When I read men’s opinions on women and interactions with women it gives me this disgusting skin crawling feeling all over that makes me want to puke. I wish I was born a lesbian.
Ha, this is such a female way to write. If a guy wrote “when I read women’s opinions on men and interactions with men it gives me this disgusting skin crawling feeling all over that makes me want to puke. I wish I was born gay” he’d come across as a histrionic fruit-cake and would get mocked into the shadow realm for being an incel instead of receiving 200 upvotes.
I imagine part of that woman’s dramatic reaction was motivated by OP writing about women like they’re objects that can be fumbled, and not acknowledging women as Wonderful, agentic girl-bosses. However, women are incredibly passive in dating and courtship, especially in the early game, so it’s understandable for men to metaphorise them as inanimate objects that can be fumbled away like a crappy gather or sloppy behind-the-back-pass. Sometimes a man has been James, sometimes he’s been Curry, sometimes he’s been Thompson looking exasperated while a wingman botches a group approach or double date.
Men need to do the approaching, lead the interactions, drive the conversations, perform the monkey-dancing and court-jestering, hold court if necessary, navigate any shit tests, figure out when/how to make the first move, make the first move, and figure out how to seal the deal from there. Women just exist and follow or not. For men, picking-up and/or dating women is like going on job interviews and conducting escort missions; whereas for women getting picked-up and/or dating men is like shopping and going on guided tours.
Online women like to prattle on about emotional labor and so forth, but the efforts of men when it comes to dating and courtship are completely invisible to them. Romance and courtship are things that Just Happen to women like Acts of God. Yet many of them enjoy shaming and mocking men for perceived dating ineptitudes as if they were petty Monday Morning Quarterbacks, just like they’ll pin white feathers on alleged draft-dodgers and laugh at men running to escape the draft. As Norah Vincent remarked in Self Made Man:
Dating women as a man was a lesson in female power, and it made me, of all things, into a momentary misogynist... I disliked [women's] superiority, their accusatory smiles, their entitlement to choose or dash me with a fingertip, an execution so lazy, so effortless, it made the defeats and even successes unbearably humiliating.
Women certainly have ones that got away (cue the Katy Perry song), but they generally don’t have ones that they think of having fumbled away. In contrast, just reading the words "the haunting feeling of fumbling a 10/10" was a cognito-hazard; I got a pit in my stomach while the memories of past fumbles flash-flooded across my mind.
In the romance novels most popular among women, the female protagonists are passive, hypoagentic damsels in distress to be swept off their feet by an active, hyperagentic suitor. Sometimes there are even two such suitors for a Let’s You and Him fight scenario.
I don’t think men are fundamentally disinterested in female protagonists. Ripley in the Alien and Lara Croft in the Tomb Raider franchises come to mind, as female protagonists that are more popular among men than among women. Even brutish, cynical wrong-thinkers like me have contentedly watched the entirety of Love and Death. However, men don’t like getting lectured about #GirlPower in what should be entertainment, from Marvel girl-bosses assembling for a pose-down to an X-Men Mystique walk-off of “by the way, the women are always saving the men around here. You might want to think about changing the name to X-Women.” All while the actress has photos floating around of her on her knees getting facialed.
Both men and women are more concerned for the safety and well-being of girls and women in a movie or television series, just as they are for girls and women in real life. It’s no coincidence that popular works like 28 Days Later, World War Z, The Last of Us, Station 11 have the protection of daughters/daughter-figures as plot points to keep the emotional stakes high for the viewer. A girl/young woman dying gruesomely is/would be much more of an ”oh shit” moment than a boy/young man doing so.
Nor do I think men are inherently incapable of admiring women for their achievements. It’s not like Cathie Wood's lacking in simps and fan-boys. Neither is Elizabeth Holmes, for that matter—strong, independent #GirlBoss when winning; damsel in distress when getting charged with fraud. If anything, women garner greater male (and female) admiration for a given level of achievement than men do.
There’s some apex fallacy here. Men don’t generally admire women for their achievements, because they don’t generally admire other men for their achievements either. The Don Draper I-don’t-think-about-you-at-all is the default.
