the writers of the articles projecting?

You get bad writing when you put politics ahead of plot and positive representation ahead of interesting characters.

I agree, except WoT DOES have interesting characters, and IS well written. Season 1 was excellent. So if you're correct about there being an "agenda," it apparently turned into a really good product.

What's funny about this is that the Wheel of Time novels have a lot of very powerful female characters, both good and evil. They really didn't need to push any agenda of "girl power" because the books themselves are already like that.

Again, who was pushing it? The closest thing I can recall was the statement that Moiraine was going to be the main character. And while some would disagree with me, watching season 1...she isn't. Not really.

Not feminist, because feminist tends to down play the male characters or make them look like morons. Which isn't the case. The male characters are definitely still important and the series does revolve around a single male character.

What they've done with the show, is fucked all that to make the womyn the most important aspect of the show and that's not the case.

Except they haven't. I don't know what version of the show you watched, but that isn't the case. Maybe if you include men's inability to channel without going mad, but that was in the books already.

The new star wars trilogy.

Um, where?

I can list flaws of the sequel trilogy till the twin suns of Tatooine set, but none of the issues with it are particuarly "feminist." Rey, maybe, I'll grant you, given how absurdedly powered she is, but that's about it.

Look at the Charlie's Angel's reboot, the 2016 Ghostbusters, new SW trilogy, Batwoman and Supergirl on CW. These very feministic driven pieces of media are always dogshit because they are poorly written rushed feeling products clearly designed to try and engage a niche feminist group, and then the people behind the failure say shit like, "Toxic masculinity ruined any chance of success". There is no awareness that they made a piece of shit that nobody was interested in in the first place.

What?

Okay, let's go through this piece by piece.

Charlie's Angels: Can't comment, maybe you're right.

Batwoman: Haven't seen, but if you're referring to the "I'm a woman" trailer for season 1, then yes, that was cringe as hell.

-Sequel Trilogy: No. Just no. The only possible claim it has to being feminist is Rey being overpowered. I'd also like to remind you that for a 'feminist' trilogy, Rise of Skywalker did a good job of sidelining Rose, to the extent that Charlie from Lost gets more lines than her. 0_0

Also, the sequel trilogy didn't "fail" in an objective sense. Much as I disliked it, looking at critical and commercial success, for the most part, it succeeded.

-Ghostbusters 2016: You can call this "feminist" only if you equate that with "girls who do things and are competent." Certainly I think it's a good movie, but that aside, how many times is gender brought up? I can think of two instances, and both are insults from the antagonist.

-Supergirl: So, I've seen the first two seasons only, so maybe things get worse later on, but while I agree that the first two seasons have feminist elements in them, and sometimes it's to the detriment of the plot, these are specific moments, not some overall trend. Also, didn't the show have six seasons? I'm not sure how that counts as "failing."

Edit: There's also seemingly a weird double standard going on here, the idea that bad writing can't simply be, well, "bad writing."

For Star Wars, let's take the prequel vs. sequel trilogy. The prequels have more politics in them then the other trilogies combined, yet it's the sequel trilogy that's called "political" because of "feminism." Both trilogies have their writing problems (for what it's worth, I go Original>Prequel>Sequel), but to simply say the sequels are bad because "feminism" is such a superficial reading as to what went wrong and why. It's like me saying the prequel trilogy is bad because of "toxic masculinity" for Anakin. That...no. Just, no. It reminds me of the arguments against Chibnall's run on DW. I detest it, but it isn't because of "feminism" or "forced diversity." Replace Thirteen with a man, replace her companions with straight white males, and the problems would still remain.

Also, for the CW's Arrowverse shows, the worst season I've ever seen is Flash Season 7. I've gone into length as to why it was terrible on this very sight. Spoilers, it's not due to "feminism." There's any number of reasons why writing can be bad, it's a cop-out to say "X is Y because (reason)."

But to claim that women got equal rights in the late 70's, and therefore no longer have any room to ask for more, is just ludicrous to me.

Alright, in the year 2022, in the societies we live in, what actual rights do men have that women don't?

The reason I say this is not because of games like the Last of Us or whatever, that's the developer's choice I don't like it but at the end of the day it's not my art, it is because if Lara Croft's next game had her in her traditional tank top and short shorts people would throw a shitfit about her being designed to appeal to the male gaze or whatever. They want women to loook as ugly and frumpy as them and anything that is too hyper attractive is viewed as a sexist problem.

Except Lara's more attractive now than she's ever been, so...

