ENT - Bound

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

What Chuck's referring to are takeaways about the undertones in the show, as you may know. What develops is something that exacerbates a separate issue facing women. I wouldn't go so far as to call the episode as totally culpable -- others might -- but it's not very cognizant of issues distinct and perhaps more pertinent than what the show is dishing out. Perhaps not necessarily more pertinent or tantamount, but unnecessary nonetheless.

The manner in which you're framing them as "the victim" is misrepresentative of what's being talked about in the review. Remember that you're the only one that's actually brought it up as if it's encompassing like a court trial between two parties in the episode (based on sex). That's what a lot of people do fallaciously.

As an aside to this kind of thing. A lot of people tend to portray this as an issue of team women against team men. It's not estranged from the left I would say, though it's definitely taken as 1st hand offense by people who for the most part may or may not associate or identify as right. For one, everyone knows that it's not mutually exclusive between sexes or even genders I would say. Two, it's understandably more dominant with this or that demographic set pertaining to males/men/masculinity compared the other demographic set. So, three, there is a basis for calling it a masculine thing but isn't supposed to be implicative of you or of man in an ultimate or officiated matter, which should be as far as the defense goes.

[lightningbarer]

I guess what I took from it was that it reinforces the idea of men being basically animals who are unable to control themselves, thus excusing their behavior toward women, AND that the writers were reinforcing gender roles*snip*

See that's my problem though, number 1 its not reinforcing gender roles and its not suggesting that men aren't generally able to not control themselves, its saying that with the specific characteristics of this species, that they are able to control the males via the pheromones they throw out, think more the mating instinct that male black widows have, they know they're going to die at the end but they're compelled to complete the act via the actions of the female.
If its anything, its saying that women are able to do this to men and that we as men like it, it gets us off being the submissive one in such a way.

As for the "why doesn't it reinforce"
A "gender role" as currently described is the stereotypical depiction of a person either male or female in anything from recruitment to advertisements.

This episode sees three women as the bad guys, as the dominant ones, as the aggressors in both sexual and physical means, it has the men as dupes, slaves and puppets to the womens every whim and idle thought.

Neither of these are what is currently defined as gender roles. We usually hear the inverse of this, where women are the abused ones and the men are the aggressors, where because of a skirt a man "just can't help himself."

That is a gender role and a very negative one on both sides.

This is where I state that its doublethink, having 2 contradictory thoughts coexist in the mind at one time
"Women are the victims of men, this is true."
"These women are the ones victimising the crew ofthe NX-01"

These two things cannot exist at the same time and have a logical conclusion, so people like Chuck tend to justify it by external reasons "oh they're being called slave girls," "oh they're constantly dressed scantily" "oh the men are drooling over their bodies" when the logic doesn't fit in the story that "they call themselves that" "they want to dress like this" "they want men to ogle them."

Its why I think sex work and strippers is a decent comparison, according to Chuck, all strippers are the victims of the men they get hundreds of dollars out of every day by using their bodies to manipulate them out of that money.

I go into the liberated or Chaste a little more down below, but either way with what he's done, he's put himself in the firing line for this either way and its stupid to do when its a throw away Star Trek Episode that doesn't really have any long reaching implications to the franchise.

I agree with that assessment, though I disagree with Chuck's take on the question of even doing a story with Orion animal women. I see it as very much in line with the move to make ENT more of a prequel to TOS. Chuck also seems to have a problem in general with fan service, and while I agree that often Star Trek has been rather juvenile when it comes to the topic of sex, and that ENT in particular could be pretty guilty of that, I am, however, not against the idea of fan service. Hell, I'd totally have used the Risa episode as a beach episode and had T'Pol in a bikini, it's just that I'd also have put her in something that could pass as an actual uniform rather than a spandex catsuit, so the fan service would be something every once in a while rather than constant.

And that's where I think Chuck is falling down on things like this, I think he see's the specific TnA in Trek and gets upset at it, thinking that its supposed to be above that. Yet when dealing with issues that are around the TnA, Chuck - and people who are like him - show a remarkable lack of understanding in their views.
Take the Troi Casual outfit she wears until the whole Jellico Captaincy, he has insulted her over the idea of the outfit being basically a nightshirt. And in the context of it being a military spacecraft, Jellico is right in wanting to have official uniform attire for them.