When men admire the achievements of other men, it’s often in the realm of right-tailed achievements in science, mathematics, business, or sports, where women are usually absent. Given greater male variability in interests and ability, there are far fewer female Terence Taos, Elon Musks, or Jeff Bezos’s; the Forbes list of top 10 female billionaires is a who’s who of widows, heiresses, and divorcees (including MacKenzie). It’s even more sensible that men generally don't admire female athletes, as they generally don't admire random high school boys athletes, who are often better than professional women. It’d be weird as hell if grown men admired random high school boys athletes, Foxcatcher vibes but worse (it’s already pretty weird how many grown men admire and have parasocial relationships with their favorite professional athletes/teams, wearing other men’s names on their backs and cheering their performances).
Yet, despite the relative lack of right-tailed female achievement in sciences, mathematics, business—even aided by the tailwind of affirmative action—and female professional athletes being worse than high school boys, men are constantly bombarded by girl-power propaganda in media and entertainment, schools and workplaces. So it’s natural if some annoyance results, especially when men's experiences in romantic contexts suggest that women are not, in fact, strong independent hyperagentic girl-bosses (more like the opposite).
As others have suggested, many women (performatively or genuinely) overestimate the danger men pose, due to a combination of lipstick feminism, movies and television, being meme-susceptible, humble bragging as to being so desirable as to be a constant target for rape, a lifetime of being sheltered away from actually being under real risk of physical harm, perhaps some rape fantasy and hybristophilic wish-fulfillment sprinkled in there.
I’d also posit that on the flipside, women underestimate the danger animals, whether wild or domesticated, pose in general. Or at least, the modal woman underestimates the danger animals pose to her in particular, under the belief that in such situations her Disney Princess powers will kick in and she’ll have immediate rapport with the animals. Hence why defending pitbulls as nanny dogs is female-coded and the countless selfies of young women making a sad face with cuts and scratches after some mostly gentle mauling from getting too cuddly with a dog.
There’s a video that comes to mind but I can’t find, of a girl in a skirt or dress and Uggs getting rammed by a goat or sheep (wait, not that kind of video) because she picked up its offspring for a cUtE Insta photo. When she saw the mother coming, she tried evading by daintily kicking up a puff of dirt (“ugh, stupid mother! shoo”) and half-heartedly jogging away with the offspring in her arms before getting chased down in like half a second. Thot status: patrolled and offspring protected.
And of course, as always there’s the whole Who? Whom? aspect, as the bear vs. black man permutation hilariously illustrates.
Sloot
8mo ago
Indeed, the topic of women and alcohol, especially if sex is involved, is a recurring source of horseshoe compass unity between libleft and authright when it comes to women's (lack of) agency and accountability:
"He got me blackout drunk on Midori Sours (on the company dime).
“He got me,” not “we got” or “I got.” As if Chris beamed the Midori Sours into her stomach using a Star Trek transporter, with her having no role in the part. What happened to being passionate about the agency of women? Schrödinger’s feminism: Strong, independent #GamerGirls one moment and damsels in distress the next.
Even when a woman is ascribed some semblance of agency and culpability, double standards and Russell conjugations arrive to provide mitigating and inverting factors.
You, @Walterodim, got drunk and became an embarrassing oaf and burden to deal with. What kind of man-child husband has to lie in the shade to sleep off his inebriation? In similar but reversed circumstances, your wife would had just had a bit too much to drink and it was beyond time for you two to retire for the night anyway. What kind of man-child husband would leave his wife in the shade to sleep off her inebriation?
Sloot
11mo ago
Great list. Also:
-
Men compose the majority of the homeless -> homelessness is a women’s issue
-
Male journalists are more often killed than female journalists -> STOP TARGETING WOMEN JOURNALISTS
-
Working husbands tend to die earlier than their stay-at-home wives -> Suddenly these poor widows have to perform the uncompensated physical and emotional labor of managing a bunch of boring bank, brokerage, and retirement accounts that their stupid husbands left behind
This approach should, theoretically, neutralise right wing arguments against open borders. These arguments either have an economic basis (a vast surfeit of labour will decrease pay and bargaining power for domestic workers) or a social basis (large amounts of unmarried, low skill men will cause unrest, violence and buggery).
Perhaps some “right wing” arguments within the Overton window.
