More than one time, Scott and I have been in a similar boat. The "Excuse me, but I couldn't help but overhear..." leads to a short, poignant glance toward one another. Without saying a word, we are both thinking the same two words.
It's depressing that it's necessary. It's also depressing that there seems to be such a volume of attempts to polarize and divide on both sides of this issue now. Not that Anita is guilty of this (and fuck knows that creepy misogynists online are REALLY good at being creepy assholes), but I don't see a resolution when there's so many agitators. It sucks. It's frustrating how antagonistic this issue seems to be, but the problems are so pervasive that it can't help but be pretty disruptive. I wonder what the discourse will be like in 10, 20, 30 years, because it sure seems as though it won't be resolved.
Gender issues in general, I mean, not just gaming. Gaming is probably one of the more progressive subcultures.
If only. I think there's a matter of some debate regarding who the shitty ones are. Not such a clean line. And really that's essentially an antagonistic statement. Does it help?
I think the actual resolution in this particular problem is to accept that there isn't a massive implicit value to having a comment section below the video, and it does not prevent, weaken, or limit discourse about the video at all to remove it. Removing the comments simply means people can watch the video and not have garbage beneath it. That's all.
I understand the "it sucks that it got this far and we have to do this" mentality, but we haven't lost anything. This was not a losing battle. People are annoying, and one person decided that it would be better for the space their videos are available in to not have that stupidity around. The world will always have awful people who say awful, shitty things. It's not some tragedy that the comments section on a video has to be turned off because of this, it literally just means the idiocy happens when I talk about it on Facebook or Twitter instead. If people have something to say about the video, they'll say it. Anita has lost almost nothing. We have lost almost nothing. It is what it is.
I hate that shitty people say shitty things, but that's been a part of my life for over a decade now, so you'd expect I'd be used to it by now, and I am.
Yeah I wasn't talking about the comment section on Youtube in particular, just the whole mess from soup to nuts. You're right, though, there's no implicit value in having a big "What do you think of THAT?!" section below every work. Art museums and such seem to manage without one.
If only. I think there's a matter of some debate regarding who the shitty ones are. Not such a clean line. And really that's essentially an antagonistic statement. Does it help?
I don't think there is.
Anyone who uses the tag/movement/name "gamergate" is either:
1. A toxic person
2. A stupid person
3. An otherwise intelligent person who does not have the social awareness and basic human decency to understand why the tag is a poisoned well
I honestly, really don't believe anyone using that label for themselves in any fashion doesn't fall into one of these three camps. All three camps are equally worthy of complete exclusion from civil discussion.
I don't mean GamerGate specifically, I mean gender issues as a catch all. It's a fucking mess.
Gamergate I agree with. Anybody identifying with that mess can probably be ignored in perpetuity until they stop conveniently branding themselves as an idiotic asshole.
I think that she is just trying to point out that good and evil narratives don't reflect our real complex world, and that something like "Light Side vs. Dark Side" or "A group of purely good rebels fighting the one evil organization" isn't helpful to conversations we have in real life.
So, she's stating something absolutely correct, but like a lot of her work, it's basically a 101 course in social issues.
I think it's a little silly to imply you can't enjoy stories of idealism while also being aware of real issues, but I respect her point that she's looking for deeper stories that reflect reality.
her point that she's looking for deeper stories that reflect reality.
I don't think what she means to say stories should reflect reality, but to be nuanced enough so that they at least give the viewer chance to empathise with the situation and it's context.
The obvious example she gives is the exploding planets. No one character seems phased at all by the event. There's no variety of reactions. Everyone just seems to carry on.
I get her main point but saying that the characters are either wholly good or evil in-universe really isn't true. Did she miss the whole thing with Kylo Ren struggling with the pull of the light side? And I have issues with Finn's character as well just because he seems to much like a normal person for someone who was raised from a small child as a soldier, but complaining about killing Storm Troopers when he was one? Yes, there are moral implications but, you know, they were trying to kill him. That shit kind of goes out the window and the bad guy is whoever is trying to kill you.