But to then turn it around and say that its insane to suggest women would wear such things, when we as an audience have seen more and less worn speaks more to the idea of gatekeeping and fiercely defending the franchise.
Without addressing the increasing problems going on around them and the things talk like this engenders.

Ultimately it leads to a question of whether Chuck is for sexual liberation or sexual chastity.

I personally don't care either way, my view is that if its entertaining enough to keep me coming back week after week, I enjoy it for what it is. Even if it is the equivalent of Dead or Alive Extreme Beach Vollyball.

Chuck on the other hand is in the unenviable position of stating something like this. If he goes for the liberation theme, then he's contradicting himself and begins the doublethink problem I mentioned above.

If he goes the chastity approach, then he leads himself into a trap of offending the self same people who speak similar things to him but talk about things in a liberals view.

Then there's the added problem of the whole "men are always at fault regardless" implications that he gave that will anger a third group who will see this as Chuck saying women have no ability to be horrible people and that they're not "as" capable of being horrid as men are.

He's put himself in a pickle by trying to be high minded in this on a subject I think he should have just come out and said "I don't think Star Trek is where TnA is supposed to be, I've never liked the exualised scenes in Trek, I don't come for that." instead of trying to use the episode here as justification for suggesting this is the right way of doing things.

[lightningbarer]

snip

I'm going to take a WILD stab in the dark here and think that you're addressing me with this most recent comment...
"What Chuck is referring to..."
I don't care...
The "implications" as you put it are simple. And work in both fiction and real life.

There are women

Who are able to

Manipulate Men

With nothing but their bodies

To get WHATEVER they want


You can deny thing, you'd be wrong but you can deny it. Hell there's evidence saying that men are kinder and more nurturing during the ovulation period than outside of that due to the increased chemicals being thrown out at them by their significant other. It doesn't demean women and it doesn't demean men, it gives an image women sorely need to see.

Women being bad people, women being the villains of a scenario. Not as something they need to strive for, but to point at and say "I don't want to be a girl like that."

"A separate issue facing women"
Women have the enviable position of not being charged for raping men when they are in control, they have the enviable position of being told they're not to blame for putting a glass through the face of a man because she was on her period, they have the enviable position of regularly not being held culpable for their own actions.

This is where I say its doublethink, the women in this episode are the BAD GUYS, they're sexually assaulting and manipulating the men around them to get the things they want and Chuck has stated that its the MAN who is to blame for this.
Hell, with the Draft memes appearing due to the Iran stuff, if women want to take the "we're not responsible" point, I'm all for it, but they need to take what comes with that choice too, in ALL aspects of life.

"The manner in which"
Yeah, I know. I'm boiling away the fluff of what Chuck - and apparently you - are trying to say here.
"Women are never to blame for their own actions."

Chuck can word the review in it being condemnation of the glorification of sex in Trek all he wants, he's completely entitled to do this.
What he isn't entitled to do is to say something and then contradict himself right afterwards and have
it make no sense in the context of what he was talking about.

(an example)
"the fence I was hired to paint is red, the colour of the sky that I have in my paint bucket that I specifically asked for when buying the paint for this job, knowing they want the colour that is the colour of the sky."
The colour is supposed to be blue, the fact that I have said that the sky is red means nothing in context of the reality I'm talking about and I have been previously told that they want it to be sky blue in colour. If I did this I would be at fault.

As an aside to this kind of thing. A lot of people tend to portray this as an issue of team women against team men. It's not estranged from the left I would say, though it's definitely taken as 1st hand offense by people who for the most part may or may not associate or identify as right. For one, everyone knows that it's not mutually exclusive between sexes or even genders I would say. Two, it's understandably more dominant with this or that demographic set pertaining to males/men/masculinity compared the other demographic set. So, three, there is a basis for calling it a masculine thing but isn't supposed to be implicative of you or of man in an ultimate or officiated matter, which should be as far as the defense goes.

