Why do people scream "Feminist Agenda" when there is a female lead?

[Redryhno]

They really don't. People just react strongly to manufactured outrage. Nobody cared about "bigger" gal in Overwatch, and nobody cared about that someone was gender swapped in Jessica Jones. I saw like 3 articles defending both of those. Then there is the Ghostbusters thing witch the only complaint I've heard about it is that it sound like they're having problems on set, and it likely won't turn out well, but hay they said the same thing for Ant-man.

Yeah, but Blade Trinity, F4ntastic, and Ghostbusters2 all had conflict on set too. Ant-Man's honestly the exception to the rule in that regard, and there's still alot of people divided on if it was good or not.

Let me put it another way: my two female friends who saw the Force Awakens were both talking about how great it was to have a female main character kicking arse in a Star Wars movie, and there are so many women who consider characters like Furiosa or Jessica Jones empowering. That, to me is so much more important than a bunch of people on a forum complaining about tokenism or Mary Sues or (especially) the feminist agenda.

I can understand Furiosa, but Jones? Really? She's shown to have some detective skills in the first two episodes, but then she just becomes your standard "I MUST DO THIS" meathead. Like seriously, Cage has less screentime than every character but the assistant in the series and contributes more to finding Kilgrave than Jones.

Not to mention she falls right into the "detective that drinks more than detects" trope that has people complaining about other male characters that are the same or similar. It's just such a weird statement to say that Jones is more empowering than so many other female leads in media, even in western media there's so many more that are better. About the only thing Jones has on them is her strength, and even that isn't showcased all that well after the first episode with the strip club owner.

 

[Kingjackl]

Let me put it another way: my two female friends who saw the Force Awakens were both talking about how great it was to have a female main character kicking arse in a Star Wars movie, and there are so many women who consider characters like Furiosa or Jessica Jones empowering. That, to me is so much more important than a bunch of people on a forum complaining about tokenism or Mary Sues or (especially) the feminist agenda.

I can understand Furiosa, but Jones? Really? She's shown to have some detective skills in the first two episodes, but then she just becomes your standard "I MUST DO THIS" meathead. Like seriously, Cage has less screentime than every character but the assistant in the series and contributes more to finding Kilgrave than Jones.

Not to mention she falls right into the "detective that drinks more than detects" trope that has people complaining about other male characters that are the same or similar. It's just such a weird statement to say that Jones is more empowering than so many other female leads in media, even in western media there's so many more that are better. About the only thing Jones has on them is her strength, and even that isn't showcased all that well after the first episode with the strip club owner.

I will admit I haven't actually seen Jessica Jones (it's on my list, but I'm not yet caught up on House of Cards). I'm just using it because it's recent and has cropped up a lot in these discussions. Though you raise a good point, the "hard-drinking detective" trope is still a traditionally empowering archetype, if not ripe for deconstruction. And again, very few female characters compared to men occupy that role, hence why she's become popular. Plus, there's the underlying themes of abusive relationships and so on which I would imagine means a lot more to women than men.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I can understand Furiosa, but Jones? Really? She's shown to have some detective skills in the first two episodes, but then she just becomes your standard "I MUST DO THIS" meathead. Like seriously, Cage has less screentime than every character but the assistant in the series and contributes more to finding Kilgrave than Jones.

Not to mention she falls right into the "detective that drinks more than detects" trope that has people complaining about other male characters that are the same or similar. It's just such a weird statement to say that Jones is more empowering than so many other female leads in media, even in western media there's so many more that are better. About the only thing Jones has on them is her strength, and even that isn't showcased all that well after the first episode with the strip club owner.

Exactly.

If Jessica Jones was James Jones, nobody would've said a damn thing. That's a reason why people like Jessica Jones. She isn't some "Strong Female Character" stereotype, She's not a "Mary Sue", she's a character.

And it's good that there's more female characters around.

 

[Naraka]

They really don't. People just react strongly to manufactured outrage. Nobody cared about "bigger" gal in Overwatch, and nobody cared about that someone was gender swapped in Jessica Jones. I saw like 3 articles defending both of those. Then there is the Ghostbusters thing witch the only complaint I've heard about it is that it sound like they're having problems on set, and it likely won't turn out well, but hay they said the same thing for Ant-man.