The point Anita made was that, Finn didn't extend any sympathy towards the stormtrooper that was trying to kill him. There was no pause for diplomacy, or anything to suggest he was thinking "we were both built to kill, but we don't have to do this." or "damn, I have to kill you! we were buddies once"
And the was clear time given for pause. Insert traitor 1 liner. Even if there wasn't pause, there was definitely no dialogue during the fight. The only thing you can learn from such scenes is that Finn is now fighting for yes his survival, but still on the 'side' of what is said to be the 'good' side.
He doesn't struggle for his own survival, like a desperate person might. He's still a soldier, performing a duty. There's no internal conflict that hinders him. He literally just 'switched sides'.
Only at one point does he want to walk away from it all, then no mention at all of such an idea again.
Did she miss the whole thing with Kylo Ren struggling with the pull of the light side?
Everything you know about Kylo Ren is hearsay. A best we know his only motive is to best Darth Vadar in power. But why? *shrug*
He actually has no problem deciding on who to kill. The only thing keeping him from tapping into the darkside of the force is his love for his parents? The scene with Han solo is setup intently by Ren to do this. By killing his father he will attain more dark?
Anakin, it was his love for Padme and learning of her death that unleashed his power. So I think Kylo Ren's means to do this contradictory.
His only real struggle he has when he realises that there's another person who can use the force that effectively challenges him. He loses control of himself, as he can't handle that things aren't going his way.
I think that she is just trying to point out that good and evil narratives don't reflect our real complex world, and that something like "Light Side vs. Dark Side" or "A group of purely good rebels fighting the one evil organization" isn't helpful to conversations we have in real life.
So, she's stating something absolutely correct, but like a lot of her work, it's basically a 101 course in social issues.
I think it's a little silly to imply you can't enjoy stories of idealism while also being aware of real issues, but I respect her point that she's looking for deeper stories that reflect reality.
I realize the irony in someone my age writing this, but it's hard to understand Star Wars without growing up in the 70s. In the wake of Vietnam, Kent State, the Weather Underground, and other culturally traumatizing phenomena of the Nixonian era, science fiction became all about dystopias. I'd try to describe it myself, but Basic Instructions did a better job than I ever could.
Star Wars, on the other hand, had none of this. Star Wars was a popcorn munching science fiction b-movie. For adults, it was a return to the days of Flash Gordon. To kids, it was a whole new way of looking at science fiction. Either way, the point of the film was that there was theater had become too real. To criticize a Star Wars film for being idealistic is like criticizing a strategy game for being slow -- that's the whole point.
And I just realized that Star Wars is basically 70s Gurren Lagan.
I think it's a little silly to imply you can't enjoy stories of idealism while also being aware of real issues, but I respect her point that she's looking for deeper stories that reflect reality.
I've noticed that Sarkessian has a lost a lot of favor with people because her criticisms go beyond the feminist perspective, to a very strong anti-violence perspective to the point where it interrupts the actual context and purpose of the movie/show.
Her review for Mad Max Fury Road: "Violence is glorified and women are forced to use violence to overthrow the patriarchy, therefore they are no better and the movie is bad. They should have ran away beyond the need to fight."
Her review for Jessica Jones: "Jessica resorts to violence to stop The Purple Man rather than evolving past him and staying her support group like a victim should do, so the series isn't that good. Malcomn is a better hero."
I feel that she's saying there is no reflection on the lost of life or the tragedy, but the characters are clearly acting over that matters. Just as Leia understand she can't continue to sob Alderan, that's why she pushes to stop the Death Star. After all, that's what motivates Finn to go back to join the Resistance. He doesn't want to kill at first, but understands what has to be done to stop the First Order.
She also points out that good characters are inherently good and bad characters are inherently bad...did she miss all the internal conflicts of the original trilogy? Lando accepting the Sith to protect Cloud City, but fight them in the end? Vader wanting to not kill his son and defeating the Emperor? Luke tempted by the power of the dark side to kill his father? Han killing someone who threatened his life in a public place and is motivated by money?
Go back to TFA, Anakin mirrors Kylo is so many ways, but Kylo actually represents the impotent teenaged rebellion shown through a kid with too much power. Anakin is only given detail through his tragic backstory, but Christansen's acting is so poorly conceived from bad dialogue/story structure that his reactions to killing people feel completely unnatural and forced.