The immigrants, especially those of fertile age and younger, would disproportionately come from low human capital regions of the world, especially given self-selection bias. Like men, these women and girls would still need places to live and food to eat, but not have the means or ability to provide for themselves. Seeing as most of both the left and right are highly susceptible to female tears, their food and shelter would be footed by tax-payers, as well as that of any offspring they have in the mean-time.
One might posit that 100% female-biased migration would have the benefit of giving local men more dating options in the present and future. However, any girls would presumably be coming with a female guardian, in particular their mothers, and women with children aren’t exactly inspiring as dating prospects for most men. The same low human capital regions of the world also produce women that have had children at an early age and would otherwise be physically unattractive to local men only interested in pretty childless women.
Like men, women pass down 22 autosomal chromosomes and a sex chromosome to their offspring. Any future children of the immigrant women would inherit these chromosomes; any daughters they bring already have. Furthermore, given assortative mating, these women (and their daughters) would likely be having children with local men low in socioeconomic status and cognitive ability, thus producing more offspring to enter the underclass.
The US runs colossal deficits each year, so a given “right wing” man would likely prefer that any immigrants, even if all female, to be at least close to average US white and Asian cognitive ability in order to have a decent chance for them and their descendants not to make things too much worse. After all, US women are already net-tax recipients relative to men.
It’s probable that the immigrant women and their daughters (and their combined descendants) would join the Coalition of the Fringes—which would be unfavorable to a “right wing”-er—potential producers of more foot-soldiers in the anarcho-tyranny arc of the United States. Furthermore, even aside from financial economics, there are known downsides, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns with regard to such an immigration policy relative to its benefits, including a re-molding of “culture, institutions, and politics,” as @Walterodim put it.
Assume for the purposes of this argument that the male only border control is fullproof and has no workarounds.
Okay, but at some point not too long ago the concept of women’s beauty pageants and women’s sports were thought to be fullproof with no workarounds, as well.
I was telling my brother about the movie and he said "I reckon there are a lot of very mainstream progressive types who really believe that gay men and gay couples are no different than straight men and straight couples aside from the objects of their attraction, and if they knew the kind of sexual behaviour which was seen as completely normal in the gay community, they'd be horrified."
The 22-year-old Onion article comes to mind: "I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth."
The median gay man could, if he so wished, live a life of sexual abundance and satisfaction that would be beyond the wildest dreams of at least a 95th percentile heterosexual male in attractiveness. Having sex in a nightclub bathroom with an attractive stranger is the highlight of your life; for me, those are Tuesdays. This was a concept I put to use in the day, transitioning her group to a gay nightclub if I needed to shake-off the gay friend(s) of a girl I'm trying to bang.
It's not uncommon, nowadays, in various spheres of the internet to see young straight men wishing they were gay, both ironically and unironically and anything in between; as well as gay men of varying ages gloating and/or being relieved that they don't have to deal with and jump through hoops for women in romantic/sexual settings: "Look what they [straight men] need just to mimic a fraction of our power."
We may be at an interesting time where a greater percentage of young straight men wish they were gay than where young gay men wish they were straight.
I love how social and mainstream media pearlclutching over Butker has pretty much catapulted him to being the third most famous Chief via the Streisand effect. I’d never heard of him before this.
I still have no interest in listening to his speech, looking into his opinions (they’re probably kind of stupid), or watching him or the NFL in general, but he’s making the usual insufferables seethe so I like him. I’ll just donate my ki from afar like he’s Goku charging up a Spirit Bomb.
It helps that most of his fellow NFL players have greater idpol protections and hold views that are even more politically incorrect about women and 2SLGBTQIA+ (views that are sometimes physically expressed to the former in a fiery, but mostly peaceful manner). However, they just don’t have the desire or ability to introspect on a worldview and go around giving speeches. So Butker likely enjoys some low-key solidarity.
The Chiefs as Superbowl champions in an OT victory and the biggest hotbed of off-field drama, gossip, and lolcowery? Maybe the NFL is indeed fixed like boxing, instead of real like pro-wrestling.
Worse, once they are discarded by these better men, they are unlikely to want to settle for worse options.
At least one paper found confirmation for the notion that—not only do discarded women not settle—they take out their frustrations on lesser men: "Rejection by an Attractive Suitor Provokes Derogation of an Unattractive Suitor."
