Are you sure, because this really, REALLY doesn't look like getting over it. In fact, it kind of looks like being morbidly obsessed. How many women do you think are on the internet typing furiously about how putting Tifa being in a sports bra is ruining their experience?
It's been pretty consistently shown that female audiences, regardless of bra size, don't tend to like oversexualized female characters. At best, they tolerated them when they had no choice, but female audiences have choices and market influence now. Also, while this is anecdotal, in my experience, women with big boobs (especially skinny, conventionally attractive women with big boobs) tend to be particularly sensitive to objectification because they experience it on a daily basis.
See now part of the issue was the changes were made because people couldn't get over it. It's not big boobs bothering me so I've got nothing to "get over" in that regard. My issue is with the changes which I do have to question your position of in essence "You're not allowed to object to the changes" for some nebulous reason.
How many women are furiously typing? I dunno I can point to Genna Bain initially being a bit disappointed by the changes.
As for female audiences not liking female characters they see as overly sexualised well again that may well only be some sectors of women polled. Also wasn't that claim from the Wiseman and Burch research than was never actually published or sent for peer review as just from them initially doing a presentation on it publicly people found abnormalities in the research methodology?
But hey it couldn't possible be a side effect of a culture pushing the idea that sexy or sexuality is a bad thing or anything right? It's not a though we have fairly well established psychology research onto the ideas about conformity or anything.
That entirely depends on what you consider to be "harmful".
You've misunderstood cultivation theory. Cultivation theory isn't the same thing as the "media brainwashing" alleged by right wing conspiracy theories and Christian moralists. A piece of media can't be responsible for a person's actions. It can't take away a person's self-control or fundamentally change who they are. It can't force them to do something they wouldn't otherwise do.
Well it's what Anita has presented as part of her claims. Otherwise why bring up the rape and domestic violence stats she does?
Cultivation theory is the idea that narrative can influence the way you think about the world, which is undeniably true. The classic example is that people who watch a lot of true crime shows, or even fictional crime dramas, tend to think that crime is more prevalent than it really is and to overestimate their risk of falling victim to it. Men who watch a lot of pornography tend to rate the attractiveness of their own sexual partners lower and report less satisfying sex lives. Developing parasocial relationships for fictional characters can make you more sympathetic to real people whose experiences resemble those characters. All of these effects are extremely well documented and easily demonstrable.
And yet from an educational development perspective they are all just schema which can be broken and changed as the environment necessitates and reality shows.
One persons watching lots of crime documentaries makes the crime part of their reality remove them from the shows somewhat and their perspective changes because they experience the reality of the world rather than the reality the shows present more.
Fictional characters plights helps develop schema to understand said experiences better.
Throwing academics at me isn't terrible persuasive, even by the standards of appeals to authority. Being a "20 year veteran" doesn't mean anything in academia except that you're either a burned out wasted husk of a human being or a complete hack. Give me a full text citation or don't bother.
Well you can check his name, I did give it to you, basically most of his work addresses the subject or various aspects of it
The US military spends incredible, unfeasible amount of money subsidizing Hollywood films, both in raw finance and in the use of actual military equipment and personnel. The conditions attached to this is that the film's messaging has to be approved by the military. A film that paints the military in a bad light or doesn't align with what the military thinks are its own ethical standards doesn't get subsidies. This means that anti-war or anti-military films cost more to make, meaning fewer such films get made, meaning the public is overwhelmingly exposed to media which presents the military in a particular way.
And the moment you remove it and stop the spell starts to break, because that is how fragile the spell is.
And its insidious. All of the Iron Man films, for example, received military subsidies. There's no scene where Tony Stark says "hey guys, you should all sign up for the army and die for the glorious motherland." There doesn't need to be. The military are there in the background, they're presented as good honest people doing their best. No difficult questions are asked, and then we move on to a man dressing up in a big metal suit to punch bad guys.
That's the actual, real, dangerous form of propaganda. The stuff you see on North Korean state television is the equivalent of Infowars. It works on the people who already believe it, or who have to believe it because otherwise they'll be sent to a camp. To really influence people, all you have to do is to ensure that the media they consume overwhelmingly leads to one particular conclusion, even it it takes many different paths to get there (in fact, especially if it takes many different paths to get there, because that illusionary plurality is more persuasive).
yet as a young child learns that not every man is Daddy, so too does a person learn and adapt so people will learn the military is a more nuanced thing of both good and terrible