Yeah, but Blade Trinity, F4ntastic, and Ghostbusters2 all had conflict on set too. Ant-Man's honestly the exception to the rule in that regard, and there's still alot of people divided on if it was good or not.

Let me put it another way: my two female friends who saw the Force Awakens were both talking about how great it was to have a female main character kicking arse in a Star Wars movie, and there are so many women who consider characters like Furiosa or Jessica Jones empowering. That, to me is so much more important than a bunch of people on a forum complaining about tokenism or Mary Sues or (especially) the feminist agenda.

I can understand Furiosa, but Jones? Really? She's shown to have some detective skills in the first two episodes, but then she just becomes your standard "I MUST DO THIS" meathead. Like seriously, Cage has less screentime than every character but the assistant in the series and contributes more to finding Kilgrave than Jones.

Not to mention she falls right into the "detective that drinks more than detects" trope that has people complaining about other male characters that are the same or similar. It's just such a weird statement to say that Jones is more empowering than so many other female leads in media, even in western media there's so many more that are better. About the only thing Jones has on them is her strength, and even that isn't showcased all that well after the first episode with the strip club owner.

You don't see what's empowering about a female playing a role typically filled only by men? You outlined why it would be empowering, then just failed to see why because it's not a positive "role model" or some bullshit.

 

[Redryhno]

And it's good that there's more female characters around.

You don't see what's empowering about a female playing a role typically filled only by men? You outlined why it would be empowering, then just failed to see why because it's not a positive "role model" or some bullshit.

I'm pretty sure you both ignored the part where I said it's been criticized as being shallow when males do it, but in Jones' case, it's praised. And where I said her detective skills were dropped and picked up by pretty much every other character in the show. She became just another drunken meathead with smart friends. That's my problem. She's not a character, she's a 63'd trope. Which I personally consider lazy if the character is given the minimum personality needed. And she takes up the majority of the screentime while being dull as a brick(as I said before, I'm not entirely sure if this is the fault of the actress or the writing)

I have no problem with more female characters, I enjoyed pretty much every other female character. Even Hogarth, who was bastardized and is just a corpse wearing the name, I really thought was done well. So much of the female cast is good in that show, but Jones herself is so fucking boring. I don't like it when a dude does it, I don't like it when she does it. That's my argument. It's that she is set up REALLY well, and then does nothing so that the other characters have a reason to be there(when they could honestly be fine with Jones' actually doing the detective work and still fulfill meaningful roles and have their own arcs started, Malcolm is a prime example of this)

I just think that there's far better examples out there for empowering and strong female characters and very few that are worse simply due to how average Jones is in this. Not to mention just some of the cut here, paste it around here to fit what we want to say mentality just started to grate one me. The most minor of which being that Kilgrave is actually his last name and he had no sexual interest in Jones in the comics(though he was still a rapist, so they got something right.)

Also, no, I don't want them to just retell stuff you can read verbatim(because I've already had that argument back when Iron Man 3 came out, even if I liked the Mandarin subversion), just that they don't rip two characters/stories/etc in half and paste them together and say they were always like that.

 

[Redryhno]

I will admit I haven't actually seen Jessica Jones (it's on my list, but I'm not yet caught up on House of Cards). I'm just using it because it's recent and has cropped up a lot in these discussions. Though you raise a good point, the "hard-drinking detective" trope is still a traditionally empowering archetype, if not ripe for deconstruction. And again, very few female characters compared to men occupy that role, hence why she's become popular. Plus, there's the underlying themes of abusive relationships and so on which I would imagine means a lot more to women than men.

(Posting this separately so that I can attempt to not spoil more for you)

Shit...I thought you'd seen it and that's why you were bringing it up as an example, sorry for giving away minor spoilers, I do recommend it even as much as I seem to be shitting on it, but "hard-drinking detective" trope normally has something else going for them, whether it be constant conflict with themselves(there's some of this, but like alot of things is dropped at a certain point and forgotten completely), some kind of wit, or even just a sleepless determination that is shown to be driving them constantly. Jessica Jones just....doesn't have that, she's just a hard-drinking detec-screw it just a hard-drinker because so much is just ignored and forgotten to never be referenced again.

