As decided by...?

@@sightseeing7993 no one, but he can still have an opinion on it

Alternatively, what we need is to not enforce antiquated concepts of masculinity and femininity on people and let them just be what they are. Honestly a lot of people's lives would be much better off if they weren't so worried about being masculine or feminine enough.

@The Ravenous Lamppost And now men are what in your opinion? Snails? Tell me oh tell me, dear boomer, where have all the men gone? xD

We also need to admit that Femininity is good to have and that men right now could use more of it.

Timothy McLean Write a script that lives up to your standards. Let’s see if it’s good

@@trueneutral1694 He didn't say this is necessarily easy to do within the constraints of the genre and medium

Mr TopHat true but... Its less of sacrifice and more of reckless destruction for a selfish end I mean it's still sacrifice but it's not for anything greater on earth or for anyone but oneself

I think it has to do with its hard to determine what is genuine self-sacrifice I.e. if I don't jump into a reactor room to fix the reactor while taking a lethal dose of radiation the ship will be caught in explosion like star trek, between the Warboys after taking a hit spraying their face with the silver paint and going "witness me!". one is if it hadn't been done the ship's crew would be dead one is proving themselves to the others and wasn't absolutely necessary to the goal at hand. basically, if you're going to give up your life then it needs to be a genuine need and about helping others rather than just for your own glory and I think that what nux character was also trying to subvert. self sacrifice for the sake of one's ego or the ego of another is not self sacrifice its martyring.

I agree. Perhaps a distinction should be drawn between the female-coded "self-sacrifice" and the male-coded "heroic sacrifice." When the latter is valorized in society, it's actually considered a possible warning sign of fascism. Perhaps "heroic sacrifice" is sacrifice made with onlookers, made with the intent of bringing glory, while "self-sacrifice" is sacrifice made because it is expected, so thoroughly expected that it is barely worthy of mention, sacrifice that is considered the natural and proper duty of the person who is sacrificing something. Or maybe not. I'm coming up with this off the top of my head, and it's midnight, and I don't have much formal training in either critical theory or gender studies. Anyone else got any ideas?

@@chickensangwich97 nah, it's not a real distinction. Military service involves sacrifice, it's historically been expected out outright demanded of men, and it's not typically performative or glamorous in real life.

That's not a great example @InverseAgonist. The military is historically advertised as a chance for glory. Think of the classic "I want you" Uncle Sam campaign. It's trying to evoke that the person enlisting is special. It's about honoring your family and country. It was also a way for people who weren't born with money to rise up in the ranks and into a better social standing. I think @Max Moran is closest to what the video is implying. Male sacrifice is often big and splashy in movies (think Armageddon or Avengers) and almost always means saving the world or a big chunk of it. It's something that's honored and heroic. Female sacrifice is usually personal, in the name of saving a specific person. I can't think of any specific deaths because, as this series is pointing out, women don't get to be this type of hero often but it's most evident in the frequency of women protecting kids.

Ballpoint Pen nah bruh thats just you being gay. If youd rather see masculine women than feminine women then youre just gay

@@earrapist3046 It's just about how you express yourself, has not to do with sexuality. I know that from myself and I'm deeply heterosexual.

aksel k op is still gay

@@earrapist3046 I said I want to see masculine women be so out of choice and not to fit in with the boys. I never actually indicated any preference for butch or feminine women. Gay or not, my point still stands. Also, anyone who isn't gay and wants to see only feminine women on screen is a coward, and I will go over to their house and pin photos of butch women to their floor and ceiling.

Sandersy Streams masculine women are so gross tf

Neither femininity nor masculinity can be "better", what they can be is more balanced within the individual. Repressed femininity = toxic masculinity Repressed masculinity = toxic femininity The term "macho" is derived from Latin and is defined, more or less, as: "a man's responsibility to provide for, protect, and defend his family" and associated with traits like: dominance, aggression, exhibition, and nurturance. If you're of the position that any of those traits are intrinsically "toxic", then I simply cannot agree with you. Of course all human traits, in particular contexts, can manifest in toxic ways. For example, aggression is the source violence as well as the source of passion and therefore creativity. The same applies to "feminine" traits, for example: empathy is the root of compassion as well as the root of manipulation. I also don't believe that men have a monopoly on masculine traits, nor women a monopoly on feminine traits; the masculine and feminine categories compromise the whole spectrum of human traits, the only reason these categories carry gendered connotations is because, in general, masculine traits are more intrinsic to males and feminine traits are more intrinsic to females. A balanced person will understand the necessity of bringing their feminine and masculine energies together in synthesis, when one is repressed at the expense of the other the behaviors of the individual will manifest in toxic ways. Neither masculinity nor femininity are intrinsically malevolent nor benevolent, so I disagree with moralistic terms like "toxic masculinity" as they entirely ignore context and result in the stigmatization of people's innate humanity. To the extent that "toxic masculinity" (again I hate the term for the stated reason) is a valid characterization, it is addressing the repression of femininity in people (mostly men); the same applies to the repression of masculinity in people (mostly women). We must stop labeling, stigmatizing, and problematizing aspects of human nature devoid of specific context. We need to grow up and accept that all people, and therefore society as a collective, are better served by balance and understanding. And for the love of God, this ideological warfare needs to stop. A person needs people like a person needs food and water to survive.

