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

[Redryhno]

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.

Ok, whatever you say buddy. I still don't believe Jones herself to be a strong character in any other way than physical at the moment. Hopefully it'll get better with the second season I'm assuming is coming, maybe it won't, I don't know.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

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.

There's many alternatives. And there's a bit of a difference between just mediocrity and being average but being given a different twist on an already existing trope(because let's face it, 10k years of human history, I think, we've probably trampled nearly everything we're capable of producing, it's about the only thing we can do until another technological breakthrough inspires another story)

Spoiler: wall o' text

I mean, in the last few years alone we've had the Aunt from Grimm, a traditionally male role of old master passing the torch to the next generation and herself going out fighting, Person of Interest has two female leads and a background character(sorta), all essentially the most important characters in the narrative, one that started out a bit of a Mary-Sue villianess that has since blossomed into a really fun character(who also has trauma in her past that is a bit different than the norm, a friend was kidnapped, killed, and buried in a neighbor's backyard and nobody would believe her), who falls for the other female lead, who is pretty much just a rule 63'd version of the less important male lead(and I mean that in the good way, she's just as competent if a bit more stubborn with killing being her go-to move, which is something she starts to overcome with her arc after they finished with Cavizel's and is still a traditionally male trait), and a woman finally coming to the realization that she's not anywhere near as in charge as she believes herself to be, she's little more than a pawn and is a political powerhouse despite that(again a traditionally male characteristic simply due to more politicians with her mindset being male)

Blacklist has had a whole host of good female characters. I mean, the lead has done a number of things she morally objects to but realizes needs to be done. The other lead a woman that has done far worse and doesn't flinch from doing so. Not to mention there being a whole host of female villains(which is non-traditional by itself honestly), with a fair number of them being very hands-on, along with a large number of male villains that are very hand-off(though that's in itself traditional simply due to most villains being male historically so law of large numbers and all that).

Newsroom has half the cast being women in non-traditional roles and making a point for them to break themselves out of said traditional roles if they find themselves in them. Hell, the men in that one themselves somewhat break out of traditional roles.

House had a whole load of female and male characters being non-traditional, with equal opportunity quips at morons no matter who they were or what they were going through if they were being said morons.

Michelle Rodriguez has honestly just made a career out of being the tough girl in non-traditional roles(or at least non-traditional characters in traditional roles), in the same line we had Vasquez in Aliens thirty years ago, and Pacific Rim in general, Similarly we've got Steve Carell(who I personally loathe in his comedy roles) holding the somewhat hysterical character space that was normally reserved for women, along with others, he's just the one I thought of as I'm writing this, Jamie Lee Curtis starting with your standard virgin horror movie trope and becoming a comedy actress for the most part that then had her little action stint. On the other side, we've had Schwarzeneggar slightly to overtly subverting his own roles for years, Last Action Hero, Running Man, Sixth Day, etc.

Go back even further and you've got I Love Lucy being the biggest non-traditional role both in and out of the show that still has ripples to the present day. The entire song "It's Cold Outside" and the great sequences in Neptune's Daughter being all about breaking traditional roles for both men and women. Gone with the Wind and Scarlet being the penultimate headstrong yet lazy(ish) ***** character, Rhett Butler breaking what was normally the happy ending with dumping her for good and going off on his own.

Hell, even in Jessica Jones(only saying this because it's currently the darling) Trish does more throughout the series than Jones past the first couple episodes, even being willing to die to save her friends with her bare hands when it's needed, yet she doesn't get nearly the amount of screentime she deserves and giving some measure of closure for Jones herself for her origins.

There's SO much you can celebrate throughout the history of media. And I'm just talking about western media here, which is honestly sorta lagging behind, though it is catching up.

Yeah, everything has basically been done before.