Also the opening has the same problem that Daredevil did with it being far too long, though unfortunately they didn't have their own beautiful wax/blood turning into landmarks and objects thing going for them.

 

[Politrukk]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

Then what does her being female have to do with it?

You are a professional at missing the point and diverting the discussion into a loop.

Have you ever considered becoming a politician.

The point is that the character THOR is a man, always has been.

Thor girl = okay, make it Thor-Girl, just like Spider Woman, Bat Girl what have you, make her the lead instead sure.

That's the point, it means you're changing fundamental in what the character is.

it's like casting a man for Daenerys Targaryen or Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones, like casting a midget to play the Hulk, like modeling argonians but calling them Khajit in an Elder Scrolls game.



You know who you could gender swap without a problem to my opinion?

Captain America, because it's always been a person behind a mask, and even then with characters behind masks we usually see that they get a "woman" or "girl" adjective.

now if those adjectives bother people they could always write a completely new character that shares the same powers but a different background and gender identity and it would be grand.

You might piss some people off like that still but at least you've created an original character.


I don't see how you could not see this/disregard it so completely.

 

[Redryhno]

I wish they'd just write new characters and refrain from re-rolling old ones.

Then what does her being female have to do with it?

You are a professional at missing the point and diverting the discussion into a loop.

Have you ever considered becoming a politician.

The point is that the character THOR is a man, always has been.

Thor girl = okay, make it Thor-Girl, just like Spider Woman, Bat Girl what have you, make her the lead instead sure.

That's the point, it means you're changing fundamental in what the character is.

it's like casting a man for Daenerys Targaryen or Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones, like casting a midget to play the Hulk, like modeling argonians but calling them Khajit in an Elder Scrolls game.



You know who you could gender swap without a problem to my opinion?

Captain America, because it's always been a person behind a mask, and even then with characters behind masks we usually see that they get a "woman" or "girl" adjective.

now if those adjectives bother people they could always write a completely new character that shares the same powers but a different background and gender identity and it would be grand.

You might piss some people off like that still but at least you've created an original character.


I don't see how you could not see this/disregard it so completely.

Hell, pretty much that exact scenario happened with American Dream, she's essentially just Cap with boobs while he goes off doing Cap things she's off doing her own Cap thing. Only difference is that she doesn't have a sereum equivalent and is just a normal person with that is only slightly worse in-universe with the "official" power meter Marvel has. Hell, I think she's even taller than Rogers with the Super-Soldier stuff.

 

[mardocOz]

"Why do people scream "Feminist Agenda" when there is a female lead?"

They do? First I've heard of it.

 

[Something Amyss]

If Jessica Jones was James Jones, nobody would've said a damn thing. That's a reason why people like Jessica Jones. She isn't some "Strong Female Character" stereotype, She's not a "Mary Sue", she's a character.

And it's good that there's more female characters around.

Well, no. She'd be a character if she was a dude. But she's doing the same things that I'd defend while being a woman, and that's wrong. But totally not in a way that is in any way sexist or otherwise demonstrates prejudice.

 

[elvor0]

I'd be fine with it if he said that he is no longer worthy of being called Thor and went under a pseudonym, while "she" takes up the hammer.

That...that is what happened, though. Again, this is all very explicitly laid out in the book. Thor Odinson said he's not worthy of being called Thor now, and is letting people call him the Odinson or the Prince of Asgard or whatever, while people are calling the person holding Mjolnir Thor because the Odinson gave her the name in front of just about all of Asgard and nearly every superhero in existence. There was a huge crowd of them all around when this happened.

But Thor is still Thor even if he says he's called Bob Fletcher. It's not the hammer that makes Thor Thor, its just who he is.

I like to think that being a god and a prince of gods grants a person the authority to decide what his own name is.