I felt like I needed to give full context here so...yeah. Okay.

I'm not the one who drew the lines in this.

Chuck did.

The men are hopeless slaves to the Slave Girls in this episode, but he decided to say that the mere fact that women were in control of sexual situations was them being victimised.

When you are in total control, you're not a victim, you're the victimiser.

That is where this problem falls down massively, like I said earlier, if Chuck had just said "I don'think sex should be in Trek, its not meant to be there." I don't think there'd be an issue here.

He tried to moralise this rationale though by suggesting that - no matter what these women are - they're the ones being abused here.

And on a final note, if you want to say the script was sexist, you can, but again - I suggest you really don't do that.
Suggesting that women being in control and powerful is a sexist thing can get you some very bad things said about you.

This is why I don't try and moralise things like this.

Its a TnA episode of Trek where women control men with their bodies.
Its not meant to be a deeply ingrained look into slavery, the history of oppression and control.

Its meant to harken back to the Cage, the ideas presented there and be some rather good titillation for people.
The titillation is the same as going to a strip club or visiting a sex worker, its meant to make primarily men feel aroused.

Now if you want to say that's wrong, - again -you can, but then it reveals a side of yourself I don't think you want to show.

[Darth Wedgius]

FWiW, I think there were two separate populations of women involved here. I don't recall the female characters in the episode being presented as victims (the episodes saving grace, IMO, was that it didn't make slavery any less wrong when women were doing it). But the actions of the Orion "slave girls" in the episode contributed to a negative stereotype of women outside the episode.

The negative stereotype isn't without a real-world basis, like a lot of negative stereotypes. But I don't think that makes SFDebris's objections logically contradictory. A lot of people object to negative stereotypes while acknowledging a real-world basis, and I see a lot of inconsistency in what stereotypes people object to, but that's probably a topic for another thread.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

"A separate issue facing women"
Women have the enviable position of not being charged for raping men when they are in control, they have the enviable position of being told they're not to blame for putting a glass through the face of a man because she was on her period, they have the enviable position of regularly not being held culpable for their own actions.

As if one condition of mistreatment is negated by some unrelated circumstance that works positively for them.

I'm not really even sure wth the point is of bringing up these offsets, and you hear it so often. Like as if to affirm that it's a fair trade or something that's just to be left to unmodernized attention. Gender conscious issues aren't in favor of any of the offsets.

This is where I say its doublethink, the women in this episode are the BAD GUYS, they're sexually assaulting and manipulating the men around them to get the things they want and Chuck has stated that its the MAN who is to blame for this.

Outrageous. The comments in the video about its problematic undertones have no bearing on the story whatsoever, as I said in the previous post. There is nothing in the review about the women being victims that isn't in accordance with the theme of the plot reveal that they are running shit.

It's a matter of being insensible with your audience.

[Admiral X]

If its anything, its saying that women are able to do this to men and that we as men like it, it gets us off being the submissive one in such a way.

Some men actually are that way, though.

As for the "why doesn't it reinforce"
A "gender role" as currently described is the stereotypical depiction of a person either male or female in anything from recruitment to advertisements.

I was thinking more along the lines of how the men all acted like drooling idiots and the women acted irritable and bitchy toward the scantily clad women basically. And then there's the part I mentioned about how there are apparently no women in the security department, or amongst the MACOs (even though we've seen them there before).

And that's where I think Chuck is falling down on things like this, I think he see's the specific TnA in Trek and gets upset at it, thinking that its supposed to be above that. Yet when dealing with issues that are around the TnA, Chuck - and people who are like him - show a remarkable lack of understanding in their views.
Take the Troi Casual outfit she wears until the whole Jellico Captaincy, he has insulted her over the idea of the outfit being basically a nightshirt. And in the context of it being a military spacecraft, Jellico is right in wanting to have official uniform attire for them.

But to then turn it around and say that its insane to suggest women would wear such things, when we as an audience have seen more and less worn speaks more to the idea of gatekeeping and fiercely defending the franchise.
Without addressing the increasing problems going on around them and the things talk like this engenders.