I get it, beauty's in the eye of the beholder, but this is making a mountain out of a molehill at best.

I mean, look at your avatar. Is Aerith more or less attractive now? I don't know, but there was an outrage about Tifa's boobs being shrunk, so it's hard for me to take the attractiveness argument seriously.

 

[CriticalGaming]

OK, but then if you acknowledge that these ingrained stereotypical attitudes do have an effect on how people are seen, and put people into these boxes, then what's wrong with efforts to actually address those attitudes?

I think so long as people ahere to stereotypes, then trying to eradicate stereotypical viewpoints is an impossible task. Unless you expect something to completely reshape every single culture on the planet. It's just not feesible.

Male characters are not designed to appeal sexually to women / gay men, though. Female characters designed for sexual appeal still massively outweigh male characters designed for sexual appeal.

Wrong they are designed to be the ideal shape of people's dreams. This goes for Women as well. You think a woman could have a magic wand and have any body she desired she would pick a Tess Holiday body over a Scarlet Johansen body? Maybe some.....but I'm willing to bet that percentage is really fucking low.

It's not about SEXUAL appeal, it's about a general attractiveness. People generally are more drawn to attractive bodies, which by the way also happen to be the healthier versions of the human body because evolutionarily we are attracted to the healthy in order to produce strong offspring.

The problem directed towards characters like Lara Croft is mere jealousy.

What men dont get jealous? We do, but if we get jealous of Hot Ryu guess what? MAN UP AND HIT THE GYM FUCKER!

You see the problem...

I can list flaws of the sequel trilogy till the twin suns of Tatooine set, but none of the issues with it are particuarly "feminist." Rey, maybe, I'll grant you, given how absurdedly powered she is, but that's about it.

You forget Admiral Holdo, who basically told the male Rogue character who wanted to help to shut the fuck up and go sit down while the girls handle it. Finn was often cut off before he could express anything because he was a man and the men need to shut the fuck up now and let the girls do their shit. Even Luke was written to be a dickhead who no longered cared about anything because it would take away from the burning star that they were trying to make Rey into.

Except Lara's more attractive now than she's ever been, so...

Personal opinion. But yes I agree though she noticably was criticized for wearing a tanktop in the first game and spent the next two games covered from head to toe almost entirely. She can be pretty, but she cannot wear normal girl clothing like a tank top because it....i dunno might give the boys a chub?

I mean, look at your avatar. Is Aerith more or less attractive now? I don't know, but there was an outrage about Tifa's boobs being shrunk, so it's hard for me to take the attractiveness argument seriously.

Tifa was not nerfed. Her original tits were comically out of proportion because of the CGI tech at the time and people are just stupid.

Aeris and Tifa both are beautiful, and that's because 2020 tech glow up but also the original `1997 designs were left untouched.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Wrong they are designed to be the ideal shape of people's dreams. This goes for Women as well. You think a woman could have a magic wand and have any body she desired she would pick a Tess Holiday body over a Scarlet Johansen body? Maybe some.....but I'm willing to bet that percentage is really fucking low.

It's not about SEXUAL appeal, it's about a general attractiveness. People generally are more drawn to attractive bodies, which by the way also happen to be the healthier versions of the human body because evolutionarily we are attracted to the healthy in order to produce strong offspring.

If that were true we wouldn't get pages and pages and pages about how ugly Abby is. Ya want healthy, right? Muscled up gym rat is plenty healthy. Or Aloy, who's only considered ugly because graphical fidelity has gotten to the point that nerds found out women have hair.

Personal opinion. But yes I agree though she noticably was criticized for wearing a tanktop in the first game and spent the next two games covered from head to toe almost entirely. She can be pretty, but she cannot wear normal girl clothing like a tank top because it....i dunno might give the boys a chub?

...or because she was on a glacier in Siberia? Not exactly tank top weather. Then in the third game...uh?

How much more naked did you want her to get?

 

[Gordon_4]

I think so long as people ahere to stereotypes, then trying to eradicate stereotypical viewpoints is an impossible task. Unless you expect something to completely reshape every single culture on the planet. It's just not feesible.


Wrong they are designed to be the ideal shape of people's dreams. This goes for Women as well. You think a woman could have a magic wand and have any body she desired she would pick a Tess Holiday body over a Scarlet Johansen body? Maybe some.....but I'm willing to bet that percentage is really fucking low.

It's not about SEXUAL appeal, it's about a general attractiveness. People generally are more drawn to attractive bodies, which by the way also happen to be the healthier versions of the human body because evolutionarily we are attracted to the healthy in order to produce strong offspring.