It feels clunky because they're mitigating all canon in a way that doesn't even make sense. There's no reason for any of the characters to consider this new woman Thor, they should just consider her to to be the person wielding Mjonir because she is worthy of doing so.

I consider "she can do everything he can do, and also he said she's Thor now right in front of me" to be pretty compelling. They're superheroes. This shit happens all the time.

Oh I'm not arguing thats not what happened, I'm just saying I'm not cool with anyone canon-conically being considered real Thor besides actual Thor(alternate universes non withstanding, otherwise whats the point). Its the Marvel statement that she IS Thor and not just using the name. If you...catch my drift. Its kind of difficult to state in another way without inflection of my voice. I'm fine with her wielding the hammer, just not herself being Thor.

No, but he is Thor, even if he goes under a pseudonym. He's Thor because he was born Thor, not because he chooses to be.

Yeah I just don't like it, and don't think it should be considered similar to passing someone else a suit of armor. The Hammer is the Armour, not the person.

Green Lantern is different because its for all intents and purposes a job, not an identity. Hal Jordan has never been the only Green Lantern since the inception of his character, and multiple Green Lanterns have always existed alongside him. In universe, he is A Green Lantern, not THE one and only Green Lantern.

Kind of ironic, because you're talking about a character that in itself borrowed the whole concept from a prior character of the same name. In fact, that character was later retconned into the new Green Lantern mythos. This seems like more of an appropriation than anything that's happened with Thor here.

Don't get me wrong, I never read the old Green Lantern comics. My brother was a Hal Jordan fan, so I grew up breading a bunch of those and he is my first thought when it comes to Green Lantern. But still, this was less in line with the prior Green Lantern than what you're arguing about.

Thor is tricky because Thor isn't his superhero identity or an alternate identity, its who he is.

Well, no. It's both a title and a name. A title he's previously been deemed unworthy to use, and that has been granted to others. He didn't stop being the child of Odin or anything, but the title changed hands. This isn't tricky at all.

I'd be fine with it if he said that he is no longer worthy of being called Thor and went under a pseudonym, whilst "She" takes up the Hammer.

I'm confused then, because that's literally what happened, and how they announced and marketed it. Where's the problem?

I consider "she can do everything he can do, and also he said she's Thor now right in front of me" to be pretty compelling. They're superheroes. This shit happens all the time.

Come to think of it, I think any superhero who demanded I call them Thor would get their wish. Hulk may not have Thor's powers, but are you really going to argue with him?

On Green Lantern, you're right, though most people aren't at all familiar with Alan Scott and we were talking about Hal Jordans Green Lantern which is a completely different beast and was a retcon, not an in universe appropriation, I feel its a whole different can of worms. Alan Scott didn't pass on the ring, he just ceased to have ever existed until Flash of Two worlds. Even then they existed in separate universes and didn't cancel each other out once the multiverse was established.

Similar to what I said to JimB(read above just so I don't have to type the same thing twice), he is still Thor though. Allowed to represent himself as such or not, that is who he was born as and would be regardless of whether or not he says he is, he's Thor because he was born Thor, not because he chooses to be or because he wields the hammer. Tony Stark can separate himself from the armour, Thor cannot separate himself from himself.

I just don't like it, and don't think it should be considered similar to passing someone else a suit of armor. The Hammer is the Armour, not the person.

 

[elvor0]

Not to mention Aragorn is routinely mentioned as also being "dark", the Evil Men of Khand being a variation of "Vikings" who I'm pretty sure aren't known for being dark-skinned.

Sorry, not gonna get into the discussion you guys are having too much. But dark here is dark in a shady kind of way, not skin coloured, he's also described as "foul looking". Don't forget that its written from the perspective of Hobbits, for whom anyone who isnt a hobbit or Gandalf could be considered "foul looking". They dont even trust people on the other side of the river.

"a shaggy head of dark hair flecked with grey, and in a pale stern face a pair of keen grey eyes" is a description of Aragorn from the book.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

You know, we can all argue the psychological, social, and fandom, etc. factors 'til were blue in the face.
Thing is, when all is said and done, what it all kinda boils down to is people saying "No! You can't even have the option!!"
Bluntly, that's an asshole kind of move. Shitting on the opportunity to see someone do what's generally taboo saying "Nope! Only men get to fill the role! EVER!"