@@lancewalker2595not to add to a 2 year old comment (oops) but the whole point of "toxic masculinity" as a term in academia and proper discourse is to differentiate it from "masculinity" - it's a subset of masculinity as opposed to a definition of it. apart from that you do make some good points tho

@@etcetc1 Can you describe what makes "toxic masculinity" distinct as a "subset" of masculinity? If there is one subset of masculinity called "toxic", can you describe any other subsets of masculinity?

True, there is an element of practicality to take note of, but it’s no accident that in an innocent, passive woman-violent, active man spectrum that what is seen as feminine is often restrictive in its beauty. “Women as passive with no need for active rugged work” and such. Not to mention, the issue isn’t in what they are wearing, or women having masculine traits or clothes. The issue is that a woman must get rid of femininity to be seen as “as tough as the boys”. And, most importantly, there must be a difference to how we analyze media vs real people. A person can decide to do something themself, but a character acts only on the ideas of the author. And when patterns emerge, in such specific places as “action movies made by men”, that signifies a common idea being shared between these authors. Ideas that then reappear and get replicated in its audience. Ideas that then hurt people, like me, who had to wear fancy dresses as a toddler that kept me from the active play that helps a child develop the sense of self and confidence early in life. Not to mention, I haven’t met a woman yet who *didnt* have a phase in their youth where they rejected femininity, hated pink and dolls, because they were weaker, worse then masculine things, or must be discarded to interact with masculine people or activities. Not to say they don’t exist, of course, but to deny this prevalence of the idea of the passive woman-active man scale as nonexistent is to ignore its looming shadow.

@@mayatunes Not sure what point you're trying to make but realistically speaking men are more likely to do the physically intense stuff (fighting, guns etc.) and as such the culture around those things would've been developed by them. Just because women engage in the culture actively does not make them masculine. However if you wanna succeed in a culture you will have to actively participate in it. E.g. I'm a black dude from one of those shithole countries. At uni I wear jeans and a t-shirt, I speak english, I carry a laptop. Does any of this make me white, no. But it is the culture I've chosen to be active in

@@kindbrute4640 I've noticed culture tends to be bigger than what society claims it is. I mean, I'm an artsy person, rarely physically active, and so are most of the artsy people, regardless of gender, that I surround myself with. I only know four physically active people personally, and they're two girls, two guys. Even then, I've met tons of physically active women in my life. (Though, I did note that I saw less and less of them in school, as girl sports were dismissed as less important, while boys were encouraged to improve in sports and maybe get a scholarship). I've also seen how, after campaigns to introduce women to sciences earlier and encourage them, women began being a part of what was originally a heavily-dominated field. I don't believe that women are born hating physically-intensive stuff, just discouraged at a young age by the same tricks I mentioned in my first comment. More importantly though, is that women in fiction who want to do things society deem "manly" have to be "manly" always. Is it not impossible that the fighter-woman likes pink as well, or is friendly, or has any traits other than a stereotypical male action movie star? I've felt this pressure in real life too, in computer classes. The boys got there first (due to a heavy societal push associating boys with science and girls with ~fashion~), they set up a hostile, "boys-only" environment, the girls who would be interested get scared off, and the ones who stay feel the need to act the same way, or be bullied and harassed for being "Girly". It's not about dressing for a job, I have all the tools and skills I need, but the ruthless categorization and gendering of activities and skills that prevent people of the wrong gender or type fitting in. (Also, side note on your example, are t-shirts and laptops really a "white person only" thing? Those are typical of university students, yes, but how is being a university student make you any less black? Education is universal. T-shirts are casual and cheap, and laptops are a necessary tool. And if that's just a weird example,and there are other instances of you being forced to distance yourself from your race to fit in, that seems less like "just the culture" and more "racism is influencing how society deems people as 'intelligent'") Sorry for the long response, though. My post was kinda badly worded, and your response did give me some food for thought! (As you can tell)