The problem directed towards characters like Lara Croft is mere jealousy.

What men dont get jealous? We do, but if we get jealous of Hot Ryu guess what? MAN UP AND HIT THE GYM FUCKER!

You see the problem...



You forget Admiral Holdo, who basically told the male Rogue character who wanted to help to shut the fuck up and go sit down while the girls handle it. Finn was often cut off before he could express anything because he was a man and the men need to shut the fuck up now and let the girls do their shit. Even Luke was written to be a dickhead who no longered cared about anything because it would take away from the burning star that they were trying to make Rey into.



Personal opinion. But yes I agree though she noticably was criticized for wearing a tanktop in the first game and spent the next two games covered from head to toe almost entirely. She can be pretty, but she cannot wear normal girl clothing like a tank top because it....i dunno might give the boys a chub?



Tifa was not nerfed. Her original tits were comically out of proportion because of the CGI tech at the time and people are just stupid.

Aeris and Tifa both are beautiful, and that's because 2020 tech glow up but also the original `1997 designs were left untouched.

Luke was always a dickhead, and Admiral Holdo could have been played by Laurence Fishburn and the plan they went with would still have been grossly retarded and led to a (justifiable) mutiny by Poe. Depending of course how close you want the resistance to hew to an actual military because last I checked, Admirals are under no obligation to explain themselves to Lieutenants. A good admiral would have said something a bit more concrete than Holdo did, but that’s entirely at their discretion.

 

[Hawki]

You forget Admiral Holdo, who basically told the male Rogue character who wanted to help to shut the fuck up and go sit down while the girls handle it.

That's such a surface reading though, it's banal. You could make Holdo male and Poe female, and you wouldn't have to change a line of dialogue. You're basically setting a criteria that female characters can't berate male ones.

Finn was often cut off before he could express anything because he was a man and the men need to shut the fuck up now and let the girls do their shit.

No, he wasn't. Where?

Did you miss the entire plot arc of both Poe and Finn in the film? Because it's them who get the plot arcs, not Leia and Holdo. If anything, I could make an argument that Last Jedi is sexist against women, because it's the female characters that end up serving the male ones in terms of character progression.

Even Luke was written to be a dickhead who no longered cared about anything because it would take away from the burning star that they were trying to make Rey into.

You know, even if that was the case (which it isn't - you've missed the entire point and subtext), it would still fail, because Rey isn't a "burning star" in Last Jedi. Rey fails at almost everything she sets out to do. Kind of like how Luke failed Ben. Like Finn and Poe fail. In fact, it might almost be a theme...I mean, it's not as if the movie takes time to basically have Yoda tell us the theme...

But nup, Last Jedi is really about how "de womenz" ruin everything.

Tifa was not nerfed. Her original tits were comically out of proportion because of the CGI tech at the time and people are just stupid.

You...do realize that you're not any different from those people, right? Least not in the arguments you're presenting.

Luke was always a dickhead,

Not really.

 

[Trunkage]

Luke was always a dickhead, and Admiral Holdo could have been played by Laurence Fishburn and the plan they went with would still have been grossly retarded and led to a (justifiable) mutiny by Poe. Depending of course how close you want the resistance to hew to an actual military because last I checked, Admirals are under no obligation to explain themselves to Lieutenants. A good admiral would have said something a bit more concrete than Holdo did, but that’s entirely at their discretion.

Everyone cries about the 'travesty' done to Old Luke.... without realising that they were just copying mqny of the story beats of Yoda. An old cantankerous idiot who lives in the middle of nowhere and has to be taught to respect the Force again. Both Luke and Yoda could have stopped the Empire's rise before it really got started but their feelings were hurt so hermit time. They were willing they let the world burn because... fuck actually knows. Star Wars is never that deep

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Everyone cries about the 'travesty' done to Old Luke.... without realising that they were just copying mqny of the story beats of Yoda. An old cantankerous idiot who lives in the middle of nowhere and has to be taught to respect the Force again. Both Luke and Yoda could have stopped the Empire's rise before it really got started but their feelings were hurt so hermit time. They were willing they let the world burn because... fuck actually knows. Star Wars is never that deep

Well to be fair both did try at least once, they just failed. Yoda tried to assassinate Palpatine and Luke uhhhh, did something with the snot nosed brat. But he did stop the empire once before and other people fumbled it after that. Not to say they couldn't do more.