Ultimately it leads to a question of whether Chuck is for sexual liberation or sexual chastity.

I doubt he's a prude just based on plenty of things he's said. And I'd say there's nothing wrong with wanting the show to be a bit less juvenile. I see that point to an extent in that there's that whole sci-fi ghetto thing going on, where it's hard for sci-fi to be taken seriously, in part because the people running the show think they only way they can get people to watch is if they stick the fan service in it. This was actually why T'Pol's catsuit always bothered me, because it really tended to make it difficult to take her seriously or served to undermine anything she said a bit. An example I like going back to is from an episode of Space Battleship Yamato 2199 (which also loves its catsuits) in which two of the crew members come back to a drifting and seemingly abandoned Yamato. They're crawling around in their version of Jeffries Tubes and it's all mysterious and interesting, and suddenly the "camera" cuts to an angle where the women's twat is hanging out from between her legs thanks to the catsuit. Kind of ruined the mood, know what I mean? And sci-fi is hardly the only genre to be guilty of this kind of thing, and it has a reputation for being schlocky in general. So I can see were people are coming from, which is that it comes from wanting the show to distance itself from that reputation for schlock.

I personally don't care either way, my view is that if its entertaining enough to keep me coming back week after week, I enjoy it for what it is. Even if it is the equivalent of Dead or Alive Extreme Beach Vollyball.

He's put himself in a pickle by trying to be high minded in this on a subject I think he should have just come out and said "I don't think Star Trek is where TnA is supposed to be, I've never liked the exualised scenes in Trek, I don't come for that." instead of trying to use the episode here as justification for suggesting this is the right way of doing things.

I think you're overthinking a bit.

[lightningbarer]

FWiW, I think there were two separate populations of women involved here. I don't recall the female characters in the episode being presented as victims (the episodes saving grace, IMO, was that it didn't make slavery any less wrong when women were doing it). But the actions of the Orion "slave girls" in the episode contributed to a negative stereotype of women outside the episode.

The negative stereotype isn't without a real-world basis, like a lot of negative stereotypes. But I don't think that makes SFDebris's objections logically contradictory. A lot of people object to negative stereotypes while acknowledging a real-world basis, and I see a lot of inconsistency in what stereotypes people object to, but that's probably a topic for another thread.

So you're sat there bitching that - because of women being horrible in an episode of a Sci-Fi show - women in the real world are going to be treated with skepticism, doubt and possible hostility?

You know, I'm enjoying a little phrase lately that really fits here for people like you.

Actions
Have
Consequences.

Now if that isn't simple enough for you.

Women have and do get away with a VAST majority of issues, from stealing peoples money and livelihoods to sexually abusing anything from children to the elderly.
So if you're saying that this episode makes other men think twice before even meeting a woman, I don't see a problem there.

And if you're going to say its demeaning women by being sexual - that's fine - sex negative femin-...not gonna use that word.

Sexually Chaste people are perfectly able to say things and venture their opinions on issues like this, but then they also have to understand that you'll be judged by this.

So Darth Wedgieus. Can you state without a bit of doublethink that the instagram model who has just raised 100k for the current 2020 Brushfires in Australia by "using her body to get people to donate money."

Because remember, if its sexual, it applies JUST as much to this lady, as it does to the Slave Girls.

Why does it? Because when you apply a standard to what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable action for women to do, you are then tarring ALL women by that standard when they diverge from it. So if the sexuality of the women in this episode is in question, then the sexuality of this woman in the link I provide is also in question.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7853137/American-Instagram-model-raises-100-000-trading-NAKED-selfies-bushfire-donations.html

[lightningbarer]

As if one condition of mistreatment is negated by some unrelated circumstance that works positively for them.

I'm not really even sure wth the point is of bringing up these offsets, and you hear it so often. Like as if to affirm that it's a fair trade or something that's just to be left to unmodernized attention. Gender conscious issues aren't in favor of any of the offsets.

Well...if I'm going to have to get into this with you, I guess I will.
You brought up that women are oppressed or victimised, I gave a counter to this by giving general explanations to this being untrue.