It's not right for anyone to say that sort of thing about any role, men, women, or child.

 

[Redryhno]

"Why do people scream "Feminist Agenda" when there is a female lead?"

They do? First I've heard of it.

Edit: Apologies, just ignore, I had a thought and then completely forgot when I came back to finish it.

Not to mention Aragorn is routinely mentioned as also being "dark", the Evil Men of Khand being a variation of "Vikings" who I'm pretty sure aren't known for being dark-skinned.

Sorry, not gonna get into the discussion you guys are having too much. But dark here is dark in a shady kind of way, not skin coloured, he's also described as "foul looking". Don't forget that its written from the perspective of Hobbits, for whom anyone who isnt a hobbit or Gandalf could be considered "foul looking". They dont even trust people on the other side of the river.

"a shaggy head of dark hair flecked with grey, and in a pale stern face a pair of keen grey eyes" is a description of Aragorn from the book.

I'm aware, but it appears they were talking about the movies being nothing but brown people on the evil side, therefore that's what Jackson was saying or something while also talking about Tolkien's race problem or something. That whole conversation was fucking weird, but thanks for correcting that for me anyways.

You know, we can all argue the psychological, social, and fandom, etc. factors 'til were blue in the face.
Thing is, when all is said and done, what it all kinda boils down to is people saying "No! You can't even have the option!!"
Bluntly, that's an asshole kind of move. Shitting on the opportunity to see someone do what's generally taboo saying "Nope! Only men get to fill the role! EVER!"

It's not right for anyone to say that sort of thing about any role, men, women, or child.

I don't think anyone is really saying that beyond what you could personally take from "she's not a good character because she's in a traditionally male role, she's a boring character because she's in a traditionally male role that is equally as boring with a dude in it and there's alot of other characters that are better that are overlooked because they don't go through a 'rape' experience".

I really hate that I feel like I have nothing to say but to keep repeating myself, I really do, but it really just feels like the only female characters that get praised are the ones that go through said rape/abuse experiences(whether it be metaphor or literal) no matter how generic they are outside of that one thing that's slowly being talked about now, and in return, is funnily enough becoming just another generic character trait.

 

[JimB]

You are a professional at missing the point and diverting the discussion into a loop.

What I am is trying to get you to answer a question without insulting you by telling you my reasons for asking, since I didn't want to be hostile. But if you're already pissed off at me enough to insult me, I suppose I may as well be explicit, hadn't I?

Politrukk, you are the one who brought up Thor's gender. No one prompted you to do it. Later, you said her gender doesn't matter, what you care about is the change. The thing is, I do not believe you when you say her gender doesn't matter, because if the change was the only thing that matters to you, then the change is all you would have brought up. Since you brought up her gender, I therefore have to assume your protests later are an attempt to save face. I think you are upset that Thor has tits now. I was asking you nicely because I thought you might have been willing or able to resolve the paradox gracefully, but I no longer believe that either.

I am sorry to be so aggressive about it, but I do not feel I was left any other choice if I was to communicate my intent to you.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

You know, we can all argue the psychological, social, and fandom, etc. factors 'til were blue in the face.
Thing is, when all is said and done, what it all kinda boils down to is people saying "No! You can't even have the option!!"
Bluntly, that's an asshole kind of move. Shitting on the opportunity to see someone do what's generally taboo saying "Nope! Only men get to fill the role! EVER!"

It's not right for anyone to say that sort of thing about any role, men, women, or child.

I don't think anyone is really saying that beyond what you could personally take from "she's not a good character because she's in a traditionally male role, she's a boring character because she's in a traditionally male role that is equally as boring with a dude in it and there's alot of other characters that are better that are overlooked because they don't go through a 'rape' experience".

I really hate that I feel like I have nothing to say but to keep repeating myself, I really do, but it really just feels like the only female characters that get praised are the ones that go through said rape/abuse experiences(whether it be metaphor or literal) no matter how generic they are outside of that one thing that's slowly being talked about now, and in return, is funnily enough becoming just another generic character trait.

