Gena Davis institute on Gender in media tries to link violent games to mass shootings and police violence

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,534
1,803
118
But when it becomes ubiquitous, and the trope is so common that it's inescapable in media, then kids can hardly help but internalise the message that boys and girls are supposed to be certain ways. That starts to happen when it's all they see, over and over. And the broader impact of that on a kid's idea of gender roles can be restrictive and dispiriting.
What is wrong with that? I mean seriously, what is wrong with men being men and women being women. I understand that some people feel certain ways, trans or something inbetween, but i don't understand that just because a few people feel different inside that the whole of society needs to breakdown and destroy what it means to be a man or woman.

So what if there are gender roles? The lines and rules between the two have been shifted quite a bit in the last few decades anyway. Woman working, getting powerful positions, etc etc. Women are free to make whatever progress they want to put the effort into. What does that have to do with still promoting men being men, and women being women.

If you are advertising to men about having big cocks and going out into the woods to do some manly shit like hunt a fucking deer and sleep outside for a week without taking a shower to promote a new tactial vest or some shit, then what's wrong with that?

What is wrong with advertising dollhouses to little girls?

Neither of those two things mean that those paths are the only things for men or women.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind whitewashing everything to the point where there is no gender, be what you want and we'll never make anything or be creative because we might risk hurting someone's fucking feelings.

This whole thing goes against what you've said you wanted in this very thread.

We cannot possibly hope that writers will be encouraged to create better characters, better plots, better stories, when everyone is so fucking eager to get triggered that the creator's can't take any risks! You wonder why we are filled to the brim with fucking remakes and remasters!? That's why! They can't risk offending people on some new project that might turn around and offend someone. So they fall back on existing shit, or safe tropes to keep things as inoffensive as possible. AND THEN PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE SHIT SUCKS!?

I feel like i live in a crazy world.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,755
526
118
"Sexism" doesn't solely refer to sneaky efforts to oppress women. I don't believe any of these stories are written for that purpose (...well, almost none of them). I believe a lot of them are simply written because they're (1) risk-averse, (2) unimaginative and a little lazy, or (3) not recognising that they're doing it. This isn't malice and these people probably don't actually hold particularly sexist attitudes on an individual level.

But when it becomes ubiquitous, and the trope is so common that it's inescapable in media, then kids can hardly help but internalise the message that boys and girls are supposed to be certain ways. That starts to happen when it's all they see, over and over. And the broader impact of that on a kid's idea of gender roles can be restrictive and dispiriting.
It's so common in games because we've all seen or heard those kind of stories we don't need the writers to spend ages showing us and setting things up. They want to jump to the actual video game thus "Loved one was taken" lets them skip the whole need to explain stuff and jump to the action.

Take Super Meat Boy it's like a 30 second animation that's the set up to the story for it because it's a video game and about gameplay with the story not being the main meat of the content really it's the window dressing and or justification for doing what you're doing in game not the meat of the content.

I consider the notion that men are the only ones who can be brave, and save people, and take up arms for a righteous cause, to be sexist; and I consider the notion that women must be passive, and cannot save themselves, to be sexist.

But each individual piece of art that employs the "damsel in distress" trope isn't necessarily sexist in itself. Just like a game that reverses the roles wouldn't be "misandrist" or whatever.

This is a game of numbers. The aggregate effect of the one trope being so common has the potential to reinforce a sexist/restrictive notion. Perhaps that's a better way to explain it in a way that doesn't come across as accusatory, because to be clear, I'm not trying to be accusatory.
Well as I pointed out before.
Men are less likely to be injured through the act.
Men are more likely if they get injured to heal from it better.

I'm not saying women can't or shouldn't be able to be brave and save people but there's very much a reason that if it comes down to it on balance of statistics the man should step in simply because if things go badly he's more likely to survive it.

Also Anita's method is rather pointless because she tends to focus on individual pieces of media not the larger picture to begin with trying to justify why they are sexist and offensive not merely going "Here's a big list of such titles that actually do the problematic thing". But as I said even then she doesn't seem to get context.