See, you cannot be a victim if the deck is stacked in your favour as a biological sex.
Can women on their own be victims? Sure they can, but I'm not going to go for a case by case basis here, I'm talking that ON THE WHOLE women aren't oppressed in society and are given opportunities that the other side of that biological coin don't get.

I mean when do you hear of a man who glasses (that's picking up a glass and slamming it into the face of another, just for reference) another man getting off with probation? Or embezzling money, or mutilitaing the genitalia of their partner, or even the simplest.
Raping young girls at a school and getting no sex offenders registry and still getting to work in the industry.

I don't think you do do you. But then that's part of the problem with the current paradigm in society, where women are not given the consequences for their actions while they still claim the title of victimised person when they're actually not being victimised entirely. How men react to that isn't what we are talking about though.

Outrageous. The comments in the video about its problematic undertones have no bearing on the story whatsoever, as I said in the previous post. There is nothing in the review about the women being victims that isn't in accordance with the theme of the plot reveal that they are running shit.

It's a matter of being insensible with your audience.

The idea that you can sit there and say that what Chuck has said in this video isn't what he's said in this video is hilarious.
See, I knew that the - when dealing with this - that people like yourself would try and divorce the story from the "tones" as you would call them.

But as I've said to another. if it was the sexuality that bothers you, then you should equally be angry at the woman who used her body to get 100k for the brushfires in Aus.

I doubt you'll say that because you'll either claim its "body positivity and a good thing" or "that she made the decision herself"
Either of these doesn't work for a very simple reason.

If you are going to try and justify the use of sexuality to get money/goods/services, the same argument can be made against you in regards to this episode.

Which will eventually boil this down to you having an issue with the MEN who are writing the characters to be this way.

And if I were you, I'd hesitate on suggesting such a thing, because the consequences of said justification work across the board on all mediums where we can apply the standard of
"its okay/not okay when its this biological sex."

Do you REALLY want to bring in "the writers wrote the women to be this way and that makes all women oppressed"?

Because if you do, you'll be shown for what you are very quickly and cleanly.

[lightningbarer]

Some men actually are that way, though.

I stated that, I don't get why you're affirming it.

I was thinking more along the lines of how the men all acted like drooling idiots and the women acted irritable and bitchy toward the scantily clad women basically. And then there's the part I mentioned about how there are apparently no women in the security department, or amongst the MACOs (even though we've seen them there before).

okay, little honest statement here. You went to high school right? now, in a hypothetical situation, the cheerleaders - if they were at your school - were there to be looked at right? To generate cheer and support for the home team, right? The boys at school did that, right? Do all the girls at the school just love the cheerleaders? Or are they seen as "idiots", "peppy", "demeaning" types who the other girls dislike?

See, I used high school for a very simple reaction, but this works in all sections of life.
More attractive women will be looked at by men
And the women who aren't as attractive as them will despise those women and hate those men.

This isn't a horrible thing, its nature.
The human race is a Gynocentric species, we have 51%-ish of women to 49%-ish of men.
Women are going to fight over the attention of and the interest of men. What people like Hoshi did was entirely normal.

Now you can argue its wrong to do this, but then you're not arguing for realism, you're arguing for a fantasy that doesn't work when you realise this reaction happens all the time, every day and without stop. Its not mens fault that a D cup, hourglass figure leggy blonde gets more GENERAL attention than the plump bookish nerd girl. That's just the basics of the world and not something to get outrageously angry over.
Now if we want to get into preferences we can, but that further makes my point on the idea of women being the central focus of the species and dismantles the "we are oppressed" argument.

I doubt he's a prude just based on plenty of things he's said. And I'd say there's nothing wrong with wanting the show to be a bit less juvenile. I see that point to an extent in that there's that whole sci-fi ghetto thing going on, where it's hard for sci-fi to be taken seriously, in part because the people running the show think they only way they can get people to watch is if they stick the fan service in it. This was actually why T'Pol's catsuit always bothered me, because it really tended to make it difficult to take her seriously or served to undermine anything she said a bit.