 

[Hawki]

Everyone cries about the 'travesty' done to Old Luke.... without realising that they were just copying mqny of the story beats of Yoda. An old cantankerous idiot who lives in the middle of nowhere and has to be taught to respect the Force again. Both Luke and Yoda could have stopped the Empire's rise before it really got started but their feelings were hurt so hermit time. They were willing they let the world burn because... fuck actually knows. Star Wars is never that deep

There's similar story beats, but that's really the only thing I agree on here.

-Luke doesn't have to be taught "to respect the Force." That isn't the thematic or character/narrative drive for him. If it is, it's 'respect' that he already learnt, per his statement of how the Force doesn't "belong" to the Jedi.

-Um, no, they couldn't have stopped the Empire/First Order's rise, not without getting into hypotheticals. Yoda did try and stop Palpatine and failed. You can get into Yoda "hypothetically" stopping Palpatine, but then you're really getting into alternate continuities - there's nothing that breaks plot, character, or theme about Yoda failing to stop Palpy, and even if he did, it's doubtful that the direction he'd taken the Republic could even be averted. Yes, this too is admittedly an alternate scenario, but Palpy had 13 years to steer the Republic in the direction he wanted by the time he declared the Empire, and when he did, democracy died with thundrous applause.

-Similarly, Luke failing to stop the First Order is really beside the point, since the First Order existed well before Ben fell to the Dark Side.

-"Hurt feelings" is really such a surface level reading in both cases. You can arguably make a case for Yoda, that he shouldn't have just stayed on Dagobah, but the plan is reasonable - wait for Anakin's child(ren) to come of age, wait for a rebellion to be formed, etc. Charging into battle against the Empire straight away isn't going to accomplish much. This is hammered even further home in the Revenge of the Sith novelization, with Yoda's realization as to why he can't defeat Palpatine.

-Similar with Luke. This is arguably a case of "hurt feelings," but to boil it down to that requires you to discard all the themes about legacy, hero worship, falliability, etc. Luke's entire arc in Last Jedi is based on the realization that no, he isn't perfect, but there's value in legends and idols. Even if he can't defeat the First Order, he can provide the beacon of hope for the galaxy to do so - to live up to the legend of Luke Skywalker, even if the actual Luke Skywalker failed. Rise of Skywalker ignores all of that of course, but to boil it down to "hurt feelings" is, intentional or not, missing the point.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Meanwhile every male character can have six-pack abs and more muscles than I think the human body even has, and that's totally fine. Nobody is asking for more ugly motherfuckers.

If they are allowed to make the men look like super models then the women should be super models too!

Yet when Thor got revealed for the upcoming God of War people lost their shit because he wasn't ripped. And it wasn't the women that got upset, they seemed rather okay with it, even digging it. No, it was the same people who got upset over Abby for being masculine looking. It was a disruption to the default fantasy of what strong men look like, just as Abby was a disruption to the fantasy of what a woman should look like.

It's not about SEXUAL appeal, it's about a general attractiveness. People generally are more drawn to attractive bodies, which by the way also happen to be the healthier versions of the human body because evolutionarily we are attracted to the healthy in order to produce strong offspring.

...No.

Looking attractive is not at all the same as actually being healthy. A lot of men and women that "look healthy" actually do some terribly unhealthy shit in order to look that way. Like that dehydration diet they use in movies for when the male star needs to be shirtless for a scene and look ridiculously ripped. You'd probably agree that female athletes are more healthy than super models and Hollywood actrices, right? Yet it's the athletes that usually get the more shade thrown at them for not looking feminine enough, and it's the actrices that always get presented/sold as the most attractive any woman can be.

 

[Silvanus]

I think so long as people ahere to stereotypes, then trying to eradicate stereotypical viewpoints is an impossible task. Unless you expect something to completely reshape every single culture on the planet. It's just not feesible.

But depicting people in a different way isn't trying to "eradicate" the entire stereotype. Its just trying to redress the balance a little bit.

Like, apply the same rationale to a different stereotype which isn't as prevalent any more. In the 1950s cultural depictions of women were exclusively cheerful wives staying in the kitchen and supporting their husbands, having kids, wearing aprons or frocks, housekeeping.

Then some 'counter-cultural' artists created some depictions of women who... have jobs, or don't just want to immediately settle down, or who actually enjoy sex rather than existing for the man to make babies.

Would you seriously be here saying they shouldn't do so because "eradicating an entire stereotype isn't feasible"? They're not trying to. They're just trying to offer something else, and to shift the balance a few notches away from the cultural saturation that came before.