Unfortunately relying on history will only go so far. Sooner or later, "what have you done for me lately" will come up, and it's very valid. Relying on the stale moldy crumbs and dust of the past won't make a meal today. Expecting people to just ignore the crap today because they can look to the past is not in everyone's wheelhouse. Some want something modern, and thus more likely to be fit into their busy lives.
People don't think about how wide the gap between positive examples is going to get, and being complacent about the decline in something will just let the gap get larger, and larger until there's a breaking point.
Going to look at background characters won't help much either. Background characters are support for the star, and not the star, themselves. Being in the background will only go so far with people a opposed to some real, lasting spotlight.
Sparse examples won't really help much either. There's so much to complain about with male characters, but we don't really because they're either too much to complain about, or that there's enough good to satisfy, or both. Not so with female characters, bluntly. Again, dragging up the history of female characters to stack up with modern male characters isn't really going to work.

I haven't seen Jessica Jones, (Sooner or later I'll not only get netflicks, but the time to watch/enjoy it!!) but I imagine it's her character to be awkward as she is just starting out. And that premise has to be stretched out into an arc, or even several seasons. She's not going to get fast closure because what then? And they're missing out on a lot of opportunities to explore subjects that a veteran super hero wouldn't likely get to without suspending too much disbelief.

 

[Redryhno]

Yeah, everything has basically been done before.

Unfortunately relying on history will only go so far. Sooner or later, "what have you done for me lately" will come up, and it's very valid. Relying on the stale moldy crumbs and dust of the past won't make a meal today. Expecting people to just ignore the crap today because they can look to the past is not in everyone's wheelhouse. Some want something modern, and thus more likely to be fit into their busy lives.
People don't think about how wide the gap between positive examples is going to get, and being complacent about the decline in something will just let the gap get larger, and larger until there's a breaking point.
Going to look at background characters won't help much either. Background characters are support for the star, and not the star, themselves. Being in the background will only go so far with people a opposed to some real, lasting spotlight.
Sparse examples won't really help much either. There's so much to complain about with male characters, but we don't really because they're either too much to complain about, or that there's enough good to satisfy, or both. Not so with female characters, bluntly. Again, dragging up the history of female characters to stack up with modern male characters isn't really going to work.

I haven't seen Jessica Jones, (Sooner or later I'll not only get netflicks, but the time to watch/enjoy it!!) but I imagine it's her character to be awkward as she is just starting out. And that premise has to be stretched out into an arc, or even several seasons. She's not going to get fast closure because what then? And they're missing out on a lot of opportunities to explore subjects that a veteran super hero wouldn't likely get to without suspending too much disbelief.

Again, I can't in good conscience celebrate EVERY lead character just because it happens to have boobs and vag this time around. And did you even read ANYTHING I wrote about the present? There's alot more than people give credit for. And I wasn't bringing up the past to dismiss the present, simply to point out some of the quality we seem to be missing lately when it comes to non-traditional roles existing in exchange for the quantity of the present.

I WANT more of that, but I also want them to be good because it in turn challenges the traditional roles to up their game to be good themselves so that eventually you get to this point where it doesn't matter if it's traditional or not, because the writing is what is judged and not the characteristics of the actors.

Also, c'mon, "what have you done for me lately" has been a comedy routine since Pryor and Williams were stand-ups at comedy clubs about the pettiness of people that always want more and always have to be the center of attention, not that great of an argument to bring up honestly in this instance.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Yeah, everything has basically been done before.

Unfortunately relying on history will only go so far. Sooner or later, "what have you done for me lately" will come up, and it's very valid. Relying on the stale moldy crumbs and dust of the past won't make a meal today. Expecting people to just ignore the crap today because they can look to the past is not in everyone's wheelhouse. Some want something modern, and thus more likely to be fit into their busy lives.
People don't think about how wide the gap between positive examples is going to get, and being complacent about the decline in something will just let the gap get larger, and larger until there's a breaking point.
Going to look at background characters won't help much either. Background characters are support for the star, and not the star, themselves. Being in the background will only go so far with people a opposed to some real, lasting spotlight.
Sparse examples won't really help much either. There's so much to complain about with male characters, but we don't really because they're either too much to complain about, or that there's enough good to satisfy, or both. Not so with female characters, bluntly. Again, dragging up the history of female characters to stack up with modern male characters isn't really going to work.

I haven't seen Jessica Jones, (Sooner or later I'll not only get netflicks, but the time to watch/enjoy it!!) but I imagine it's her character to be awkward as she is just starting out. And that premise has to be stretched out into an arc, or even several seasons. She's not going to get fast closure because what then? And they're missing out on a lot of opportunities to explore subjects that a veteran super hero wouldn't likely get to without suspending too much disbelief.