I don't think Anita Sarkeesian has been anti any theme. Whether the theme is violence, sexuality, social systems etc. etc.
Her criticisms mostly point to the lack of nuance, and the also the trends of the industry and how it it excludes most audiences.
She still always empathises with the fact that which ever piece of media is being consumed, whether you as an individual feel excluded or marginalised in some way by that media, you can still enjoy it for what it is despite what problems you may have with that particular thing.
She consistently reminds us that her reviews are also critiques, how things could be better to emphasise with a wider audience.
On the subject of violence for example, it's not that there is violence, it's how the violence is used within the narrative. When or why violence is used tends to fallback on tropes/ cliché/ stereotypes, instead of exploring psychological dilemma with some nuance. Or exploring the possibilities of solving problems without violence.
She never reviews something as good/ bad. Only provides critiques.
I feel that she's saying there is no reflection on the lost of life or the tragedy, but the characters are clearly acting over that matters. Just as Leia understand she can't continue to sob Alderan, that's why she pushes to stop the Death Star. After all, that's what motivates Finn to go back to join the Resistance. He doesn't want to kill at first, but understands what has to be done to stop the First Order.
None of the characters you mention verbalise their feelings that attribute to the motives that you mention. They certainly don't express any feelings of loss. In fact the only character who seems to...
She also points out that good characters are inherently good and bad characters are inherently bad...did she miss all the internal conflicts of the original trilogy? Lando accepting the Sith to protect Cloud City, but fight them in the end? Vader wanting to not kill his son and defeating the Emperor? Luke tempted by the power of the dark side to kill his father? Han killing someone who threatened his life in a public place and is motivated by money?
Well actually Lando was never in any moral dilemma. He was helping in every way he could, he didn't want anyone harmed. He was playing for time, but Vadar forced his hand to act as he kept changing their agreement. Han solo and Leia just couldn't see that at the time.
Go back to TFA, Anakin mirrors Kylo is so many ways, but Kylo actually represents the impotent teenaged rebellion shown through a kid with too much power. Anakin is only given detail through his tragic backstory, but Christansen's acting is so poorly conceived from bad dialogue/story structure that his reactions to killing people feel completely unnatural and forced.
Correction: Kylo is 'spoilt' with Jedi powers, yet is unable to wield greater strength. He's enraged at the lost of 'control' over others. Nothing like Anakin.
The only times we've seen Anakin enraged:
seeking revenge for his mother his sense of betrayal by Obi the moment he learns Padme has died
Anakin acts against the Jedi are calloused, as his only motives is to preserve the life of Padme. His only moment of regret is the moment he was overwhelmed with the prospect of losing Padme forever. This is when he disarms Windu, and then Palpatine zaps him into oblivion. Anakin immediately realises what he's done, we can see him coming to term with his actions quite clearly. He commits to his actions.
We literally know nothing about Kylo Ren. He's Han Solo and Leia's son. He was trained by Luke, and seduced by the darkside. All exposition.
The two characters do not compare at all, in terms of what you've seem from the films. Adam Driver literally only has to give two facial expressions, completely neutral and enraged. Now if you're comparing the two actors, Hayden Christensen has clearly had to perform more than two facial expressions. Kylo Ren and Anakin are related in plot only, not by character.
I think Anita's thing about violence is pretty specific. Violence will not solve the real-world problems that she wants to solve, so when people claim that Jessica Jones or Furiosa are feminist characters, she analyzes that from a critical academic perspective.
She doesn't enjoy Mad Max from a feminist perspective because the solution to our real-world patriarchy is not feminists getting sniper rifles and murdering rapists. She wants to see media that can be fantastical and exaggerated, but that helps grow a message or theme that she believes is important for media to espouse. Not a lot of popular media progresses a message of true change, growth, and acceptance. When it presents women who are treated poorly by a patriarchy, it most often makes it a fully personal story about them directly overcoming the patriarchal force in their lives.
And of course, that's not the point of Mad Max: Fury Road. The point was to tell a good story, and place a female character in the lead role because that's just a thing we should be doing more often. And that's absolutely positive and helpful for all sorts of women. But it's not a feminist message in the academic sense. Feminists can't use Fury Road to teach anyone about how we deal with our real-world problems. Again, that's fine, because Fury Road wasn't made for that and doesn't have to be, but that's what Anita seems to want. And I respect that.