Lets take Anita's Damsel in Distress game


So here's what you have to explain in game from a story telling perspective.
1. Who she was kidnapped by initially
2. Why she expected a brave hero to save her
3. Who is the Brave hero she was waiting for
4. Why the princess has those skills she does
5. The Layout of the kingdom such that she knows to escape to the forest
6. How she got branded a traitor
7. Who the Council is and how and why they did this specific plot

That's on top of having to explain the council turning people against her

Compared that to Super Meat Boy:
The Evil Villain stole the girl he loves and he wants to get her back.

That's it. The game only has to be interrupted to show off the next villains scheme. Little has to be explained because the villain is evil because he's evil.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,230
226
68
Finland
So what if there are gender roles? The lines and rules between the two have been shifted quite a bit in the last few decades anyway. Woman working, getting powerful positions, etc etc. Women are free to make whatever progress they want to put the effort into. What does that have to do with still promoting men being men, and women being women.
We know what is. But what ought to be? Though as I've already argued in this thread it's not constructive to go too hard against 'what is', because a lot of resources (social capital and other weird terms I don't know how to use) are tied to it.

Anyways looking at media representation I'd agree that enforcing a 50/50 is ridiculous. Like, you can't make a racing game for girls (kart games don't count). There are movie genres that feature archetypes that are rarely interesting and often expected to be gender-specific -> it takes true skill to gender flip those.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,508
2,083
118
Country
United Kingdom
What is wrong with that? I mean seriously, what is wrong with men being men and women being women. I understand that some people feel certain ways, trans or something inbetween, but i don't understand that just because a few people feel different inside that the whole of society needs to breakdown and destroy what it means to be a man or woman.
Specific proscribed roles for each gender are not "men being men and women being women". I'm still a goddamn man if I don't fit your notion of what one should be doing, thank you very much.

So what if there are gender roles? The lines and rules between the two have been shifted quite a bit in the last few decades anyway. Woman working, getting powerful positions, etc etc. Women are free to make whatever progress they want to put the effort into. What does that have to do with still promoting men being men, and women being women.
Ok, and how do you think those rules have shifted? How do you think women broke into the world of work, and gained the freedom to earn high positions? It was through challenging the restrictive social norms that came before.

If you are advertising to men about having big cocks and going out into the woods to do some manly shit like hunt a fucking deer and sleep outside for a week without taking a shower to promote a new tactial vest or some shit, then what's wrong with that?

What is wrong with advertising dollhouses to little girls?

Neither of those two things mean that those paths are the only things for men or women.
If those are the only things marketed to those groups, and they're marketed to them to the exclusion of all else, then yes, the message that sends is that those are the only paths society will recognise.

I just don't understand the reasoning behind whitewashing everything to the point where there is no gender, be what you want and we'll never make anything or be creative because we might risk hurting someone's fucking feelings.
Oh, absolute bollocks. Nobody is saying to ban it all, for fuck sake. I'm saying diversify. Those stories can obviously still exist.

cannot possibly hope that writers will be encouraged to create better characters, better plots, better stories, when everyone is so fucking eager to get triggered that the creator's can't take any risks! You wonder why we are filled to the brim with fucking remakes and remasters!? That's why! They can't risk offending people on some new project that might turn around and offend someone. So they fall back on existing shit, or safe tropes to keep things as inoffensive as possible. AND THEN PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE SHIT SUCKS!?

I feel like i live in a crazy world.
!!??

Sorry, how on earth is encouraging experimentation and greater diversity somehow stifling creativity?!

That's an inane line of argument. Endless repetition of the same things is what leads to stagnation. And that's what you get when you endlessly retread the same tropes, and become so risk-averse you don't write outside of them.
 

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
510
365
68
Country
United States
What is wrong with that? I mean seriously, what is wrong with men being men and women being women.
Because one is valued more than the other.

So what if there are gender roles?
Because again, some roles pay more money than others, and when you're in a capitalist/consumer society, money uber alles.

What does that have to do with still promoting men being men, and women being women.
Because it inevitably puts women in the position where they have less money, and therefore, less power and pull.



I feel like i live in a crazy world.
Me too.

But conservatives aren't making it any saner.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,755
526
118
Because one is valued more than the other.
Yes just not likely the one people think.

There's a reason it's women and Children first and the idea of the code of chivalry etc.
Something about the inherent disposability of man.