@@mayatunes Okay so you're repeating what I said, certain things attract more men than women and as such the culture around those things is created by men. And vice versa. Maybe I had shitty examples but my point is I dress, speak and act differently at school than I do at home not because of 'racism' but out of respect of the culture I'm joining. Again, this doesn't stop me from being black, or sagging my pants, or using different slang and knowing different cultural references. Hell by the end the gents would've have picked up 1 or 2 of my habits as I would theirs. Similarly it's perfectly for a chick to join, lets say an IT class, with pink stickers and shit on her laptop while still learning the style of speak and culture of that group. You aren't supposed to arrive and demand reform to suit your specific needs. You're supposed to adapt to the new circumstance and simply because all humans are unique your iteration of the culture will be different and slightly more female. It is not designed to be hostile to you specifically but instead to weed out those unprepared for the kind of lifestyle necessary. If you're strong enough not to be put off by the lack of barbie dolls, you should be able to handle the highly competitive world of male dominated industries. As for girls being discouraged from physical stuff, I highly doubtthere's a concerted effort. It just makes sense that male sports make a shit ton more money than female sports and thus is a far more valid career choice for guys as opposed to girls. You need to stop equating university to intelligence. I use those seemingly normal examples as 'white' things because although people don't like to hear it, these cultures and norms were created by white people. Africans have a completely different educational structure that starts a lot earlier in life and is far more practicality based seeing as desk jobs and the lot are once again appropriated from the West. By white men. Women who wanted to be were always part of the sciences. It only stands to reason that the more people and time we have on Earth as a species, the larger the overlap would grow. What is dangerous though is that often standards are lowered in order to get females into male dominated fields, which to me sounds counterproductive. It's literally saying that women aren't as good as men and need the field tilted in their favour

@@kindbrute4640 Fair enough. I didn't mean to equate university to intelligence, I know many smart people who have never been,and many idiots who have. It can teach certain skills, which can be helpful for various careers, but that does not make a smarter person. As you can tell, I'm not particularly fantastic at getting my points across, especially through KZfaq comment! But what I'm getting across is is that "culture" is not first formed by biology, and that the culture can be changed. In my science example (which I used because I have seen first-hand), it wasn't that standards got lowered, but that more women were encouraged to try classes, and later found more jobs in those fields. And no "culture" needs to be hostile, it only grows to be so over time. There's a difference between people adopting neutral traits of an environment (like fashion or tools or words) and repressive, restrictive environments where certain people or types of people are made to feel unwelcome. If people within hostile groups reach out to new minds instead of keeping to their own egos, then the hostility dissipates. There are other programming communities and groups that I've been in that were very welcoming, and only needed my interest and friendliness. As for my tangent about education, well, that was from my experience in America. So many people there get discouraged from the school system due to a strong, pervasive "black='hood'=not smart" bias that can take root. My step-mom runs a school specifically for reaching out to people who feel like they can't be a part of school (for sometimes this reason but many others), so that was the lens I was seeing through. But your right, that doesn't well apply outside of America. Ultimately though, this is getting away from the main point at hand: media analysis and creation. Women in media tend to be seen as only one thing. You're the pretty one, you only care about looks, you're the smart one, you have knowledge but no beauty, you're the manly one, you don't care about anything else but MANLINESS. Which is what these videos are about addressing. Its like, not all groups are hostle and manly-men only, even in real life! And even if there magically were no other people who weren't hostile, why do they always have to be? Especially in films that do not address this issue. I mean, from a writing point of view, if I made my protagonists kitten killers, and never commented on how that's a crappy thing in-universe, then that ends up sending the message that kitten-killing is no big deal. With media, every little thing is the result of one person saying "This is how it should be". So, why are so many tough women in media "The Vasquez"? No femininity at all? Everyone has femininity. And masculinity! Even just a little. That's what make us people. So why do women in media have to shake away femininity for respect? Media influences how we see the world, what we see as normal, which gets made into more media, in a process that is eternal and self-reenforcing. The only way to stop it is to question it, and change either the media we make or the world we live in.

Rae Bracken you're right, you know.

That’s the thing with these “Vasquez” characters. They may be presented as “one of the guys,” but they still need to be sexually appealing to the male viewers.

Maybe she's more concerned with hygiene than the other soldiers

What movie is at 2:37 with the boat and the guy in the water?

Great point!

in all fairness humility is often not noticed in males. in the same way that extreme level of arrogance are often not noticed when the arrogant person is female.

DIVAD291 From my personal experience, I have noticed the opposite. I have often seen men being praised and/or expected to be overly confident, where as women who express confidence are often viewed as being bossy or stuck-up much more easily than men

" I have often seen men being praised and/or expected to be overly confident" ok but have you seen men being praised for being humble more often than women are praised for being humble? also men and women don't show their extreme level of confidence in the same way...men's arrogance is more of a challenge and implies a willingness to risk things in order to get things. its moreso confidence than it is arrogance. women's arrogance is typically of the "do stuff for me because i think im more important than you" kind. i think thats a common theme...people call double standards because a trait is praised for males while its not for females but often the underlying truth is that they are only the same traits on a surface level. also i disagree with the notion that humility is a feminine trait...try paying attention to what happens when a group of males or a group of females attempt to do a task together. usually the males establish their hierarchy much faster and adhere to it considerably more. while theres a lot of initial arrogance males really do actually "fight it out" and then move on while females just kinda fight without ever moving on which is to me a much more serious kind of arrogance even if each individual interaction is much tamer than the few big interactions that males have. this makes sense considering that gathering is an activity with less risk than hunting so there was not nearly as much pressure on females to establish who was the best at what than there was on males who could end up dead if they gave a job to the wrong guy. altough i don't think this should be necessary ill still say it...im obviously making a statistical argument and taking stuff i say as absolute statements would be stupid.