Media can, however, teach you about our real-world issues in a way that presents stepping stones to understanding real issues. Her problem with Star Wars is very much the same as her problem with Fury Road. In our world, we have evil dictatorships, and we've had genocide-committing monsters rise to positions of great power. While we have solved many of these with wars and conflicts, they continue to reoccur as a result of various power imbalances and other problems in our global society that need to be fixed before we can move past that. It is not helpful in our world to ever view one side as good or one side as bad. Different things lead people to grow into monsters, and when they are in control of a group or nation, not everyone within that is universally evil and incapable of being dealt with non-violently.
Star Wars simply once again presented an absolute evil group who can be killed without remorse because they kill without remorse. At least for the time being, there's nothing you can do in the Star Wars universe to stop evil empires from repeatedly being founded under Dark-Side Force-users, and the only solution is to militarize and rely on chosen Light-Side heroes to save you. While this is excellent for a film mythology to create entertaining movies, it means absolutely nothing when we look at our own evil leaders in the world using their nations to do harm to others.
It's okay to find Anita's (and the whole of Feminist Frequency) distaste of violence excessive, we must always remember that their videos are meant as the most basic of Feminism 101, to espouse theories and academic knowledge that is decades-old, and has been branched off of various other theorems and ideologies. It's going to seem simple and without nuance, because it is supposed to be.
I think Anita's thing about violence is pretty specific. Violence will not solve the real-world problems that she wants to solve, so when people claim that Jessica Jones or Furiosa are feminist characters, she analyzes that from a critical academic perspective.
It's okay to find Anita's (and the whole of Feminist Frequency) distaste of violence excessive, we must always remember that their videos are meant as the most basic of Feminism 101, to espouse theories and academic knowledge that is decades-old, and has been branched off of various other theorems and ideologies. It's going to seem simple and without nuance, because it is supposed to be.
I feel that Anita should produce more videos to what does fit in the mold of positive, feminist media in the academic sense. If there are a very finite amount of such, they need to be elevated and brought as such to the public in the hopes more are created. Most people are hardwired to what defines feminism in the social context, not academic, so I wish her videos could be produced more often. Even if she's just defining Feminism 101; the public definition of feminism is constantly shifting.
Media can, however, teach you about our real-world issues in a way that presents stepping stones to understanding real issues. Her problem with Star Wars is very much the same as her problem with Fury Road. In our world, we have evil dictatorships, and we've had genocide-committing monsters rise to positions of great power. While we have solved many of these with wars and conflicts, they continue to reoccur as a result of various power imbalances and other problems in our global society that need to be fixed before we can move past that.
That my major issue with her as a critic is that she often doesn't look at media that way. I believe we can move beyond those issues some day, but using real conflict as inspiration for a story isn't wrong either. That's why many people feel so strongly on Fury Road, because it does have a lot of subtext you can teach about toxic masculinity even if it doesn't completely solve the problem in universe.
Being a critic isn't just about deconstructing what's wrong with media trends or specific examples, but it's reflecting on what's being done right within your perspective. She only has the videos on The Scythian, Jade, and Veronica Mars to cover the positives in an academic sense.
On the subject of violence for example, it's not that there is violence, it's how the violence is used within the narrative. When or why violence is used tends to fallback on tropes/ cliché/ stereotypes, instead of exploring psychological dilemma with some nuance. Or exploring the possibilities of solving problems without violence.
It's really hard to strip violence from conflict as a storytelling device, so you would be really limiting the amount of acceptable entertainment in genres like superheroes, Sci-Fi, crime, and/or dystopia. Trying to find any medium rated "M" or "R" without some type of violence there is incredibly slim. Sadly, there are cases in real life where violence can't be avoided, so I believe it's excessive to say fiction can't be about infallible subjects.