What? that's exactly what's being said now! "Only guys should have lousy characters in boring roles!" Guys are in bad roles all the time. If we only had women be good characters, we'd have almost no women in media.
Remember that episode of Futurama where Leela played pro Blurnsball(Sp?) and she was terrible at it? Spoiler alert,

Spoiler

a woman decided to play to show it could be done better

. Bad characters can inspire good ones.

But seriously, rape experience? I can't say I get out as much, but what situation are you talking about here? You seem awfully specific, but I'm talking in general.
I mean, every character goes through trauma, few guys get raped though.

Why are the other characters better? It's not the worse character's fault for how they're written. Why are they worse? Maybe being worse makes them a better fit for the role?

I celebrate almost all women in lead roles. Some less than others, some in different ways, but I feel like women should be able to do things that aren't traditional. If all the ones getting praised go through rape, and/or trauma of some sort, then there's the fact that every character tends to go through trauma, and maybe people can lay off the rape part? I don't know. If it's common, then it's going to be common, if you know what I mean? If it's common for female characters to go through rape/trauma then odds are that's who's going to get praised because it's hard, if not impossible to find one that hasn't. Bad characters happen all the time, so that's even more of a minefield.
If they're all we've got to work with, and to celebrate, then that's all we have. We gotta celebrate someone.

I dunno if I've even stayed on topic due to rambling,and junk. If I haven't, sorry.

 

[Redryhno]

What? that's exactly what's being said now! "Only guys should have lousy characters in boring roles!" Guys are in bad roles all the time. If we only had women be good characters, we'd have almost no women in media.
Remember that episode of Futurama where Leela played pro Blurnsball(Sp?) and she was terrible at it? Spoiler alert,

Spoiler

a woman decided to play to show it could be done better

. Bad characters can inspire good ones.

But seriously, rape experience? I can't say I get out as much, but what situation are you talking about here? You seem awfully specific, but I'm talking in general.
I mean, every character goes through trauma, few guys get raped though.

Why are the other characters better? It's not the worse character's fault for how they're written. Why are they worse? Maybe being worse makes them a better fit for the role?

I celebrate almost all women in lead roles. Some less than others, some in different ways, but I feel like women should be able to do things that aren't traditional. If all the ones getting praised go through rape, and/or trauma of some sort, then there's the fact that every character tends to go through trauma, and maybe people can lay off the rape part? I don't know. If it's common, then it's going to be common, if you know what I mean? If it's common for female characters to go through rape/trauma then odds are that's who's going to get praised because it's hard, if not impossible to find one that hasn't. Bad characters happen all the time, so that's even more of a minefield.

I dunno if I've even stayed on topic due to rambling,and junk. If I haven't, sorry.

Think of the most celebrated female characters in media the last few years, it's not just trauma they've experienced, it's been a specific type of trauma for the most part, be it betrayal of a romantic partner(not just a buddy), rape, or abuse they have decided they're sick of, coming from, again, a romantic partner.

I'm not saying that they're the only ones celebrated, but they are the ones that get most of the spotlight. That's it.

And I never said anything about women not being able to be in non-traditional roles. I welcome them when they're not just a boring non-traditional role that is just as boring or when it has even less going for it than the "traditional" person playing it. Which, again, the majority of the most celebrated characters are. At least from the sites I see most of the time.

I'm not saying you shouldn't celebrate them, just...there's better characters that aren't being celebrated because they aren't marketed anywhere near as hard. And they don't seem to have the new hot trend that the others do. Though, I suppose in a way I am, technically, since I don't like to celebrate mediocrity, even if it is in a lead role.

Also, even in Futurama they had background billboards of lady Blernsballs players within a few years of Leela's...cock-up(also the joke was making fun of people that get famous and picked up for being tremendously bad at something). You'd think we'd have more for as much of a push this has been getting the last few years despite there being non-traditional roles for everyone for years(I'm not saying they were plentiful, but they were more memorable for something other than being sorta meh).