I can see that a lot of your points are based off your own observations, I have never seen women be unable to finish a task because of in-fighting, both in an educational and professional setting so I must disagree with your second statement. Though after giving it some time, I think I disagree with humility being an inherently gendered trait in the first place, both genders are expected to display humility in both regards. Also, your point about "Ma'e and female" arrogance is mainly based off definitions, the male arrogance you describe is just confidence, not arrogance at all, and the female arrogance you describe is just normal arrogance. Men are often more confident than women, and that's not a bad thing, but both genders can be truly arrogant, there is no distinction between "Male and female arrogance" because it's the same thing. I wasn't calling confident men who risk things arrogant, I was using the "Do things for me because I think I'm more important that you" definition of arrogance

@@DIVAD291 male hierarchy isn't built through humility. Its built through respect, either out of reverence or fear. That's why power struggles happen. That's not humility.

How does your comment (and this video here) relate to the Manlyness-Videos of Popculture-Detective? And Salari?

Can you provide some examples of inherently feminine traits? I'm a little confused by the list the video provided.

@@slyfer60 There are no inherently feminine traits just as there are no inherently masculine traits. There are only traits that are traditionally associated with one or the other in specific cultures. What the video kind of mixes up at points (i.e. is somewhat inconsistent on) is the acknowledgement that the answer is to stop making the traditional associations altogether. Things are good and bad in and of themselves. People judge them on the boxes because we allow them to continue to perpetuate the boxes. Stop acknowledging the boxes and do what you just did: "what's inherently fem/masc about ____?"

@@liquidKi Yes, everyone person has the right to choose which behaviors they express. That doesn't mean that they can become everything. There are certain limitations on existence and that includes, which sex you belong to. There are certain traits, that are biological that are more often present aming females and males. Look at the Big Five Personality Model and it's sexualdimorphic line up between the sexes

She is the vasquez of the 90s and 2000s... it is universal knowledge.

I think the other thing it ignores is the whole psychological basis of self expression, yes practicality comes into it but so much of the way we present ourselves is about how we want others to see us especially those we regard as peers. Seems to me that all too often people forget that associating arbitrary concepts with certain clothing has a lot to do with why we associate certain concepts with particular sequences of sounds produced by someones mouth, both are used as a form of language.

Objectively, and physically, Sarah Connor is a BADASS; that characteristic does NOT impede in anyway upon her femininity (in particular relation to her character as a mother), in fact her being a badass facilitates her role as John's mother in that it enables her to protect him as well as herself.

Zackapo what the fuck is wrong with wanting glory?

+Faustian Urge Nothing at all, usually it goes hand in hand with acting selfless.

@@polpotpolpot448 Wanting glory is not the crime of the antagonist. Immortal Joe's sin is capitalizing on his war boys' desperation for affirmation, and his monopolization and selective distribution of glory as a resource towards his own ends. He doesn't give a flying fuck about Valhalla. In fact he probably doesn't even believe in it. Religion, like water, agriculture and violence is just one of his many tools of control and manipulation.

@@jonathansalvador5037 Be that as it may, but the same could be said for the good guys. It still ends with what is essentially a child soldier, giving his life for a cause. We might say it's a good cause but that changes nothing - every boy who has ever killed or sacrificed himself on a battlefield was convinced he did it for a good cause. This is the very definition of toxic masculinity. There is nothing in Fury Road that young men should aspire to.

This. Wonder woman is the bomb (except that whole thing in the 70s but we don't talk about that)

I'm a lesbian and into butches and I love her

Mulan is horrible example of this re-contextualization of desirable human traits. Yes it's true that throughout most of human history thus far a particular kind of masculinity has been valued (the masculinity of the warrior), but the reason for this is dependent upon a necessary challenge which characterized both the majority of history and the story of Mulan: warfare.

Yeah I wouldn't put Ripley in that category. I only saw the first two movies but I didn't feel like she becomes a man in them or that she's less of a woman.

Fair point, but I don't think that's mutually exclusive with masculinizing her.

It's an interesting point on all fronts, because Ripley arguably moved away from being neither masculine or feminine in Alien (where I believe her role was initially written for a man) to being explicitly a mother in Aliens, and that motherhood (or at least, loss of both her biological and adopted daughters) carries through into Alien 3. And as stated, Alien 3 is much less of an "action movie" than Aliens, and I would argue Ripley as a character follows that trend.

Sure, but it makes Ripley in Alien 3 an iffy illustration of what you're trying to say, because then the same can be said about Furiosa - and you (rightly) use her to illustrate that Fury Road subverts the clear distinction into masculine and feminine traits. Arguably, Alien 3 does the same, or at the very least it complicates ideas of masculinity and femininity, and at that point pointing to Ripley's haircut as a sign of Ripley becoming more masculine in the three first Alien films does come across as cherrypicking. I like the essay otherwise (I've only watched up to this one so far), but that part of your argument would've received a wavy red underline and possibly the comment "Tenuous" from me.