Check out her review on Jessica Jones. She states that Kilgrave is capable of realistically acting like a real psychological abuser who doesn't see anything her did as wrong...but then a paragraph later states we can't understand him on human terms. She also states Jessica is depicted as being above recovery, but misses the fact she feels responsible for the possible damage out there and makes mistakes like a genuine human does to deal with him. I appreciate her critique of the show, but I feel she's missing the complexity and nuance done with every character in the show. (Except for Robin, who is terrible)
It's really hard to strip violence from conflict as a storytelling device, so you would be really limiting the amount of acceptable entertainment in genres like superheroes, Sci-Fi, crime, and/or dystopia. Trying to find any medium rated "M" or "R" without some type of violence there is incredibly slim. Sadly, there are cases in real life where violence can't be avoided, so I believe it's excessive to say fiction can't be about infallible subjects.
Again, the point isn't that there is violence. It's the lack of nuance in the context of its use.
At the same time the trend of using violence in the name of 'good'. Saving the day in the face of genocide is an act of genocide. Avengers 1
How many stories are told where facing the brink of war is actually solved by diplomacy? In comparison to amount of films that don't.
If you notice the trend you can say there is a lack of diversity in what stories are told. Or even showing what happens when and how diplomacy fails.
What ever happened to those real tense 'mexican standoffs'?
It's really hard to strip violence from conflict as a storytelling device, so you would be really limiting the amount of acceptable entertainment in genres like superheroes, Sci-Fi, crime, and/or dystopia. Trying to find any medium rated "M" or "R" without some type of violence there is incredibly slim. Sadly, there are cases in real life where violence can't be avoided, so I believe it's excessive to say fiction can't be about infallible subjects.
Again, the point isn't that there is violence. It's the lack of nuance in the context of its use.
At the same time the trend of using violence in the name of 'good'. Saving the day in the face of genocide is an act of genocide. Avengers 1
How many stories are told where facing the brink of war is actually solved by diplomacy? In comparison to amount of films that don't.
If you notice the trend you can say there is a lack of diversity in what stories are told. Or even showing what happens when and how diplomacy fails.
What ever happened to those real tense 'mexican standoffs'?
There is nuance and subtext to the conflict in both Fury Road and Jessica Jones as a I mentioned. Is using violence as self-defense or to save the lives of others really the same weight as genocide from the opposing force? I get that position in Man of Steel where the loss of innocent bystands is completely disregarded, but there's an actual effort to save people in both Avengers movies.
Two of the key Oscar movies of the year, Spotlight and Bridge of Spies are all about stopping violence without bloodshed done through critical research and precise intervention. That's where your "'mexican standoffs" went.
Comments
"Shields up."
Gender issues in general, I mean, not just gaming. Gaming is probably one of the more progressive subcultures.
I understand the "it sucks that it got this far and we have to do this" mentality, but we haven't lost anything. This was not a losing battle. People are annoying, and one person decided that it would be better for the space their videos are available in to not have that stupidity around. The world will always have awful people who say awful, shitty things. It's not some tragedy that the comments section on a video has to be turned off because of this, it literally just means the idiocy happens when I talk about it on Facebook or Twitter instead. If people have something to say about the video, they'll say it. Anita has lost almost nothing. We have lost almost nothing. It is what it is.
I hate that shitty people say shitty things, but that's been a part of my life for over a decade now, so you'd expect I'd be used to it by now, and I am.
I meant much more generally and in the abstract.
Anyone who uses the tag/movement/name "gamergate" is either:
1. A toxic person
2. A stupid person
3. An otherwise intelligent person who does not have the social awareness and basic human decency to understand why the tag is a poisoned well
I honestly, really don't believe anyone using that label for themselves in any fashion doesn't fall into one of these three camps. All three camps are equally worthy of complete exclusion from civil discussion.
I don't mean GamerGate specifically, I mean gender issues as a catch all. It's a fucking mess.
Gamergate I agree with. Anybody identifying with that mess can probably be ignored in perpetuity until they stop conveniently branding themselves as an idiotic asshole.
So, she's stating something absolutely correct, but like a lot of her work, it's basically a 101 course in social issues.
I think it's a little silly to imply you can't enjoy stories of idealism while also being aware of real issues, but I respect her point that she's looking for deeper stories that reflect reality.
The obvious example she gives is the exploding planets. No one character seems phased at all by the event. There's no variety of reactions. Everyone just seems to carry on.