Wrong they are designed to be the ideal shape of people's dreams. This goes for Women as well. You think a woman could have a magic wand and have any body she desired she would pick a Tess Holiday body over a Scarlet Johansen body? Maybe some.....but I'm willing to bet that percentage is really fucking low.

It's not about SEXUAL appeal, it's about a general attractiveness. People generally are more drawn to attractive bodies, which by the way also happen to be the healthier versions of the human body because evolutionarily we are attracted to the healthy in order to produce strong offspring.

The problem directed towards characters like Lara Croft is mere jealousy.

What men dont get jealous? We do, but if we get jealous of Hot Ryu guess what? MAN UP AND HIT THE GYM FUCKER!

You see the problem...

Dude, no, female characters are absolutely not designed as wish fulfilment for women playing. Absolutely, completely not.

Men with 8-packs are designed as wish fulfilment for men. Women characters with minuscule waists, massive tits and no clothes coverage are designed as titillation, again for men.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Look at the Charlie's Angel's reboot, the 2016 Ghostbusters, new SW trilogy, Batwoman and Supergirl on CW. These very feministic driven pieces of media are always dogshit because they are poorly written rushed feeling products clearly designed to try and engage a niche feminist group, and then the people behind the failure say shit like, "Toxic masculinity ruined any chance of success". There is no awareness that they made a piece of shit that nobody was interested in in the first place.

As mentioned, they made 6 seasons of Supergirl and they are doing (or have done) another Batwoman.

In any case, why would you expect them not to be awful? Zillions of reboots and remakes and adaptations are rubbish without accusations of feminism. They aren't making another Dredd any time soon, or more John Carter films, and nobody says that's because of all the male stuff, but it's the jump to assumption (from certain people) for female led films.

(Also, yeah, a Charlie's Angels reboot is going to be pretty female dominated, because obviously. It failed because it was boring and nothing happened (except Patrick Stewart being OtT at the end), not because girls were involved)

 

[Trunkage]

There's similar story beats, but that's really the only thing I agree on here.

-Luke doesn't have to be taught "to respect the Force." That isn't the thematic or character/narrative drive for him. If it is, it's 'respect' that he already learnt, per his statement of how the Force doesn't "belong" to the Jedi.

-Um, no, they couldn't have stopped the Empire/First Order's rise, not without getting into hypotheticals. Yoda did try and stop Palpatine and failed. You can get into Yoda "hypothetically" stopping Palpatine, but then you're really getting into alternate continuities - there's nothing that breaks plot, character, or theme about Yoda failing to stop Palpy, and even if he did, it's doubtful that the direction he'd taken the Republic could even be averted. Yes, this too is admittedly an alternate scenario, but Palpy had 13 years to steer the Republic in the direction he wanted by the time he declared the Empire, and when he did, democracy died with thundrous applause.

-Similarly, Luke failing to stop the First Order is really beside the point, since the First Order existed well before Ben fell to the Dark Side.

-"Hurt feelings" is really such a surface level reading in both cases. You can arguably make a case for Yoda, that he shouldn't have just stayed on Dagobah, but the plan is reasonable - wait for Anakin's child(ren) to come of age, wait for a rebellion to be formed, etc. Charging into battle against the Empire straight away isn't going to accomplish much. This is hammered even further home in the Revenge of the Sith novelization, with Yoda's realization as to why he can't defeat Palpatine.

-Similar with Luke. This is arguably a case of "hurt feelings," but to boil it down to that requires you to discard all the themes about legacy, hero worship, falliability, etc. Luke's entire arc in Last Jedi is based on the realization that no, he isn't perfect, but there's value in legends and idols. Even if he can't defeat the First Order, he can provide the beacon of hope for the galaxy to do so - to live up to the legend of Luke Skywalker, even if the actual Luke Skywalker failed. Rise of Skywalker ignores all of that of course, but to boil it down to "hurt feelings" is, intentional or not, missing the point.

So, to repeat as you stated, Obi-Wan's and Yoda's plan to defeat the Empire is to put a young Force kid up against them. After the two of the best Jedi together could not defeat the Empire together before it could fully form. Why would ANY rebellion form, especially when they arent helping. Also, Yoda doesnt even help him in his struggles, like Luke does at the end of TLJ. That was way more meaningful than what Yoda did. Yoda just died... after doing training with Luke for a couple of days. Obi-wan spent probably about 2 days with Luke to teach him the force. And THIS is the guy they pick to fight the Empire. That's bananas. That's not plan (not getting up you, it's just that dumb.) This is the stuff that made me realise that you should not think about Star Wars too hard because it just doesn't make sense