Ripley was written as a male character, there is no "transition" she is a woman playing a male character

personally, i find the mulan cutting her hair a bit of a weird area to talk about as many consider it to be culturally pertinent but a lot of chinese people have said that, no, it has no ties to traditionally chinese ideas. and many guys seemed to have long hair back then, too.

@@dirt9081 i have no memory of this video or what this comment is even about. But w the Mulan movie thing there has definitely been a lot of new stuff to learn and I'll check what you mean! Thank you!

Mulan doesn't embrace masculinity for herself, just to disguise herself to get into the army. She remains feminine when she's not around fellow soldiers, she returns to dressing femininely after she's discovered, and most importantly, she defeats the villain with her fan, which she gets when she's at her most feminine (trying to impress the matchmaker)

The term "macho" is derived from Latin and is defined, more or less, as: "a man's responsibility to provide for, protect, and defend his family" and associated with traits like: dominance, aggression, exhibition, and nurturance. If you're of the position that any of those traits are intrinsically "toxic", then I simply cannot agree with you. Of course all human traits, in particular contexts, can manifest in toxic ways. For example, aggression is the source violence as well as the source of passion and therefore creativity. The same applies to "feminine" traits, for example: empathy is the root of compassion as well as the root of manipulation. I also don't believe that men have a monopoly on masculine traits, nor women a monopoly on feminine traits; the masculine and feminine categories compromise the whole spectrum of human traits, the only reason these categories carry gendered connotations is because, in general, masculine traits are more intrinsic to males and feminine traits are more intrinsic to females. A balanced person will understand the necessity of bringing their feminine and masculine energies together in synthesis, when one is repressed at the expense of the other the behaviors of the individual will manifest in toxic ways. Neither masculinity nor femininity are intrinsically malevolent nor benevolent, so I disagree with moralistic terms like "toxic masculinity" as they entirely ignore context and result in the stigmatization of people's innate humanity. To the extent that "toxic masculinity" (again I hate the term for the stated reason) is a valid characterization, it is addressing the repression of femininity in people (mostly men); the same applies to the repression of masculinity in people (mostly women). We must stop labeling, stigmatizing, and problematizing aspects of human nature devoid of specific context. We need to grow up and accept that all people, and therefore society as a collective, are better served by balance and understanding. And for the love of God, this ideological warfare needs to stop. A person needs people like a person needs food and water to survive. Jesus, did you see the new terminator movie? In T2, Sarah Connor says the following to the creator of Skynet: "Yeah, right. How are you supposed to know? Fucking men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death and destruction... " Compare that reverence for the power, beauty, and (frankly obvious) necessity (evolutionary, not individually) of motherhood: "Grace : I don't know how I made it through the next few tears. I just try not to think about it. But I got lucky. Someone found me, saved me, and then we started fighting back. Sarah Connor : And let me guess. Dani gives birth to the one man that can stop it. Dani Ramos : What? Sarah Connor : The future wants you dead for the same reason it wanted me dead. Dani Ramos : But I'm nothing. I'm nobody. Sarah Connor : Yeah, you're not the threat. It's your womb. Fine. Let someone else be Mother Mary for a while. Grace : If you're Mother Mary, why do I so wanna beat the shit outta you?" The reduction of women in their role as mothers to "just a womb" has become something of a trend in mainstream culture, and I honestly cannot understand it. To acknowledge mothers and their importance is not to suggest that a mother is ALL a woman can or should be, a woman can literally do anything (with some exception in physically extreme activities) that a man can; no one seems to discuss the fact that women are the only one's capable of creating and sustaining human life.

@@lancewalker2595 I think it's also these traits are often thought of as opposites. Like, Strength is the opposite of Weakness. Empathy is the opposite of Apathy or Indifference. Manipulation is the Opposite of Sincerity or Authenticity. And one side of these traits is associated with men and Masculinity, the other/ opposite side is associated with women and femininity. That is the problem. We need to break this notion that some traits are Masculine (associated with men) or feminine (associated with women). And I think that feminine traits are often considered weak. Masculine traits are given more importance. Men are leaders, providers, fighters, strong, assertive, independent, competitive, logical etc. Women are caregiving, nurturing, emotional, passive, submissive, emotional, sensitive etc. And also these traits reinforce patriarchal structures in society, keep men in power.

@@person1420 It is a simple fact that gender specific patterns of behavior are a reality... a biological reality; try not denying that humans are evolved from nature like all other biological life on this planet. Then maybe you'll start making sense. Also, "patriarchy" is an utterly meaningless term, I've read nearly all the books on feminism that exist to be read.... and I really hate to break it to you, but they're 98%~ bullshit.