It is hard to form a secure attachment with a woman if you're not the best person she has ever dated.
Indeed, hence the notion of an alpha-widow and the risks of trying to turn a hoe into a housewife.
An alpha might not even be necessary: A woman with a long sexual history may subconsciously or consciously find you to be dissatisfactory as a partner if you're not in the top X_i percentile of each attribute i (e.g., height, looks, income, etc.) among her exes, fuck buddies, and one night stands, even if none of those men are particularly remarkable individually across all attributes. Not even Chad can compete against Stochastic FrankenBrad.
Is this "pressure" or is it playful banter that both parties are enjoying
Yes.
Russell conjugations all the way down: He pressured her; you convinced her; I charmed her.
Regardless of the particular example and whether it be arranging the first date, having sex for the first time, or anything in between, the choice of verb to describe the same words and actions from a man can be determined and redetermined retroactively by a woman based on how she feels about the man at the time of the retroactive (re-)determination.
Women generally don't like to take ownership of their actions in the dating/courtship process. This kind of ambiguity, plausible deniability, and ret-conning of their Lived Experience is a feature, not a bug, and helps their ability to say "omg it just like happened" and protect their sense of Wonderfulness.
Sloot
8mo ago
My favorite politician pseudonym is “Carlos Danger,” to the extent that I can recall it faster than “Anthony Weiner” (which already sounds like a pseudonym in itself). It’s so cheesy yet awesome and memorable; I love it.
How awful and disgusting. Does anyone know where else on the internet race realist blonde chicks in their late teens to early 30s hang out? Just so I know which places to avoid.
drops the Finnish n-word several times (it's a linguistic question whether that word is the equivalent of English n-word or the word "Negro", but these are angry enough one might say it's the former in this context), as well as talking about a Middle-Eastern man as a "Turkish monkey or whatever", as well as uses some more creative (common in the Finnish racism community) slurs, such as the ones translating to "mocha dicks", "somps" (Somali + chimp) etc.
marsey_taking_notes.jpg
“Somp” has the added bonus of sounding like the name of those angry grey spiky cubes that try to smush you in Mario games.
Purra has copped to being "riikka", and while she originally commented this by saying "there's nothing to apologize or explain", she ended up apologizing and saying that of course the government or she don't tolerate racism and so on.
maybe you already have a bunch of groypers in America making edgy jokes on Twitter or wherever who will have to eventually explain that stuff 15 years from now when running for Senate or some other high post
Well Riikka was unusually bad with her opsec, using her real-life nickname and leaving copious details about her life in time and space that could be confirmed. Not posting about your personal traits or your location is a good start; some even advise to imply false details about your life to throw potential priers off your trail. This is why I never posted much about the Rotherham scandal when it occurred, despite it being the city where I was born and grew-up before I left for uni in London as a 5’5” 120 lb woman.
It's a pretty common occurrence nowadays in mixed-sex online spaces when discussing the "Women Are Wonderful" effect and female in-group preferences.
The women will often lean-in to merited impossibility, claiming something to the tune of "Female in-group preferences are not a thing and just a misogynistic myth. But if they are a real thing, it's only because women, with our greater empathy and propensity for emotional labor, are better at starting and maintaining support networks and social groups. If you don't like it, build your own support networks and social groups."
Yet, countless male support networks and social groups have been infiltrated and canceled. When men do build their own support networks and social groups, such women will recoil "wait... no! Not like that!" and be immediately screaming at the door to get in and/or trying to get such networks and groups canceled, claiming that such venues are but old-boys'-clubs and hotbeds of supposed misogyny and other types of crime-think.
There was a post high up on reddit featuring a clip from Jack Reacher season 2's opening, where a man deduces that a woman in front of him at the ATM is being held hostage by a carjacker. For extra morality simplification in case the audience is thinking too hard, her kid is in the car too. The hero then walks over, smashes the window, and beats the shit out of the carjacker. Very cathartic, and the reddit post is titled as something like this is every guy's fantasy.
My fantasy is keeping myself out of trouble and to avoid injecting myself in such situations so that I can live to die another day. I rather enjoy living and having my body bereft of stab wounds and bullet holes. A random woman certainly wouldn’t reciprocate to provide free protection services if the situations were reversed.