And the was clear time given for pause. Insert traitor 1 liner. Even if there wasn't pause, there was definitely no dialogue during the fight. The only thing you can learn from such scenes is that Finn is now fighting for yes his survival, but still on the 'side' of what is said to be the 'good' side.
He doesn't struggle for his own survival, like a desperate person might. He's still a soldier, performing a duty. There's no internal conflict that hinders him. He literally just 'switched sides'.
Only at one point does he want to walk away from it all, then no mention at all of such an idea again. Everything you know about Kylo Ren is hearsay. A best we know his only motive is to best Darth Vadar in power. But why? *shrug*
He actually has no problem deciding on who to kill. The only thing keeping him from tapping into the darkside of the force is his love for his parents? The scene with Han solo is setup intently by Ren to do this. By killing his father he will attain more dark?
Anakin, it was his love for Padme and learning of her death that unleashed his power. So I think Kylo Ren's means to do this contradictory.
His only real struggle he has when he realises that there's another person who can use the force that effectively challenges him. He loses control of himself, as he can't handle that things aren't going his way.
Star Wars, on the other hand, had none of this. Star Wars was a popcorn munching science fiction b-movie. For adults, it was a return to the days of Flash Gordon. To kids, it was a whole new way of looking at science fiction. Either way, the point of the film was that there was theater had become too real. To criticize a Star Wars film for being idealistic is like criticizing a strategy game for being slow -- that's the whole point.
And I just realized that Star Wars is basically 70s Gurren Lagan.
Her review for Mad Max Fury Road: "Violence is glorified and women are forced to use violence to overthrow the patriarchy, therefore they are no better and the movie is bad. They should have ran away beyond the need to fight."
Her review for Jessica Jones: "Jessica resorts to violence to stop The Purple Man rather than evolving past him and staying her support group like a victim should do, so the series isn't that good. Malcomn is a better hero."
I feel that she's saying there is no reflection on the lost of life or the tragedy, but the characters are clearly acting over that matters. Just as Leia understand she can't continue to sob Alderan, that's why she pushes to stop the Death Star. After all, that's what motivates Finn to go back to join the Resistance. He doesn't want to kill at first, but understands what has to be done to stop the First Order.
She also points out that good characters are inherently good and bad characters are inherently bad...did she miss all the internal conflicts of the original trilogy? Lando accepting the Sith to protect Cloud City, but fight them in the end? Vader wanting to not kill his son and defeating the Emperor? Luke tempted by the power of the dark side to kill his father? Han killing someone who threatened his life in a public place and is motivated by money?
Go back to TFA, Anakin mirrors Kylo is so many ways, but Kylo actually represents the impotent teenaged rebellion shown through a kid with too much power. Anakin is only given detail through his tragic backstory, but Christansen's acting is so poorly conceived from bad dialogue/story structure that his reactions to killing people feel completely unnatural and forced.
Her criticisms mostly point to the lack of nuance, and the also the trends of the industry and how it it excludes most audiences.
She still always empathises with the fact that which ever piece of media is being consumed, whether you as an individual feel excluded or marginalised in some way by that media, you can still enjoy it for what it is despite what problems you may have with that particular thing.
She consistently reminds us that her reviews are also critiques, how things could be better to emphasise with a wider audience.
On the subject of violence for example, it's not that there is violence, it's how the violence is used within the narrative. When or why violence is used tends to fallback on tropes/ cliché/ stereotypes, instead of exploring psychological dilemma with some nuance. Or exploring the possibilities of solving problems without violence.
She never reviews something as good/ bad. Only provides critiques. None of the characters you mention verbalise their feelings that attribute to the motives that you mention. They certainly don't express any feelings of loss. In fact the only character who seems to...
The only times we've seen Anakin enraged:
seeking revenge for his mother
his sense of betrayal by Obi
the moment he learns Padme has died
Anakin acts against the Jedi are calloused, as his only motives is to preserve the life of Padme. His only moment of regret is the moment he was overwhelmed with the prospect of losing Padme forever. This is when he disarms Windu, and then Palpatine zaps him into oblivion. Anakin immediately realises what he's done, we can see him coming to term with his actions quite clearly. He commits to his actions.
We literally know nothing about Kylo Ren. He's Han Solo and Leia's son. He was trained by Luke, and seduced by the darkside. All exposition.