Nah it's more like "Please don't shoot my head off"

Neither femininity nor masculinity can be "better", what they can be is more balanced within the individual. Repressed femininity = toxic masculinity Repressed masculinity = toxic femininity The term "macho" is derived from Latin and is defined, more or less, as: "a man's responsibility to provide for, protect, and defend his family" and associated with traits like: dominance, aggression, exhibition, and nurturance. If you're of the position that any of those traits are intrinsically "toxic", then I simply cannot agree with you. Of course all human traits, in particular contexts, can manifest in toxic ways. For example, aggression is the source violence as well as the source of passion and therefore creativity. The same applies to "feminine" traits, for example: empathy is the root of compassion as well as the root of manipulation. I also don't believe that men have a monopoly on masculine traits, nor women a monopoly on feminine traits; the masculine and feminine categories compromise the whole spectrum of human traits, the only reason these categories carry gendered connotations is because, in general, masculine traits are more intrinsic to males and feminine traits are more intrinsic to females. A balanced person will understand the necessity of bringing their feminine and masculine energies together in synthesis, when one is repressed at the expense of the other the behaviors of the individual will manifest in toxic ways. Neither masculinity nor femininity are intrinsically malevolent nor benevolent, so I disagree with moralistic terms like "toxic masculinity" as they entirely ignore context and result in the stigmatization of people's innate humanity. To the extent that "toxic masculinity" (again I hate the term for the stated reason) is a valid characterization, it is addressing the repression of femininity in people (mostly men); the same applies to the repression of masculinity in people (mostly women). We must stop labeling, stigmatizing, and problematizing aspects of human nature devoid of specific context. We need to grow up and accept that all people, and therefore society as a collective, are better served by balance and understanding. And for the love of God, this ideological warfare needs to stop. A person needs people like a person needs food and water to survive.

The femme fatale is definitely a worthy subject of discussion, and I'd love to see him cover it though it seems more an affirmation of gender-coded violence than a subversion of it. The idea behind the femme fatale is that a woman who possesses both femininity and agency must be duplicitous, or have some ulterior motive. Masculine violence is brutal and upfront; feminine violence is sneaky and premeditated.

Femme Fatal is more from detective stories and thrillers than action movies.

Joseph Davidson Bond girls are femme fatales.

Even so you still wouldn’t see many guys acting like them because that would be weird,so it’s not really a sliding scale

Your friends are idiots. Rey and Carol are Mary Sues. Wonder Woman was a good character, I enjoyed her

A lot of sexist jerks do throw around the term "mary sue", and I think it's very possible that some people reject Rey or Captain Marvel because they're perceived as too feminine, but I disagree with the dismissal of the "mary sue" label itself as sexist or hollow. I think it actually conveys a somewhat common problem with female characters (and the situations they are written into), where the writers fail to adequately balance motivation/agency/empoweredness with quirks/flaws/weaknesses. The result is a character who either expresses whatever personality traits a scene demands of them, making them feel bland and undefined, and hence difficult for the audience to relate to (as is the case with Carol Danvers), or who solves problems so quickly and easily that it deflates the tension of the story (as is the case with both Danvers and, to an extent, Rey, at least in Force Awakens - she's written much better in Last Jedi, and I haven't seen the last one). People complain about Captain Marvel being overpowered, but I think the real reason many viewers don't care about what happens to her is because the movie never properly explains to us who she is as a person, what she cares about, why she does what she does. The writers give Larson almost nothing to work with as an actor, and the story gives Danvers almost nothing to work with as a character. This is why she feels like a mary sue. By contrast, while Wonder Woman is also incredibly competent, she's given a clearly defined essence and worldview that is then brought into direct conflict with the story in which she finds herself. I think this is why Wonder Woman was an engaging movie, and why Captain Marvel is the Marvel movie that Marvel fans were disappointed in (because, somewhat bland action and repetitive stories aside, Marvel are usually so reliably good at character work). (Mind you, I'm super happy that Captain Marvel still sold tickets, because it opens up for more female-led movies, and hence better female-led movies, in the future.)

@@OlleLindestad "The result is a character who either expresses whatever personality traits a scene demands of them, making them feel bland and undefined, and hence difficult for the audience to relate to (as is the case with Carol Danvers)" It seems like her motivation might have been trying to find her memories. She did find it and also found out that the people she was working for were the reasons why her friend had died. And that they lied to her about her powers and all they were trying to do was to control her so that they can control her power. I liked the ending and it made sense. That guy was trying to again tell her to fight her without her power to prove herself to him, and you can see the other lady, who was probably the head of that planet or something, told her that "They would take away her power if she is unfit to have them" or something like this. So, Captain Marvel choosing in the end to not fight with him without her power was actually the logical conclusion for her. Cuz she doesn't need to prove anything to this man who actually kidnap her. And she can use her power because they weren't given by these people to her but she gained it somehow. We do see her flashbacks about how she was always considered weak and would be bullied but she would get back up. And she also needed to that especially since she wanted to become a pilot in the late 1900s I think, when men were the majority of pilots and they saw women as weak. She needed to always prove herself to everyone because she wasn't considered capable by other people simply because she was a woman. And I hear so many complaints about her not having emotions, but it seems like the 20 times when she had tears in her eyes don't count to them or they simply didn't notice. I think people just didn't understand what was happening with the character. But a lot of women understood it. They understood captain marvel as somebody who was in an abusive relationship (not romantic) with somebody and how she was lied to, manipulated to be used by them and in the end of the movie she gets out of that abusive dynamic after realizing that these people manipulated her. The part about her realizing that "she doesn't need to prove herself to that man who kidnap her" is about her getting out of that abusive relationship.