Well, this is very dramatic, but I'd rather wish more lower-level heroics took place. Instead of beating up a carjacker to save a child, can we have a hero who beats on the door of the reserved parking spot thief and leave a note that says to never intimidate the poor woman ever again?
I’m more than down with normalizing vigilantism against antisocial behavior in the spirit of a general “fuck around and find out”edness. It should be open season for motorists to provide mostly peaceful love-taps to groups of “teens” riding their bicycles dangerously in the streets, for storeowners or third-parties to Rooftop Korean-away looting flash mobs like the compound outbreak scene in 28 Weeks Later. In the current state of affairs, this is largely restricted by Who? Whom? concerns, as a certain NYC subway marine found out the hard way.
However, I don’t like the gender-biased nature of it. Women already feel entitled to random men serving as their white-knights, meat-shields, and bodyguards; I’d prefer not to exacerbate that. If women are to be regarded as Strong Independent #GirlBosses with the rights and status of men, they can solve their own problems and fight their own battles. Fists, knives, and bullets hurt men too. I’m not a fan of Schrodinger’s feminism, where women are #GirlBosses one moment and damsels in distress the next, depending on what’s more beneficial and emotionally convenient for them.
If the Reddit woman in her 20s or 30s were instead a small man in his 20s or 30s, hardly would anyone call for a “hero” to step-up on his behalf. Beating on some hot-head’s door may result in it opening for a fist or knife fight. Who knows what might happen to your defeated body if you lose the fight. If you win, it may result in protracted legal, social, and professional troubles, especially if the hot-head is a member of a favored class. It’s also a great way to get yourself shot right through the door. You’d deserve it too for white-knighting, fucking around and finding out, when you’re not a peak human with borderline supernatural powers like Jack Reacher.
If she were my daughter, I think my system-level advice would be to try to escape that environment entirely, which might mean moving to a safer city/town, or paying more to go to a higher end apartment complex, etc.
Yes. To paraphrase Steve Sailer, the tough part of being poor in Western countries is not for lack of essentials or material goods, but rather having to live next to other poor people. And violent, low impulse control, and generally antisocial behavior is far more common among the poor.
In this specific case, the reddit thread mostly has people suggesting she call the apartment complex to tow the car next time this happens, and to file a complaint so there is a record of potential violence and intimidation. Another upvoted comment says to put up a camera near her car so she'd know if he retaliates, maybe by keying her car or something.
If moving is not an option, these are reasonable solutions for a woman (or a man, for that matter).
Chinese surveillance / social credit state. Use technology and broad public support to directly manage against low level offenses.
The cure might be worse than the disease here. The surveillance and social credit system could be readily turned against you in anarcho-tyrannic fashion.
Japanese homogeneity. Stop outsiders and troublemakers from entering society. Then in this cohesive society, everyone pitches in to punish low level offenses without the additional complication of being accused of discrimination.
Without mass deportations (or something more... drastic), the ship has already set sail on this front in the United States and Europe. Eugenics would work, but might take too long depending on what degree of eugenics is deployed, even if it somehow could be.
Semi-failed state where the stakes are high for low level offenders themselves. Some guy parks in your spot? Shoot up his car windows. No legal consequence will come because that's considered a misdemeanor here. Perhaps things escalate, but perhaps not, but at least he won't park in your spot again.
Tempting, but escalating when you’re less crazy and have more to lose than your opponent is a risky venture, to say the least.
Surely a rich society has a fourth option?
Calling for and voting in a manner for politicians, DAs, and the police to just do their jobs. For a Reddit woman in her 20s or 30s, chances are this is a leopard-eating-her-face situation.
Sloot
5mo ago
I really do feel bad for Joe regarding Hunter. He doesn’t appear to have been a particularly awful father.
Speculation: As a toddler, Hunter might have received lifelong mild brain damage from the accident that killed his mother and sister. Wikipedia notes that, “Beau suffered multiple broken bones while Hunter sustained a fractured skull and severe traumatic brain injuries.”
If your funeral doesn’t include ceremonial recitations of the having-a-daughter-is-the-ultimate-and-final-cuck copypasta and the contents of the late FBI crime statistics bot, were you ever really alive in the first place?