Because again, some roles pay more money than others, and when you're in a capitalist/consumer society, money uber alles.
That comes down more to career paths etc. Career paths that for the most part aren't gender limited.

The idea of a 33% wage gap is honestly a joke. David Packman (who is very much Left Wing or was, he's probably considered alt-right now by some) looked into the claims and his research found comparing like for like it was at most a 3% difference which could be made up by actual differences in willingness to ask for raises or push for higher contract amounts.


Part of the issue round that also comes into the men and women's version of the fields being independent (See Sports). There was an argument before about Wimbledon and how the mens and women's prizes should be the same amount but when it was looked into women played less matches at Wimbledon and the prize money was calculated based on matches played thus to give the same money men would be doing more work for the same pay which would be sexism


Because it inevitably puts women in the position where they have less money, and therefore, less power and pull.
Never doubt the power of influence even without stacks of cash. To quote a joke from the BBC show "Up the Women" about the rise of the suffragettes "Why do we women need the vote, I tell my Husband who to vote for and he as he's damn well told, isn't that how it is for all women?". (and no to be clear because some people will wish to distort this I'm not arguing against women's votes merely using it to frame the idea one can have influence without money)



Me too.

But conservatives aren't making it any saner.
I dunno they're not the ones shifting the rule of play every 2 weeks to 2 months these days. I very much may never agree with the rules conservatives want but at least I know them and know I probably won't be thrown under the bus for failure to enjoy or go see a certain film or buy / praise a certain game.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,508
2,083
118
Country
United Kingdom
I dunno they're not the ones shifting the rule of play every 2 weeks to 2 months these days. I very much may never agree with the rules conservatives want but at least I know them and know I probably won't be thrown under the bus for failure to enjoy or go see a certain film or buy / praise a certain game.
Hah! You absolutely will be thrown under the bus for enjoying the wrong thing, if they arbitrarily decide that it's too "woke" or if the people in it don't fit fit a certain, prescripted idea. CriticalGaming is in another thread at this very moment complaining that the female characters are too "uglified" in certain games. There's always predictable rage whenever a woman appears on the cover of something like Battlefield. I remember the Daily Mail whining about The Great British Bake Off because only one of the three finalists was a white man.

You don't notice or credit those complaints because they happen to chime with you personally.
 
Last edited:

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,755
526
118
Hah! You absolutely will be thrown under the bus for enjoying the wrong thing, if they arbitrarily decide that it's too "woke" or if the people in it don't fit fit a certain, prescripted idea.
Except you seem to very much be ignoring the contingent of people who do literally seem to only like certain properties due to perceived political messaging to them. You want to like Battlefield V then go ahead. I personally played the Beta and found it very lackluster and feeling like the series had barely evolved since Battlefield 3 at that point.
It's no different than years ago when Sarah Palin was pushing American Sniper.
Only now you get thrown under the bus and have far more people trying to shame you for not enjoying [insert certain film / media property here] rather than some detached politician most people already thought was a bit disconnected from reality anyway.

I've always maintained and will do that Woke and progressive are two different things. Stargirl is progressive as a series, the Villains in it ironically would be considered almost avatars of being woke.

CriticalGaming is in another thread at this very moment complaining that the female characters are too "uglified" in certain games. There's always predictable rage whenever a woman appears on the cover of something like Battlefield. I remember the Daily Mail whining about The Great British Bake Off because only one of the three finalists was a white man.

You don't notice or credit those complaints because they happen to chime with you personally.
Except the uglification theory very much holds weight because some companies are scared of their characters being deemed to sexy thus deemed sexualisd. I think it was one of the art directors of one of the more recent Mortal Kombat games that admitted on twitter they deliberately made the female characters less attractive.

Also most people don't take The Daily Mail seriously to begin with.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,508
2,083
118
Country
United Kingdom
Except you seem to very much be ignoring the contingent of people who do literally seem to only like certain properties due to perceived political messaging to them. You want to like Battlefield V then go ahead. I personally played the Beta and found it very lackluster and feeling like the series had barely evolved since Battlefield 3 at that point.
I've never played Battlefield V, and don't really care to. But I saw numerous people decrying it because it had a woman on the front.