Again, I can't in good conscience celebrate EVERY lead character just because it happens to have boobs and vag this time around. And did you even read ANYTHING I wrote about the present? There's alot more than people give credit for. And I wasn't bringing up the past to dismiss the present, simply to point out some of the quality we seem to be missing lately when it comes to non-traditional roles existing in exchange for the quantity of the present.

I WANT more of that, but I also want them to be good because it in turn challenges the traditional roles to up their game to be good themselves so that eventually you get to this point where it doesn't matter if it's traditional or not, because the writing is what is judged and not the characteristics of the actors.

Also, c'mon, "what have you done for me lately" has been a comedy routine since Pryor and Williams were stand-ups at comedy clubs about the pettiness of people that always want more and always have to be the center of attention, not that great of an argument to bring up honestly in this instance.

Okay, you don't have to celebrate every female lead. I certainly had no intention of saying you had to.

You seemed eager to celebrate the past, but the problem is, I am not because I've already celebrated it, and I'd like to see something else come down the line.
Something easy to forget is that what ever we see, what ever we like, what ever we don't, no matter how often it's rehashed, it's new to someone. I.E. A 10 year old sees The Force Awakens as their first star wars movie vs some old codger that's seen all of the movies is going to have a different experience with it. I'm guilty of it myself.

I'd like to see what you say you want to see. Quality in the modern stuff. I'm sure it's out there somewhere, outside the limited ability we have to intake media. I'm certainly not saying it isn't out there.
Thing is, it doesn't all have to be quality. Limiting things to only "quality" which varies from person to person, stifles things, and limits the pool of talent, and limits what gets produced. We can enjoy things that aren't quality. Not saying you're saying we can't, or anything like that, though.

I asked for more insight into the way you see stuff, and I guess I was kinda hoping for modern stuff that happened within the past few years. Some exact details because you seemed frustrated over the idea of modern women being brought to the forefront solely because they were traumatized/raped over more interesting characters.
I read what you wrote, but it didn't feel like it stayed on that point. Just that you wanted to see qualities beyond those traits be what brought women to the spotlight.

Actually "what have you done for me lately" is still perfectly fine. It's what it sounds like you're saying now, coz you are lamenting that the quality of the past isn't being done lately. What have they done for you lately? Not given you quality female mold breakers. So it is a pretty great thing to have in an argument. It's not petty. It's there to criticize a decline in the quality given.

Anyhow, if I missed stuff, sorry. Tired, sleepy, and sick. None of that does anyone any favors, I guess.

 

[Tanis]

My THEORY:
Because S.W.(C).M. are losing their power over the world and it SCARES them.
-Straight. White. (Christian). Males.

Think of how many RELIGIONS are based on a FEAR of women/vaginas in general.
-Christianity: Virgin birth.
-Buddhism: Buddha born out of the SIDE of mother, instead of vagina.
-Islam: I...too easy.
-Judaism: Eve. Downfall. Etc.
-Etc.

People screaming 'TRADITION', in my mind, are fools.
A 'tradition' is worthless unless you can back up a good reason for it to exist.

Saying something like:
'My mom cooks dinner because women should always cook dinner because, you know, tradition' is insane and has NO place in a modern society.
Unlike saying saying:
'My mom cooks dinner because my father could burn water and I can barely figure out the microwave.' is still kind of lame, that you and your father suck at cooking, but it's not inherently sexist or wrong.

'Female lead' is just an extension of the problem.

Also, this is the internet where the 'brave' URL Badmen come to fight their wars with anonymity.
So, yeah, anonymity tends to bring out some of the worst in people.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

My THEORY:
Because S.W.(C).M. are losing their power over the world and it SCARES them.
-Straight. White. (Christian). Males.

Think of how many RELIGIONS are based on a FEAR of women/vaginas in general.
-Christianity: Virgin birth.
-Buddhism: Buddha born out of the SIDE of mother, instead of vagina.
-Islam: I...too easy.
-Judaism: Eve. Downfall. Etc.
-Etc.