You can think that and you're entitled to have that opinion.
The facts of reality are though that the mainstream of society doesn't give 2 poops about sci-fi, its a niche market and to appeal to the mainstream, it needs to get people to watch via simple means.

A fan of sunday night Football isn't going to watch an episode of Farscape about body swapping, they will not find the idea of puppets, people in make up and weird sets interesting.
They MIGHT watch it when we are shown a scene of a woman acting very college student about tits and from there get to see the STORY, which will bring them back.

This is a problem I see in fringe areas, the idea of wanting to be recognised as it is SO good.
I don't like ST:D, don't like the JJ Star Wars or the Treks, don't like the Terminator Dark Fate movie, or really any series that attempts to win over the general public with something they think appeals to them.
Social issues and commentary are fine when done sparingly, when it infuses the entirety of the media and becomes the focus of ALL storytelling, thats when I cannot watch.
That's when the general public don't watch
and that's when a fandom kills itself.

Now sophomoric humour and situations aren't obviously something you like Admiral X, but in the world we live you don't have to watch said subjects, just like I don't have to watch the shows and films I've mentioned.
So rather than saying there's a problem with the TnA in Star Trek, don't watch those episodes or shows.

Do what I do, just turn the TV over and watch something else.

Don't Gatekeep.

An example I like going back to is from an episode of Space Battleship Yamato 2199 (which also loves its catsuits) in which two of the crew members come back to a drifting and seemingly abandoned Yamato. They're crawling around in their version of Jeffries Tubes and it's all mysterious and interesting, and suddenly the "camera" cuts to an angle where the women's twat is hanging out from between her legs thanks to the catsuit. Kind of ruined the mood, know what I mean? And sci-fi is hardly the only genre to be guilty of this kind of thing, and it has a reputation for being schlocky in general. So I can see were people are coming from, which is that it comes from wanting the show to distance itself from that reputation for schlock.

Like I said above, if you are going to be upset by the visuals of a medium, don't watch that thing and turn to something else.
Don't demand that the medium change to suit your interests.
Because you're not the majority as the medium has been going for decades and it has always had fan service and it is still well liked.
The reason why it is not seen in the mainstream is the same reason why shows like Steven Universe have such simple and sugary plots without ever really delving into the ramifications of the short amount of "drama" that happens
The mainstream has grown up with the idea that "cartoons are for kids" and when people hear I like anime and manga and they look down on me for that, I decide to show them things that challenge this idea.
Things like No Game No Life, Fate Stay Night, A Vision of Escaflowne, Mirai Nikki and manga like Real Account, Dead Tube, Dr Stone.

I don't demand that the fan service variants of anime and manga be removed, I don't ask for things like Highschool DxD, To-Love-Ru and the Mangas like Shinju no Nectar, Konosuba and Highschool of the Dead to be removed.

Because its not about ME.

Its about enjoying what I like and allowing people to enjoy what THEY like.

Ultimately what it sounds like you're saying here is, using the catsuits in Yamato - or lets use a more mainstream one that doesn't have Space Jews at the end, eh - Evangelion, is a broken and destroyed story BECAUSE you were upset at the scantily clad women in it. Because remember, the men in both series also wore skin tight clothing, its a trope in space and mecha anime to have both of them virtually naked.

And if you are doing it because "oh muh feels" then you're not a fan of the medium. You are an invasive parasite in the medium and you are slowly killing the medium.

I mean this seriously now, has complaining ever made something better.

Star Trek Discovery injected Social Justice topics into its entire premise, makes a case for racism and prejudice in the 23rd century and its ratings and appeal amongst the fanbase is tanking like anything, it has been on literal life support since we learned that Spock apparently had a half sister we never heard about or were told about and she's more Vulcan than the half Vulcan who was hated by his father for being "too Human".

When people demand things go their way and not the way the fandom wants, the medium DIES.

No one is going to watch a purely science based show where all the characters are in head to toe night dresses other than the very serious science nerds. And they make up less than 5% of viewing numbers.

the rest of us geeks won't watch because part of us knows we watch for the women or men who are
either half naked or posing suggestively. Ignoring this is ignoring reality.