I'm not ignoring them at all. I'm just well aware that it's just as common amongst conservatives as it is among anybody else to like or dislike certain properties based on perceived political messaging, but they just tend to deny it to themselves and moan about everybody else being selective.

I've always maintained and will do that Woke and progressive are two different things. Stargirl is progressive as a series, the Villains in it ironically would be considered almost avatars of being woke.
In that "woke" is primarily an insult and "progressive" is primarily a self-descriptor, sure.

Except the uglification theory very much holds weight because some companies are scared of their characters being deemed to sexy thus deemed sexualisd.
And there we go. You're happy to decry certain media you don't like based on a perceived political bent.

Also most people don't take The Daily Mail seriously to begin with.
It's the second most widely-read newspaper in the United Kingdom, the country in which I live. People absolutely do take it seriously. Don't limit your view of the topic to people arguing online on video game forums.
 

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
510
365
68
Country
United States
There's a reason it's women and Children first
And in the panic of a fire or boat sinking, how often do you really think that was applied?

and the idea of the code of chivalry etc.
Which means fuck all. Chivalry was only ever applicable to landed knights and the courtesy to women extended ONLY to noble women of recognized lineage. Peasant women were, like all peasants, worth less than nothing.

Something about the inherent disposability of man.
For being disposable, they still nabbed the best paying roles and positions.

That comes down more to career paths etc. Career paths that for the most part aren't gender limited.
So why are the "female" ones lower paying?

The idea of a 33% wage gap
Which I don't follow nor did I cite, so this is meaningless.

Never doubt the power of influence even without stacks of cash.
Yea, that's what they tell people without money to make them feel better.

"Why do we women need the vote, I tell my Husband who to vote for and he as he's damn well told, isn't that how it is for all women?"
And was that character told "No, it's not." ?

I dunno they're not the ones shifting the rule of play every 2 weeks to 2 months these days. I very much may never agree with the rules conservatives want but at least I know them and know I probably won't be thrown under the bus for failure to enjoy or go see a certain film or buy / praise a certain game.
Not shifting? Did you miss the entire People vs Citizens United case which gave corporations all the protections that conservatives now gripe about? Conservatives were cheering when they won that case.

And I also lived under things like the Meese Commission, The Satanic Panic, and the Moral Majority that damn near saw a televangelist win the White House (Pat Robertson). So don't talk to me about "shifting".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cicada 5

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,755
526
118
I've never played Battlefield V, and don't really care to. But I saw numerous people decrying it because it had a woman on the front.
Are you sure, and not that was how it was told or presented to you when people were actually objecting to the Bionic woman cockney hitting Nazis with a spiked cricket bat in the trailer?

Which lead to a whole load of bullshit about how it was totally accurate and could totally be representative of World War II..............

I'm not ignoring them at all. I'm just well aware that it's just as common amongst conservatives as it is among anybody else to like or dislike certain properties based on perceived political messaging, but they just tend to deny it to themselves and moan about everybody else being selective.
Except you don't generally end up under the bus by conservatives for not liking the thing unless the only people who surround you are hardcore political activists. You don't generally see masses of them flooding peoples mentions and inboxes with "You're a monster who will burn it hell for all eternity for committing such sin". But again me giving my impression on a Battlefield V Beta? Nah I got accused of only writing the whole thing out of bigotry rather than what I'd tried to do which was check my baggage at the door and look at the game for a game not the political whirlwind round it.


And there we go. You're happy to decry certain media you don't like based on a perceived political bent.
Because the certain political bent was actually inserted into the media deliberately for some Socio-political reasoning and nonsense mostly. People can still like the game for being a game but the whole shitty game of pretending it was in service of realism or ending rape or some other shit, no it's just the modern shitty version of "Won't some-one please think of the children" and pulling it back onto topic more it's the same kind of nonsense as being peddled by the Geena Davis institute report and Anita Sarkeesian.

People are fed up of the Sophistry around it all.

No a one armed Cockney women with a spiked cricket bat is not realistic for a World War II game as losing a limb or missing a limb would see people taken off the frontlines at best if not fully set home and discharged. Though there was a male ace pilot who had two artificial legs in WWII.