DonCDXX _The female stereotype of being passive and frail is a byproduct of the expectation of males to be the combatants of the species._ That's not true. This "byproduct" emerged with the agricultural society. Women became property. In the hunter-gatherer days, there was no family. No concept of property. There was just the tribe and everybody had sex with everybody. Basically. It didn't matter whose child it was, because the child belonged to the tribe. I posted this elsewhere recently. The reason Viking-age Scandinavian women had more freedom than their counterparts in continental Europe is that their culture did not have as formulized gender roles as that of Christianity. Basically, the only limitations for these Scandinavian women were their physical limitations. From a Christian perspective, a warrior woman (the Amazons) would be an abomination in the eyes of God. The British accused the Vikings of employing female warrior. The Muslims accused the Crusaders of the same. This was to illustrate just how low and immoral the other side was. In patriarchal and misogynist societies, the woman is the symbol of the society. She is to be pure and virtuous. If she isn’t, it’s the fault of the men, because they did not keep her under control. Farrakhan once said that the true worth of a race must be measured by the character of his woman. (This switch from “race” to “his” is exactly how Farrakhan worded it.) During the Finnish Civil War, female red-guards, young maids and workers, were among those who were killed first. The SS units on the Eastern Front waged war as well as genocide. Not everybody who fought on the German side in the then-USSR was with the Waffen-SS, or even Germans. There were volunteers from Finland and Sweden, for example. Regardless of unit, all of them took prisoners. There was one exception to this. Female Red Army soldiers were not taken. They were shot on the spot, or were mutilated. Females who took part in the war (there were one million of them in the Red Army) were seen as deviant and outright frightening. They were portrayed as hermaphrodites by the Nazi propaganda. One of these women retold of how one German prisoner, when seeing her, seemed more worried that she and others actually looked like women than of his situation as a POW.

The idea that these gender roles being established after agriculture is a debated topic. Consider humanity's two closest ape species, chimps and bonobos. If primitive humans were more like bonobos, then you're probably right. If primitive humans were more like chimps, then you're probably wrong. There's at least some evidence of bonobo-like social dynamics in neanderthal but homo sapiens wiped all the other hominids out because of chimp-like behaviors. This is obviously an oversimplification, but actual certainty on the topic is virtually impossible. BTW, when talking about variations of gender roles in history, don't forget Dido of Carthage.

DonCDXX, my post was, of course, an oversimplification. There were just a few things in your post I reacted to. _It seems that female ruggedization is really a symbol of a woman giving up her protected status in favor of the masculine trait of disposablity._ That's why I mentioned the part about patriarchal and misogynist societies. Women were both protected and held captive. It's a double edged sword.

of course they are and on stories where this are requirements for survival and plot advancement, they are more than valid. The problem is when the ruggedization of women is either generalized into a larger scale when rethinking womanhood, or when it is represented as the only way for women to achieve any validation or agency.

nurarihion, this is a social problem. I do agree that society has to start to put more value on "female" qualities. The females are part of society and they must do their part. This has been my long-time criticism of the American brand of feminism. Its celebration of Wonder Woman (not talking about the movie), or more recently Ronda Rousey. One recent trend is that females have started to copy how males relate to sex. It's a game that only benefits males.

I Spit on Your Grave (1978)

Exception that proves the rule... ??

You are definitely not wrong. Throughout history there have been a few, generally exclusive, male roles including: big game hunting, and warfare; both of these functions were, for the majority of human history, necessary for the material (i.e. land, and food) survival of human populations. Performing both roles presented men throughout history with tremendous danger and high mortality, and thus intrinsically necessitated an ethos in which sacrifice has been regarded as a great virtue through most human history and within all known human cultures.

I think his point is that the "good" side is made up of characters who exist on all points of the gender-coding spectrum while the "bad" side is made up of men, artificially constrained to an extremely narrow set of expectations. If Immortal Joe and his cronies were gender-coded ambiguously, this would undercut the theme.

How does your comment (and this video here) relate to the Manlyness-Videos of Popculture-Detective? And Salari?

