Women: The Most Overused Shield.
Back in 2014, #NotYourShield was used by women and POCs who support GamerGate to highlight their support to the movement and to deflect the journalists' claim that they're speaking on behalf of women and minorities. But today, I really think that women should have their own "Not Your Shield", because so far various media and producers have been doing nothing but using women as shields to deflect any criticism dircted to their work.
So recently, Battlefield V's trailer was revealed, and while EA promised many good things like no more season pass and all the maps will be free etc. But fans still aren't accepting the trailer and it currently has more dislikes and likes (284,000 likes vs 338,000 dislikes). And judging from what I see, there're plenty of reasons to dislike it:
- WHAT THE F*** AM I SEEING?!
- What's going on here? Everything is just chaos without making sense! Is this Fortnite: WWII Edition?
- Where're the Germans coming from?
- Why Messers are used for ground attacking instead of intercepting Mosquitos?!
- Why there's a f***ing Tiger driving alongside Churchills and Cromwells? (Maybe it's a captured one but I see no markings and why will it be used on the field instead of testing?)
- Why are the soliders jumping in front of the Churchills instead of letting the tanks plow through the house? Are they going to protect the INFANTRY tank's fragile steel bodies with their superior flesh ones?
- Is this Battlefield or Wolfenstein?
- Why the Brit is carrying a Katana? Maybe he looted it off a Japanese officer during his days in South East Asia? But that golden hilt looks too luxurious even for the highest ranking officers!
- Why are the Churchills going so fast? Especially when they're smashing through a house! I've checked on Wikipedia that Churchills can only go 15 mph at max; but in the trailer they were driving... like... twice that fast, THROUGH A HOUSE! No less!
- Why the girl has a f***ing robotic arm?! That thing didn't get invented until recently! If there's a robotic arm already, I'd love to see LandKreuzer P-1000s crushing the miniature British tanks, Weserflug P1003s airdropping soldiers carrying StG 44s with night vision scopes and Eisen Kaputt raining death from the air!!! And somehow that girl is unkillable, did she secretly respawned or is she BJ Blazkowiz's distant relative?
- Also, IS THAT V1 MANNED? Why do I see a silhouette of a cockpit on the flying bomb? First of all, a manned V1 has the cockpit closer to the rear of the fuselarge instead of the middle; and secondly, manned V1s were scrapped by the Germans because they're too dangerous!
- Is this some sort of girl PWR promo? Besides being unkillable, she managed to save the player just in time. Besides, what's with the Shhhhh... move? That's just plain stupid and serves no purpose but to provide an easy kill oppertunity for Ms. Robotnik. If I were that German I would have used any melee weapon I can get my hands on (a shovel, a borken piece of wood, a rock) and finish my enemy off quickly. This is the f***ing Battlefield, for God's sake! I don't have the luxury for slow kills!
Overall, this no longer feels like a Battlefield game which usually features a more realistic setting. Some people may counter argue that BF1 also had several inaccuracies (especially with its automatic weapons) and that demanding historical accuracy is pointless, but getting a few weapons wrong is not even on the same level with the absurdity BFV has taken up! Okay, we are using the wrong words here, it's not exactly "historical accuracy", it's "historical authenticity", which is in other words: getting the f***ing basic bits right!
And needless to say, media has been defending the game's design and choices and calling everyone who disagree "sexist/misogynistic minorities" etc (Oh sure, the manorities that have disliked it has outnumbered the "woke" majority!). Even some notable figures in the gaming community has jumped on the bandwagon. The game's desingers also claimed that he's "on the right side of history" by making this choice. Really? Being on the right side of history by disregarding history?! How hard is it to simply NOT be a hypocrite by admitting that "We wanted to take a different approch with BFV by creating an alternative version of WWII so players can have more options in creating their characters". Oh, right, you won't earn addition SJ points by doing so. Go ahead, it appears that you desperately need that validation.
SJW narrative pushing can get tiresome after a while, everything you say they'll try their best to misrepresent. This time gamers claim that BFV is histrorically inaccurate by putting women on the field, when the journos heard that, they immidiately started their virtue signaling by accusing gamers of sexism and denying women's place in history, all the while trying to look "woke".
But here's another problem I have with BFV's choice: let's check out Fandom's article here.
And the four women Dom chose are:
- Lyudmila Pavlichenko: legendary sniper, though some say that her 309 kill count is Soviet Propaganda.
- Nancy Wake: sure, she can fight and has seen combat, but being a spy means that she would normally avoid combat. Unliked the actual female fighers in some of the resistance groups.
- Susan Travers: courageous ambulance driver, but a driver nonetheless, also, she was never promoted to General. It was Marie-Pierre Kœnig who was the general, so why not use her... Oh, sorry, Kœnig's a man.
- Noor Inayat Khan: spy, but never trained in combat.
Sure, women conrtibuted a great lot in the war - as workers, nurses, test pilots, spies... but soldiers? Barely!