The two characters do not compare at all, in terms of what you've seem from the films. Adam Driver literally only has to give two facial expressions, completely neutral and enraged. Now if you're comparing the two actors, Hayden Christensen has clearly had to perform more than two facial expressions. Kylo Ren and Anakin are related in plot only, not by character.
She doesn't enjoy Mad Max from a feminist perspective because the solution to our real-world patriarchy is not feminists getting sniper rifles and murdering rapists. She wants to see media that can be fantastical and exaggerated, but that helps grow a message or theme that she believes is important for media to espouse. Not a lot of popular media progresses a message of true change, growth, and acceptance. When it presents women who are treated poorly by a patriarchy, it most often makes it a fully personal story about them directly overcoming the patriarchal force in their lives.
And of course, that's not the point of Mad Max: Fury Road. The point was to tell a good story, and place a female character in the lead role because that's just a thing we should be doing more often. And that's absolutely positive and helpful for all sorts of women. But it's not a feminist message in the academic sense. Feminists can't use Fury Road to teach anyone about how we deal with our real-world problems. Again, that's fine, because Fury Road wasn't made for that and doesn't have to be, but that's what Anita seems to want. And I respect that.
Media can, however, teach you about our real-world issues in a way that presents stepping stones to understanding real issues. Her problem with Star Wars is very much the same as her problem with Fury Road. In our world, we have evil dictatorships, and we've had genocide-committing monsters rise to positions of great power. While we have solved many of these with wars and conflicts, they continue to reoccur as a result of various power imbalances and other problems in our global society that need to be fixed before we can move past that. It is not helpful in our world to ever view one side as good or one side as bad. Different things lead people to grow into monsters, and when they are in control of a group or nation, not everyone within that is universally evil and incapable of being dealt with non-violently.
Star Wars simply once again presented an absolute evil group who can be killed without remorse because they kill without remorse. At least for the time being, there's nothing you can do in the Star Wars universe to stop evil empires from repeatedly being founded under Dark-Side Force-users, and the only solution is to militarize and rely on chosen Light-Side heroes to save you. While this is excellent for a film mythology to create entertaining movies, it means absolutely nothing when we look at our own evil leaders in the world using their nations to do harm to others.
It's okay to find Anita's (and the whole of Feminist Frequency) distaste of violence excessive, we must always remember that their videos are meant as the most basic of Feminism 101, to espouse theories and academic knowledge that is decades-old, and has been branched off of various other theorems and ideologies. It's going to seem simple and without nuance, because it is supposed to be.
Being a critic isn't just about deconstructing what's wrong with media trends or specific examples, but it's reflecting on what's being done right within your perspective. She only has the videos on The Scythian, Jade, and Veronica Mars to cover the positives in an academic sense. It's really hard to strip violence from conflict as a storytelling device, so you would be really limiting the amount of acceptable entertainment in genres like superheroes, Sci-Fi, crime, and/or dystopia. Trying to find any medium rated "M" or "R" without some type of violence there is incredibly slim. Sadly, there are cases in real life where violence can't be avoided, so I believe it's excessive to say fiction can't be about infallible subjects.
Check out her review on Jessica Jones. She states that Kilgrave is capable of realistically acting like a real psychological abuser who doesn't see anything her did as wrong...but then a paragraph later states we can't understand him on human terms. She also states Jessica is depicted as being above recovery, but misses the fact she feels responsible for the possible damage out there and makes mistakes like a genuine human does to deal with him. I appreciate her critique of the show, but I feel she's missing the complexity and nuance done with every character in the show. (Except for Robin, who is terrible)
At the same time the trend of using violence in the name of 'good'. Saving the day in the face of genocide is an act of genocide. Avengers 1
How many stories are told where facing the brink of war is actually solved by diplomacy? In comparison to amount of films that don't.
If you notice the trend you can say there is a lack of diversity in what stories are told. Or even showing what happens when and how diplomacy fails.
What ever happened to those real tense 'mexican standoffs'?
Two of the key Oscar movies of the year, Spotlight and Bridge of Spies are all about stopping violence without bloodshed done through critical research and precise intervention. That's where your "'mexican standoffs" went.