First, the obvious one: In the last few decades, suburban growth hasn't been caused by racism. As a matter of fact, blacks and immigrants are moving to the suburbs at a faster rate than whites. Meanwhile, whites have moved into the cities.
I’d like to discourage such a framing, that somehow action [X] is only legitimate if blacks and other non-Asian minorities undertake it.
Such a framing but reifies the moral prioritisation of lower-achieving minorities over whites and Asians. Relevant Motte post: Please just tell me where you think white people are supposed to live.
Um actually black samurai were totally a thing historically. But even if they weren't, why does it matter and why are you so bothered about an ahistoric depiction of a black man pairing up with a young Japanese woman to kill a bunch of Japanese men? It's only a video game.
its_all_so_tiresome.jpg
On the bright side, this should be a boom for jokes and memes beyond the obligatory "dass rite, we wuz samuraiz n shieett."
For example, the top appearing comment on the YouTube trailer says "The most heroic thing about this trailer is that they left the comments open." Another commenter remarks, "I cannot wait for Ubisoft to make an assassin's creed game set in Africa and make the main character a Chinese man." Assassin's Creed: Empire of Dust does indeed have some gravitas as a title. There are a bunch of Japanese comments and I'd like to imagine they're chudding out hardcore, but haven't plugged them into a translator lest my illusions get shattered.
Looking at Wikipedia, apparently there are something like 25 Assassin's Creed titles between the main and spinoff series? I would have guessed there were like five.
Sloot
8mo ago
Yeah, this is an instance where I think the cyber-bullying meme could apply unironically:
Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Dating App Pressure Real Hahahaha Girl Just Unmatch And Ghost Like Girl Just Do What You Usually Do To Most Men Haha
This list of acts sounds tailor-made to provide increased latitude and optionality for women by which to anarcho-tyrannically police, punish, or get revenge on men for hurting their feelings or not venerating their Wonderfulness: Brad for giving her the ick, Brad for not knowing his place and staying in his lane, Chad for leaving her on read or flaking on her (in other words, treating her like how women commonly treat men), Chad (or worse, Brad) for pump and dumping her.
"Pressured" and "unwanted" are subjective terms that can be claimed retroactively by women. A man doesn't know if his good faith efforts at coordinating a meet-up could be construed as "pressured" or not, nor does he know if his good-faith efforts at sexual escalation (to the extent such efforts can be made in "good faith") could be construed as "unwanted" or not. Be too vanilla in your texts and you might just get left on read for being boring.
It’s pretty funny how half-decent looking chicks and greater can summon a simp army at a moment’s notice by playing damsel in distress. It reminds me of a possibly-15-year-old-by-now meme of a chick posting a Facebook status update of “feeling sad :(“ and getting a ton of likes and comments to the tune of “omg are you okay?” “what happened?!” juxtaposed against a guy’s status update of “just found a cure for cancer!” that got one like and one comment from a male friend saying “cool dude”. What innocent times those were.
But yeah, nowadays in mainstream online discourse, it’s fairly a given that any male expectation of their girlfriends/wives to not do things like wear slutty outfits, go clubbing, post bikini pics, flirt with other men, grind up against other men will be denounced as toxic, insecure, and controlling. Because such expectations compromise the sacred right of women to have FUN, and anything that impedes a queen’s ability to have FUN must be wrong in and of itself. Men’s preferences are toxic and problematic, in contrast to women’s which are brave and valid. Men’s feelings are fundamentally illegitimate and they’re the problem if they’re compromising their girlfriends’/wives’ ability to feel fun, flirty, stunning, beautiful, brave, wonderful, and empowered.
A bizarre but amusing manifestation of this is pregnant women and alcohol. Whenever a hint of the topic comes up on subreddits such as AmItheAsshole or BestofRedditorUpdates, there’s a vocal contingent that insists pregnant women can have alcohol in moderation and should feel free to exercise that right. Boyfriends/husbands who don’t want their pregnant girlfriends/wives drinking are just being selfish, paranoid, and controlling. Any third-parties who discourage pregnant women from drinking are just invasive, misogynistic naysayers who want to control women’s bodies. I suppose it’s too much to ask a woman to abstain from alcohol for nine months.
"Men increasingly alienated from an education credentialist complex that hates them; women and their hypergamous impulses hardest hit."