People screaming 'TRADITION', in my mind, are fools.
A 'tradition' is worthless unless you can back up a good reason for it to exist.

Saying something like:
'My mom cooks dinner because women should always cook dinner because, you know, tradition' is insane and has NO place in a modern society.
Unlike saying saying:
'My mom cooks dinner because my father could burn water and I can barely figure out the microwave.' is still kind of lame, that you and your father suck at cooking, but it's not inherently sexist or wrong.

'Female lead' is just an extension of the problem.

Also, this is the internet where the 'brave' URL Badmen come to fight their wars with anonymity.
So, yeah, anonymity tends to bring out some of the worst in people.

This is slightly off topic, but the people I've always known who can barely figure out a microwave, or say they can burn water have always been women, or trans women. It's kind of weird, because most guys I know, trans and cis, know their way around a kitchen. I always find that pretty funny, stereotype is women are the ones who should cook, reality, guys tend to be more competent in the kitchen.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This is slightly off topic, but the people I've always known who can barely figure out a microwave, or say they can burn water have always been women, or trans women. It's kind of weird, because most guys I know, trans and cis, know their way around a kitchen. I always find that pretty funny, stereotype is women are the ones who should cook, reality, guys tend to be more competent in the kitchen.

The ability to burn water is pretty cool though

Spoiler

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.

No idea about teh first two, but there were a lot of people complaining about Ghostbusters having a female cast, stuff about feminists destroying "my" childhood (cause no feminists watched Ghostbusters as a kid or anything) and so on. It does seem to have died away to almost nothing though.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

This is slightly off topic, but the people I've always known who can barely figure out a microwave, or say they can burn water have always been women, or trans women. It's kind of weird, because most guys I know, trans and cis, know their way around a kitchen. I always find that pretty funny, stereotype is women are the ones who should cook, reality, guys tend to be more competent in the kitchen.

In my house my mom could not cook to save her life, my dad was and still is the one who cooks meals (and is a damn fine chef). Whenever my dad left town for anything, my mom and I ended up going out to eat because she was just horrible in the kitchen. Love her to death and she's a mighty fine businesswoman, hella successful, but the kitchen escapes her.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Which seems to be pretty much the point of making this argument that a bad female character is somehow unacceptable. Especially on a gaming site, where we routinely celebrate bad characters (provided they're male).

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

@Politrukk: You do know Thor, Thor Odinson, is still male, right? He's just not "Thor wielding Mjolnir" now. It's kinda like Kyle Rayner, John Stewart, or Guy Gardner are Green Lantern. Or when Wally West became the Flash. The power of Thor passed on to another when Thor Odinson became Unworthy. Thor is now a legacy hero.
For that matter, what about when Thor was a frog?

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

*SPOILERS* It depends on the context. I think being pissed that Rey is gonna be new Lucy Skywalker is actually pretty neat. She's a bit of a badass, and I was stoked when she snatched that LS from Kylo. I'm all for it. Who gives a fuck about a Female lead (Especially in the Star Wars universe) when it's natural. Beatrix Kiddo is another example of it being a woman where a man usually would be, and it still being totally satisfying.

This new Ghostbusters however... Fuck that shit. THAT is the feminist "Women for women's sake" agenda. Took a franchise that needed 0 rebooting or help, and just tossed the biggest female comics they could muster and called it a day. They even look like the old team to a degree.

 

[Erttheking]

No idea about teh first two, but there were a lot of people complaining about Ghostbusters having a female cast, stuff about feminists destroying "my" childhood (cause no feminists watched Ghostbusters as a kid or anything) and so on. It does seem to have died away to almost nothing though.

To clue you in a bit about one of the first two, there was a big thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.871928-New-Overwatch-Hero-Is-a-Response-to-Body-Type-Diversity-Criticism?page=1] about Zayra (Overwatch girl) on the Escapist when she was announced.

Seeing as though it went on for 14 pages you can guess that not everyone was pleased about her inclusion in the game.

Yeah. I still haven't forgotten how someone told me that Zayra was a stereotype designed to pander to Tumblr...because she had pink hair.

 

[Zhukov]

So uh, not too sure what qualifies her as being a "SJW character", but hey what do I know.