No making the female characters less sexy but still fight in high heels and also be able to have their spine broken and then carry on fighting as though it's all fine was not done for realisms sake.

No the backlash to Mass Effect 3 wasn't due to a secret homophobic hate campaign run by church groups


It's the second most widely-read newspaper in the United Kingdom, the country in which I live. People absolutely do take it seriously. Don't limit your view of the topic to people arguing online on video game forums.
2nd most widely read. I question if that is accurate or if it's just most widely bought because it's cheap and various places need reading material for when people are waiting for things
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,755
526
118
And in the panic of a fire or boat sinking, how often do you really think that was applied?
Often enough to be on record


At the first cabin when a boat was being lowered an officer pointed a revolver and said if any man tried to get in, he would shoot him on the spot. I saw the officer shoot two men dead because they tried to get in the boat. Afterwards there was another shot, and I saw the officer himself lying on the deck. They told me he shot himself, but I did not see him. I was up to my knees in the water at the time. Every one was rushing around, and there were no more boats. I then dived overboard.

Which means fuck all. Chivalry was only ever applicable to landed knights and the courtesy to women extended ONLY to noble women of recognized lineage. Peasant women were, like all peasants, worth less than nothing.
Well it was still and thing as such.

For being disposable, they still nabbed the best paying roles and positions.
Danger money

So why are the "female" ones lower paying?
Which ones?

Because Vet's tend to trend female. So do biology lab researchers (don't ask me why Biology more specifically as a Science).

Hell Women models have an earnings potential 10 times that of male models.


Which I don't follow nor did I cite, so this is meaningless.
Fair enough just where some of the claims you seemed to be bringing up tend to come from or come connected to

Yea, that's what they tell people without money to make them feel better.
And yet it's true. Yes money can greatly make it easier but don't doubt the power to influence without a vast fortune backing a person.


And was that character told "No, it's not." ?
They were and their response was shock over it

Not shifting? Did you miss the entire People vs Citizens United case which gave corporations all the protections that conservatives now gripe about? Conservatives were cheering when they won that case.

And I also lived under things like the Meese Commission, The Satanic Panic, and the Moral Majority that damn near saw a televangelist win the White House (Pat Robertson). So don't talk to me about "shifting".
Ok looking up the People vs Citizens United case wasn't that 2010 and specifically relating to election material?

Also again the things you're referencing are I think are maybe a little before my time or just ending around my time so it's been a while and there has been a massive shift in I'd say maybe 9 years in things with certain standards and things seemingly shifting from week to week almost now with social media.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,508
2,083
118
Country
United Kingdom
Are you sure
Yes. And it's about the twentieth time I've seen people moaning about a woman/POC/disabled person/gay person appearing in a prominent position in a game.

Except you don't generally end up under the bus by conservatives for not liking the thing unless the only people who surround you are hardcore political activists. You don't generally see masses of them flooding peoples mentions and inboxes with "You're a monster who will burn it hell for all eternity for committing such sin".
That's just ridiculous strawmanning hyperbole about what people you disagree with have said.

But the point is: yes, you absolutely do see conservatives moaning about art they don't like for political reasons, just as commonly as anybody else.

The only reason you're taking more notice of one than the other is that one of them has your sympathy.


Because the certain political bent was actually inserted into the media deliberately for some Socio-political reasoning and nonsense mostly.
I couldn't be less interested in your rationalisations for why it's okay when you do it.

2nd most widely read. I question if that is accurate or if it's just most widely bought because it's cheap and various places need reading material for when people are waiting for things
Nobody who's lived in the UK for long could really question that it's an immensely influential paper, nation-wide.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,755
526
118
Yes. And it's about the twentieth time I've seen people moaning about a woman/POC/disabled person/gay person appearing in a prominent position in a game.
Well the character never actually appeared in the game. It's why I was asking if it's what you'd heard / been told rather than actually seen go down. Because what I saw go down wasn't people upset over her being on the box as such.


That's just ridiculous strawmanning hyperbole about what people you disagree with have said.

But the point is: yes, you absolutely do see conservatives moaning about art they don't like for political reasons, just as commonly as anybody else.

The only reason you're taking more notice of one than the other is that one of them has your sympathy.
No it's personal experience.