Also related is polygyny, with Merited Impossibility to boot. Ugh, young women definitely don't prefer being a side-chick to a Chad than the main-chick of a Brad, but if they do it's only because male shittiness creates female-dominated environments, so young women are the true victims here in having no choice but to be polygynous.
Emily Blunt's character gets overpowered twice in Sicario. Once in the apartment scene with John Bernthal's character, and once in the bunker by Josh Brolin's character.
This was praised for subverting expectations in being a relatively more realistic depiction of how a normal sized female would fare against a normal sized male in actual close-quarters combat, but also heavily criticized for the same reason (perhaps moreso). Yet the two scenes were still very much non-gorey, especially compared to the experiences of John Bernthal's character.
However, it's noteworthy how Sicario is... noteworthy... for this reason—that Emily Blunt's character was not some hyperagentic badass #GirlBoss—but a novice who's only there for technicality-related reasons, and who gets dominated and/or in-over-her-head multiple times.
In Dragonball Z, a scene that Western audiences commonly pearl-clutch at (and in-universe, it's also viewed as especially despicable) is where Majin Spopovich beats up Videl at a World Tournament. Spopovich is viewed as disgustingly evil, but he could be hailed as the ultimate feminist and gender egalitarian in treating a teenage girl as he would a teenage boy. Good for Bibidi and Babidi in maintaining a company culture that doesn't see sex.
I've not seen a mainstream Western film (or any film for that matter) that comes close to depicting a woman experiencing the level of extended physical brutality commonly inflicted upon men in movies and having her #GirlBoss illusions shattered as happened in the Videl scene.
Even explicit gore movies tend to cut away and/or make the camerawork more ambiguous when it comes to violence inflicted upon females.
Sloot
5mo ago
Wow, just wow. I thought promoting hate upon vulnerable groups was against the rules here.
Rose is a super relatable character for girls and women, one with whom they can identify strongly. And what’s not to like?
You get awarded luxuries for merely existing, like an expensive necklace and a voyage on the world’s largest ship. Ugh, the stupid shiplet is only 880 feet though, not even 1,000 feet. At least you get to stand and sit around the boat looking cute each day, with your cute dresses, cute gloves, and cute hats. Yay! But you feel sad, because life is so exhausting, your rich handsome fiancé gives you the ick, and you just can’t even anymore. You’re in the midst of considering whether to throw yourself overboard, when a Manic Pixie Dream Chad (MPDC) shows up out of nowhere to rescue you and sweep you off your feet. You cuck your fiancé with MPDC because why not? Girls just want to have fun, teehee. Plus, your stupid fiancé deserves it for being a jealous and controlling jerk. He and MPDC fight over you, which is literally the worst because you definitely hate drama. But then the shiplet hits an iceberg and starts sinking (you knew it, this totally wouldn’t have happened if you went with a real ship). MPDC sacrifices his life so you can live. Awww, how sweet of him. Your (ex-)fiancé survives but later on commits suicide. Oh well, it’s like whatevs. With both MPDC and fiancé gone, you eventually branch swing onto a husband, with whom you have children and grandchildren. You return to the wreck site as a centenarian, wistfully fantasizing about your fling with MPDC and throwing the necklace (now a priceless artifact) into the ocean like Willa yeeting the iPad in Succession. lol, whoopsie.
In contrast, Titanic is a horror film for men. It's Male Expendability: The Movie, where not even Manic Pixie Dream Chad was immune to male expendability. Who do men have to relate to?
The guy who froze to death hanging onto a door, submerged in frigid waters? The guy who brought his fiancée and her mother onto the maiden voyage of the world’s largest ship, only to get cucked in return? The guy who free-fell when the ship broke in half and went vertical, clanging against a propeller along the way? The guy who eventually dedicated his life to alpha-widowed Rose? The nameless hordes of men who waited on the ship as it sank, listening to the string quartet play their last set while the women scampered off with the children onto lifeboats? At least door-popsicle-guy had the fresh memories of smashing sweet seventeen-year-old redhead puss as a morale boost in his waning moments.
For men, there’s also the meta-horror that women consider this a great love story. Five minutes of Alpha >> lifetime of Beta.
More options
Context Copy link