She's muscular and strong.
She's swarthy skinned.
She has a non-western accent.
She's not conventionally sexy.
She's a female melee brawler.

2SJW4me.

In addition, her being kinda overpowered on release is clear evidence that Riot are deliberately pandering to the SJW Illuminati. I bet Anita Sarkessian blackmailed them into it!

 

[happyninja42]

Spoiler: Illaoi

She's aggressive and religious, a priestess, her god is basically Cthulhu. Tentacles from her god spawn on the map to help her fight, and she can rip the spirit out of peoples bodies and punch them.

So uh, not too sure what qualifies her as being a "SJW character", but hey what do I know.

Allow me to turn the question back to you: what do you think constitutes a "SJW character"?

Well, to speculate on what the other side would consider an SJW character would probably be some of the following.

1. A genderless, or displaying traits of both genders in the character (the transgender/androgynous angle)

2. Probably have some background that has her "fighting against a masculine regime/father figure who wants to "keep her in her place".

3. Similar to point one, having an outfit/style that suggests gender fluidity/duality, and possibly a name that could suggest either gender. Or perhaps something like "Libera-Sean". That's the only one that came to mind, but you get the idea. A name that suggests something alternate lifestyle.

4. Displaying traits that would historically be considered "non-SJW". Like a strong woman, or a woman who has a similar power set to a popular male character "She's just Rambo with boobs!" or some such bullshit.

Any or all of these traits is probably what the other side thinks an SJW character would look like. *shrugs*

 

[JimB]

The character Thor has always been a personification of the gratifying male physique and strength.

Then gender or sex or whatever term you want to use to describe Thor having a vaj does matter to you. Right. Good to have that resolved.

The existing god Thor is male; the comic book character Thor has always been male.

I have about a year's worth of comics that tell me you are factually incorrect he's always been male, and that's not counting the Earth X series.

I'm just about to report you for trolling because I can't believe you so seriously are not reading what I'm saying and putting words or well a vision in my mouth that is nowhere close to what I've told you.

Do not threaten me, Politrukk. Report me if you're going to report me, and if I deserve to be punished then I will accept it, but don't you dare use the threat of siccing the moderators on me (as if they're your trained dogs in the first place) to silence me.

Being male is part of Thor's identity whether you like it or not.

Did someone castrate the Odinson while I wasn't looking?

You can't just change Thor into a woman like that.

I disagree that no one can, but it doesn't matter because what you are describing did not happen. Thor is not the same person as the Odinson. She is a different person who has his first name as her super hero name, and I really don't get why you act like something else is going on.

 

[Erttheking]

To clue you in a bit about one of the first two, there was a big thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.871928-New-Overwatch-Hero-Is-a-Response-to-Body-Type-Diversity-Criticism?page=1] about Zayra (Overwatch girl) on the Escapist when she was announced.

Seeing as though it went on for 14 pages you can guess that not everyone was pleased about her inclusion in the game.

Yeah. I still haven't forgotten how someone told me that Zayra was a stereotype designed to pander to Tumblr...because she had pink hair.

I also think that's the thread where I argue with someone who says games "can't represent everyone", therefore games shouldn't try to have any diversity at all. It was an uh.. bizarre argument to say the least.

Also related to what you said, I've seen people call the new League character a "SJW character". Here she is:

Spoiler: Illaoi

She's aggressive and religious, a priestess, her god is basically Cthulhu. Tentacles from her god spawn on the map to help her fight, and she can rip the spirit out of peoples bodies and punch them.

So uh, not too sure what qualifies her as being a "SJW character", but hey what do I know.

It's simple. It makes people who want more diversity happy. That's unacceptable.

That's all this is. Some people can't stand the thought of people with views they don't agree with being happy. Oh they try and rationalize it away, but then again people have always tried to dress up petty hatreds.

 

[happyninja42]

You can't just change Thor into a woman like that.

I disagree that no one can, but it doesn't matter because what you are describing did not happen. Thor is not the same person as the Odinson. She is a different person who has his first name as her super hero name, and I really don't get why you act like something else is going on.

Apparently changing him into a frog is totally ok, but not a woman. xD

 

[Parasondox]

Correction then, sorry I'm still in the old world where gender and sex were interchangeable.