I think you're overthinking a bit.

You don't get the point I'm getting at do you? lol

Okay

If Chuck were to come down on either side of this he'd be seen as the enemy of the other side, for liberation, he's offended people like the Bridge Commander up above who dislikes that - apparently - and if he comes down on the side of the chastity side, he's offended the majority of his audience who don't give a shit one way or the other.

And he certainly has caused a dust up in these forums by doing this fence riding stuff that allows myself to put forwards an opinion that may sound crazy to you, but doesn't to everyone and there will be people who agree with me on all or some of my points about this.

Because he was vague he's left himself open to being called a fake (insert whatever) and have it be justified entirely.

That's the pickle he's in
The only thing he can do is keep his head down and hope it goes away eventually.

But the problem with that is, the spite-filled people who demand that there's never anyone other than their opinion that is right will sit on this and other things Chuck has done, then leave him to make one mistake in an offhand joke and send people to crucify him.

Because the type of people who are going to get insulted and offended at someone saying a joke about something, are the type who hold onto every scrap of info they can and use that against others.

There's been a lot of people who have had their lives ruined due to meddlers like that. People who felt they needed to get the win when they have that last piece of evidence to condemn a person, even when that person has stood with them throughout the whole of their career.

Now am I saying Chuck WILL have this happen? No.
But am I saying he's letting himself be drawn towards this by pandering to people who don't give a care to him or his ideas at all? Yes.

And if he keeps this up eventually he'll be done in by not being "woke" enough.

I need only mention ResetEra for the culmination of the pandering mindset.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

As if one condition of mistreatment is negated by some unrelated circumstance that works positively for them.

I'm not really even sure wth the point is of bringing up these offsets, and you hear it so often. Like as if to affirm that it's a fair trade or something that's just to be left to unmodernized attention. Gender conscious issues aren't in favor of any of the offsets.

Well...if I'm going to have to get into this with you, I guess I will.
You brought up that women are oppressed or victimised, I gave a counter to this by giving general explanations to this being untrue.

See, you cannot be a victim if the deck is stacked in your favour as a biological sex.
Can women on their own be victims? Sure they can, but I'm not going to go for a case by case basis here, I'm talking that ON THE WHOLE women aren't oppressed in society and are given opportunities that the other side of that biological coin don't get.

I mean when do you hear of a man who glasses (that's picking up a glass and slamming it into the face of another, just for reference) another man getting off with probation? Or embezzling money, or mutilitaing the genitalia of their partner, or even the simplest.
Raping young girls at a school and getting no sex offenders registry and still getting to work in the industry.

I don't think you do do you. But then that's part of the problem with the current paradigm in society, where women are not given the consequences for their actions while they still claim the title of victimised person when they're actually not being victimised entirely. How men react to that isn't what we are talking about though.

Outrageous. The comments in the video about its problematic undertones have no bearing on the story whatsoever, as I said in the previous post. There is nothing in the review about the women being victims that isn't in accordance with the theme of the plot reveal that they are running shit.

It's a matter of being insensible with your audience.

The idea that you can sit there and say that what Chuck has said in this video isn't what he's said in this video is hilarious.
See, I knew that the - when dealing with this - that people like yourself would try and divorce the story from the "tones" as you would call them.

But as I've said to another. if it was the sexuality that bothers you, then you should equally be angry at the woman who used her body to get 100k for the brushfires in Aus.

I doubt you'll say that because you'll either claim its "body positivity and a good thing" or "that she made the decision herself"
Either of these doesn't work for a very simple reason.

If you are going to try and justify the use of sexuality to get money/goods/services, the same argument can be made against you in regards to this episode.

Which will eventually boil this down to you having an issue with the MEN who are writing the characters to be this way.

And if I were you, I'd hesitate on suggesting such a thing, because the consequences of said justification work across the board on all mediums where we can apply the standard of
"its okay/not okay when its this biological sex."

Do you REALLY want to bring in "the writers wrote the women to be this way and that makes all women oppressed"?

Because if you do, you'll be shown for what you are very quickly and cleanly.

I'm sorry but this is pretty incommunicable.