No film has ever included subtext. What even is subtext? I don't know, I just made the word up. Certainly no would think to narratively justify an expressive or symbolic moment for a character, because art doesn't do symbolic moments, that's not what art is about. You remember when in the first part of this series when Ian talks about the painted on arm on the war rig and what that symbolised? Me neither, because there is in fact nothing to read from it, it's literally just a cool decal. What you see is what you get, what you see is what you get, what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,I hate feminism, stop pointing out what is already there but I don't want to see, max is the main character because his name is in the title,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,what you see is what you get,

Yeah, by your logic, Aragorn in the Lord of The Rings never weared any pants, because it was never mentioned in it the books.

of course those are specifics that drive the plot in the movie, and on that level the masculinization of Ripley is called for and even interesting as character development, the problem is that this model of masculinization can be taken into a larger scale by mass media and by the public by creating the assumption that women have to be more like men in order to gain any power or validation. That's the whole point of this video, to advocate for stories and characters where both masculine and feminine traits can be represented as important to their development. Women being masculinized is not "bad" per se, but the lack of more diverse representations of femininity and masculinity leads to an internalized misogynist world view where women can only survive by becoming honorary men.

This has to be a joke, right?

This poster doesn't know how movies are made? Like at all? hahahahaa

She's got Brazilian ancestry. Moroccan too, though I suppose that isn't pertinent to this particular conversation. The "Goldstein? Really?" comment is pretty off the mark. I'd argue that just because she doesn't have a Hispanic last name (and identifies more with her Jewish heritage, which is pretty common among practicing Jews) doesn't invalidate her Hispanic roots. Unless we can really make the argument that someone isn't "ethnic" enough.

Aragorn from LOTR would be a great example, in Tolkien's conception of the benevolent king archetype the character who embodies this archetype must reconcile the masculine with the feminine within himself. Neither femininity nor masculinity can be "better", what they can be is more balanced within the individual. Repressed femininity = toxic masculinity Repressed masculinity = toxic femininity The term "macho" is derived from Latin and is defined, more or less, as: "a man's responsibility to provide for, protect, and defend his family" and associated with traits like: dominance, aggression, exhibition, and nurturance. If you're of the position that any of those traits are intrinsically "toxic", then I simply cannot agree with you. Of course all human traits, in particular contexts, can manifest in toxic ways. For example, aggression is the source violence as well as the source of passion and therefore creativity. The same applies to "feminine" traits, for example: empathy is the root of compassion as well as the root of manipulation. I also don't believe that men have a monopoly on masculine traits, nor women a monopoly on feminine traits; the masculine and feminine categories compromise the whole spectrum of human traits, the only reason these categories carry gendered connotations is because, in general, masculine traits are more intrinsic to males and feminine traits are more intrinsic to females. A balanced person will understand the necessity of bringing their feminine and masculine energies together in synthesis, when one is repressed at the expense of the other the behaviors of the individual will manifest in toxic ways. Neither masculinity nor femininity are intrinsically malevolent nor benevolent, so I disagree with moralistic terms like "toxic masculinity" as they entirely ignore context and result in the stigmatization of people's innate humanity. To the extent that "toxic masculinity" (again I hate the term for the stated reason) is a valid characterization, it is addressing the repression of femininity in people (mostly men); the same applies to the repression of masculinity in people (mostly women). We must stop labeling, stigmatizing, and problematizing aspects of human nature devoid of specific context. We need to grow up and accept that all people, and therefore society as a collective, are better served by balance and understanding. And for the love of God, this ideological warfare needs to stop. A person needs people like a person needs food and water to survive.

Because it was a white woman dressing as a latina women - like blackface but for well...brown people.

Oh. I was wondering if it has anything to do with blackface. Thanks. Yeah, that... that's not okay.

Her family is actually from Russia, Morocco and Brazil. She looks white but is not ethniclly that way

Couldn't agree more my dude

Sick strawman my dude, you really showed us ess-jay-dubbayous Saltiness aside, this guy doesn't seem angry or tyrannical at all. He just had an aside about brownface. It wasn't even a harsh callout, just a "seriously?" response to something from a different time which we wouldn't do today. Anita Sarkeesian always says "you can enjoy a piece of media while also pointing out it's more pernicious aspects." It /does/ matter that this was an "iconic, powerful" performance. That's why we like it. But we also recognize it has flaws, and we don't put it on a pedestal or pretend brownface is ok because we like it. With that being said, if you're more trying to say "brownface isn't bad," all I can say is that black and brown people are still hurt by it, and you should listen to their voices about that, not mine or this guy.

I like that book but would disagree that a zero body fat woman is the ideal type of sexualized woman. Both mamaries and the gluteal maximus region does tend to benefit from a modest amount of body fat. Especially when portrayed in a sexualized manner. Though the era the book depicts does also have a reputation of surgical augmentation, so these features can still be tweaked I guess.

How does your comment (and this video here) relate to the Manlyness-Videos of Popculture-Detective? And Salari?

This is what I need clarification on, what are inherently femininity traits?

Elizabeth Bennet Yeah well what do women sacrifice for men?

+Mgtow Boo Boo Men are 6 times as likely to leave their spouse if their spouse is diagnosed with cancer than women are to leave their husbands. It’s all relative, there are self sacrificing men and women.

@@blungus9574 Do you have a link to that reference?