Also, sorry in return if I rambled.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

What? that's exactly what's being said now! "Only guys should have lousy characters in boring roles!" Guys are in bad roles all the time. If we only had women be good characters, we'd have almost no women in media.
Remember that episode of Futurama where Leela played pro Blurnsball(Sp?) and she was terrible at it? Spoiler alert,

Spoiler

a woman decided to play to show it could be done better

. Bad characters can inspire good ones.

But seriously, rape experience? I can't say I get out as much, but what situation are you talking about here? You seem awfully specific, but I'm talking in general.
I mean, every character goes through trauma, few guys get raped though.

Why are the other characters better? It's not the worse character's fault for how they're written. Why are they worse? Maybe being worse makes them a better fit for the role?

I celebrate almost all women in lead roles. Some less than others, some in different ways, but I feel like women should be able to do things that aren't traditional. If all the ones getting praised go through rape, and/or trauma of some sort, then there's the fact that every character tends to go through trauma, and maybe people can lay off the rape part? I don't know. If it's common, then it's going to be common, if you know what I mean? If it's common for female characters to go through rape/trauma then odds are that's who's going to get praised because it's hard, if not impossible to find one that hasn't. Bad characters happen all the time, so that's even more of a minefield.

I dunno if I've even stayed on topic due to rambling,and junk. If I haven't, sorry.

Think of the most celebrated female characters in media the last few years, it's not just trauma they've experienced, it's been a specific type of trauma for the most part, be it betrayal of a romantic partner(not just a buddy), rape, or abuse they have decided they're sick of, coming from, again, a romantic partner.

I'm not saying that they're the only ones celebrated, but they are the ones that get most of the spotlight. That's it.

And I never said anything about women not being able to be in non-traditional roles. I welcome them when they're not just a boring non-traditional role that is just as boring or when it has even less going for it than the "traditional" person playing it. Which, again, the majority of the most celebrated characters are. At least from the sites I see most of the time.

I'm not saying you shouldn't celebrate them, just...there's better characters that aren't being celebrated because they aren't marketed anywhere near as hard. And they don't seem to have the new hot trend that the others do. Though, I suppose in a way I am, technically, since I don't like to celebrate mediocrity, even if it is in a lead role.

Also, even in Futurama they had background billboards of lady Blernsballs players within a few years of Leela's...cock-up(also the joke was making fun of people that get famous and picked up for being tremendously bad at something). You'd think we'd have more for as much of a push this has been getting the last few years despite there being non-traditional roles for everyone for years(I'm not saying they were plentiful, but they were more memorable for something other than being sorta meh).

Also, sorry in return if I rambled.

I don't mind if you ramble.

Well, let me ask, who are the alternatives to these women that suffered that specific type of trauma? What women better deserve praise?
We praise who we have, and if that's about all we have, then there are no alternatives.

I can't imagine you celebrate many characters since almost everyone is mediocre in fiction, or not, and if they are above mediocre, it generally gets them into the Mary Sue/Gary Stu levels of stuff.
Faults in characters make them more relateable in general. Faults are life. We all have them.

I think I'm so used to te world as you see it, I just don't see it the same way. I'd like some insight into the way you see media.

 

[Kameburger]

#outragebait ?? does this count? I think the problem is that it's not just one side screaming feminist agenda, I think there is also an element that when someone hails a movie as being a feminist triumph some people can read that in the framework of this idea of the patriarchy. Now if you are a male and you spent the 90's feeling like shirt (having nothing to do with your manliness just separately feeling like shit), you're not always going to take well to being called an "oppressor."

 

[Naraka]

And it's good that there's more female characters around.

You don't see what's empowering about a female playing a role typically filled only by men? You outlined why it would be empowering, then just failed to see why because it's not a positive "role model" or some bullshit.

I'm pretty sure you both ignored the part where I said it's been criticized as being shallow when males do it, but in Jones' case, it's praised.

No, we ignored the part when you confused the positive or negative implications of the role, with the positive or negative implications of women having access to playing the role. Whether that's intentional because you think anyone has time for that kind of thing, or unintentional for other reasons, I don't care.