You are still being ludicrous, it has nothing to do with Thor having tits it has to do with the fact that :

THE CHARACTER THOR HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PERSONIFICATION OF THE GRATIFYING MALE PHYSIQUE AND STRENGTH.

He's the paragon of the warrior male, that's part of his identity even if you wish to deny it.

The existing god Thor is male, the comic book character Thor has always been male.

He's Thor, dubs himself Odin's son, he glorifies battle.

I made a full long post to explain it and you still didn't get it.


I'm just about to report you for trolling because I can't believe you so seriously are not reading what I'm saying and putting words or well a vision in my mouth that is nowhere close to what I've told you.



TLDR: Being male is part of Thor's identity whether you like it or not, you can't just change Thor into a woman like that, that's wrong, you can bestow the power of Thor upon a woman no problem but making her into the canonical Thor is just a no-no and for the time being that's what she was advertised as and pretty much has been in her guise.

This is different from all that has come before.

Err... dude/dudette. It's just a story. A piece of fiction. It's not real and not telling of any true event in history. Changes happen. Alternative stories happen. Telling the same story over and over again gets boring. New ideas come to light. Tested and results come up. Good or bad.

So really, relax.

Internet rage is... fascinating.

 

[Redryhno]

I haven't been following this back and forth, been skimming it, but if I've understood this post (and by extension your position?) what you're saying is you think she should be held to a different standard because she's female?

To elaborate, you think that if Jones were male it would be a bad character, so you can't celebrate Jones being a good character because of that, and think that female characters should be set to a standard higher than the one that Jones is?

That's a really shallow reading of it, sure.

Another is that if you're going to be lazy with the traditional roles(this isn't a full-on negative), I don't give a damn. But if you're going to strive to break those traditional roles being a thing, try not to have less going for it than the laziest of the traditional roles.

This goes for both males and females in non-traditional roles, at the moment though, nobody is really interested in giving men non-traditional roles for the most part, so all I have to go off is female roles, which have quite a fair few number of good examples, but a whole host of poorly thought-out ones(or simply nowhere near as amazing as are made out to be) that routinely get praised for apparently just being in a lead role.

 

[medv4380]

From Mad Max Fury Road to Jessica Jones and now Star Wars, I just see comments about "Feminist Agenda" and how they are trying to...

If you can't see how Max Max turned an other wise normal end of the world Apocalypse into Feminist propaganda then maybe you need to watch Movie Bob's review of it. Fury Road appeals to two demographics. People who like the long unending car chase from hell, and those who like the picture of ... watch Bob's review.

Jessica Jones isn't Feminist propaganda, and Jerry is actually the best proof that it isn't. Sure Jerry is a gender flipped character, and had they done gender flipping like Super Girl then it would have been done in a propagandist way. When gender flipping is done wrong, all positive, or strong characters are flipped to being female if male. This leads the only men in the series to be inept, villains, or both. Which is why the Martian Man hunter being inserted feels unnatural with their first few episodes as an attempt at repairing a very bad position they had put themselves in, but still with no human male character that could count as normal is still a big negative.

Jerry, is Jared, and the character is kept consistent. Both are womanizing, and truly despicable characters. By the end of Jessica Jones you don't think Jerry is a good person even a little bit. You might feel a little tiny bit sorry, but you might also feel that she gets what she deserves. If she was a LGBT propaganda piece they failed because for that they'd have had to make her as moralistically good as possible just as Fury Road did with its females.

Feminist, and LGBT pieces like to try and make all Lesbians or Feminists out to be Good people because its trying to make you think that All Lesbians or Feminist are good which isn't a very human quality.. Jessica Jones makes everyone out to be human, and that's why it isn't a propaganda piece.

As for Star Wars that's Disney's fault. They subscribe to the PR campaign of sensationalism. They purposefully put out a PR piece deriding the Princess Leia Slave outfit knowing full well that it would spark a discussion on both sides against their decision. Even Carrie Fisher spoke out about their choice about that. If you're going to do things to invite attention from the groups that see Feminist Propaganda Everywhere then it's your own fault when they go on a tie raid against your movie. But they did that purposefully as a part of their Advertising so they are getting exactly what they wanted to get. Attention.