Also I'd hope you'll admit there's a difference between moaning about not liking art and claiming that anyone who doesn't like a piece is a subhuman Nazi who deserves nothing but a slow painful death.

As for only taking notice now?
No or I wouldn't have been able to reference the Sarah Palin thing now would I?
Funny thing is people are or were more than used to right wing groups taking aim at pieces of media. I think I even mocked the stupid video game burning some town was planning years ago under guidance of some idiot preacher.

I notice now because I noticed the things happening before and it concerns me to see it shift from one side doing it to now both sides doing it and one now eclipsing the other in how often it's done which people who previous stood against it (and somewhat alongside me / the people against the bullshit moralising) and now turning round and trying to defend or excuse it now being done by some others who are just as much moral busybodies as the olds ones. Just in many cases now with a lick of new paint while making the same kind of claims.


I couldn't be less interested in your rationalisations for why it's okay when you do it.
Ok what series has had conservative politics injecting into a property that previously didn't really have it?
(Fun fact I can name one but it's held up as actually great by a lot of people including left wingers the question is can you.)

The problem is turning a property into a political vehicle for a certain ideology or doing it to "Spite" some other ideology seen as bad but also seen as liking the property.


Nobody who's lived in the UK for long could really question that it's an immensely influential paper, nation-wide.
Well I do and I live here. The Daily Mail is some boogeyman pointed to as a way to scare people. It's relentlessly been mocked over the years. I mean come on for years it was mockingly referred to as The Daily Heil.
 

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
510
365
68
Country
United States
Danger money
So women were allowed to apply for kingship, conquistadorial roles, military positions, ect...[/quote]

Which ones?
Nursing, secretarial, many other "human relations" jobs that supposedly playing to the strengths of women are usually much lower paying than one that play to to the strengths of men.

And yet it's true. Yes money can greatly make it easier but don't doubt the power to influence without a vast fortune backing a person.
Again, it doesn't play out that way in the real world. Welcome to Capitalism.

Ok looking up the People vs Citizens United case wasn't that 2010 and specifically relating to election material?
It was, but one of the effects besides it's influence on election law was that it bestowed the rights of individuals to corporations.

Also again the things you're referencing are I think are maybe a little before my time or just ending around my time so it's been a while and there has been a massive shift in I'd say maybe 9 years in things with certain standards and things seemingly shifting from week to week almost now with social media.
Yes. They were before your time, but not mine. I have a functioning memory. That throws a lot of political rhetoric off. I remember well what conservatives shoved down my throat one time, then what they try to shovel in it now.

As for conservative standards not throwing people under the bus for creative endeavors, ask Matt and Trey about the episode "Board Girls" where they DARED showed girls being tabletop gamers.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,508
2,083
118
Country
United Kingdom
Well the character never actually appeared in the game. It's why I was asking if it's what you'd heard / been told rather than actually seen go down. Because what I saw go down wasn't people upset over her being on the box as such.
Then you either weren't paying attention, or are now fibbing.


No it's personal experience.

Also I'd hope you'll admit there's a difference between moaning about not liking art and claiming that anyone who doesn't like a piece is a subhuman Nazi who deserves nothing but a slow painful death.
There's a difference in that the second one is a ridiculous fabrication that you've come up with to badmouth your opponents.

Well I do and I live here. The Daily Mail is some boogeyman pointed to as a way to scare people. It's relentlessly been mocked over the years. I mean come on for years it was mockingly referred to as The Daily Heil.
By who, exactly?

By a vanishingly small number of people on the internet.

Meanwhile, it has an estimated readership of over 2 million, higher than almost any other paper, excluding only the Sun. It's one of the most influential media outlets in the country.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
4,755
526
118
Bullshit. You're trying to apply nuance to an argument that never, ever had any.
Yes it really did or should have done because at the same time as pushing the "None of them are realistic anyway". It was being pushed that it would focus on the " untold stories " of real women in WWII.

So it yeh you are right there was no nuance because there was no consistency in the argumental positions just people who wanted to win trying to use whatever they could to win.

Thus people were being stupid for wanting realism but also you have pieces saying how it's all just whiny entitled Toxic people who clearly failed history objecting to the character.