And to quote Megatics from KiA:
- "I don't get how they can't see why it is important to respect the source material. They diminish the roles that women did play by not finding meaningful ways to represent those women in battlefield. I'm sure Female Snipers or Resistance members are well represented when they don't see their own caricatures but simply Token Female Soldiers who are skin swaps of men and a waste of space instead. All sense of nuance is lost here when we cram every kind of woman that served into the "Every-Woman Mary Sue" Who is absent of character or any historical resemblance. The character essentially would make more sense if it popped out of a time machine right off the bat."
Overall, the media and DICE has done nothing but throw women in front of their social justice causes and used them as shields to deflect criticism, they didn't even have the courtisy to correctly represent them in the game! They never really cared about women, all they wanted is to use them as stepping stones for their cause. Now who's being disresepectful?
The Fempire Strikes Back
Recently, Star Wars movies have been getting a lot of backlash, first there's the fans' polarizing opinion on The Last Jedi, people either loved it or hated it. Then there's the Han Solo movie which performed abysmally at the box office for a Star Wars film. So it's no surprise that people are getting angry at Kathleen Kennedy, seeing her as someone who's more intrested in replacing the producers with women instead of making what the fans want to see.
Of course, since TLJ featured many notable female characters, it's easy to make the critics look bad by simply claiming that its the abundance of female characters is what's causing all the displeasure, as J. J. Abrams has already done. (Now its no wonder why people are calling him Jar Jar Abrams) It's not that our movie's bad! It's just that SW fans feel threatened by women! Also, Luke Skywalker IS GAY!!!
But here's the question: How many SW fans out there feel threatened by Princess Leia?
Also let's check out what qulaities exist in these female characters that brings displeasure to the audience that you should be serving.
- Rey: she's awesome and all, but the most common complaint is that she's a Mary Sue. She started out as a scavenger, but with little to no training is capabe of flying the Milliennial Falcon better than Han Solo and achieve amazing feats with the Force that Luke needs weeks of training with Yoda to accomplish. Overpowered is the key word here.
- Amylin Holdo: perhaps the most hated character of all (youn know there's a problem when people call her Admrial Gender Studies). A product of poor writing, she's supposed to be a strong female leader but fails in every imaginable way, withholding her plans from everyone else, stating that she liked Poe (who'd disobeyed orders and staged a mutiny) just because he's hot, and coming up with plans that are of laugable Spaceball level incompetence. And that dress and purple hair is often viewed as ridiculous (Like c'mon! What kind of military leader dresses up like that!). Sure, that light speed ramming is awesome, but fans still believe that Admrial Akbar deserves that honor.
- Rose Tico: what does the fans see her as? A token asian female character with little to no contribution to the plot (her and Finn's subplot is often considered as boring and distracting). As Sargon of Akkad puts it: Rose has no personality besides "I'm an oppressed woman and I want to be a hero." And the way she saved Finn at the cost of hundreds and thousands of Resistance soldiers only made her look even more foolish and unlikable.
Threatened by women? More like threatened by cheap writing and sacrilege! Oh, and speaking of sacrilege, have you ever thought how many Star Wars lore you've trashed with your "let the past die" theme in the movie? Do you think that old fans will all be happy with it?
“You have a remake of a nearly perfect movie that you’re never gonna top in a million years, and then you just put a bunch of women in it and then everyone’s just gonna blame that and think that women suck more. That sucks. That’s not good.”
To Comic Book Girl 19, I say, I wish I can give you more than one upvote.
When Paul Feig made his new 2016 Ghostbusters movie, he has no intrest in expanding the Ghostbusters lore, instead he wanted to built his own version of the universe from scratch. And replace the characters and lines everyone's familiar with.
This doesn't sound like a decent choice in any way, especially when he's dealing with a well established and much beloved franchise with a loyal fanbase. The free market is not a free-for-all. Your success not only depends on your competence but also on your customers. If you fail to deliver what the customer wants, well... the result will show.
So when the 2016 Ghostbusters trailer becomes the most loathed movie trailer on YouTube and old GB fans like James Rolfe refusing to see it, Paul Feig, along with Sony, used the classic tactic and bashed the fans for "misogyny". Even until today Paul Feig is still clinging onto his claims. That didn't save the film from bombing, of course. And as Phantom Strider puts it: the controversies sorrounding the movie is simply more interesting than the movie itself!
Sure, the hardcore Ghostbusters fans dislike the film simply because of the female cast, right?! It CAN'T POSSIBLY BE the lacklsuter special effects; the corny and awkward humor; the cheap lines that puts the actresses' talants to waste; the fact that the film is disloyal to the original Ghostbusters in every single way; the extremely lame villian or the very sexist nature of the film that portrays every women as brave and competent while every single man is either lazy, obnoxious, foolish or irresponsible.
The "blame something's failure on non-existant sexism" is a common tactic for media and SJWs today, it's as despicable as it is effective. All I want to say is: Stop using sexism as an excuse for your poor job! Women are not your shield to deflect perfectly legit criticism! You are doing no one favours and only transform the idea of diverse characters into a taboo, well written or not!
P.S: to the likes of Paul Feig and Jeffrey Jacob Abrams out there, if you think insulting your customers by calling them sexist besement-dwelling vrigin scumbag nerds to save your franchise is a good idea, then you're being delusional. As Sam Walton once stated: "There's only one boss, the customer. He can fire everybody from the chairman on down simply by spending his money elsewhere."