ST Diversity in the Sequel Trilogy (see warning on page 11)

I’m not sure how many “yearn” for children these days in movies. Men and other thing s yeah but what do you expect from a more heterosexual(not even close to accurate)Hollywood society? Sad.



As most Of us know, stereotypes are quite real and yes I do agree that there has been popularization with said tropes. Although I don’t think this one is all that big as many would make it out to be and it at times is hard to pin point what is an attempt at genuinely unique expression in film and a use of stereotypes without thought.

And I also believe that children are used to soften up adults in movies period regardless of gender. Movies like Action Hero, Cop and A half, ROTJ, Boyenge(I’m not sure this is right) have “children” essentially bringing back the cynical stern men into innocence again. These are action movies but this isn’t a new concept.

Even dramas used these templates more than I can count(how many times have you seen Stoic old/young man being brought back into kind side after being shown a kid to become more of a fatherly figure).

Men and Women just handle things differently. In this case I don’t think it’s an inherently bad issue compared to other ones. As for the “female being in romantical love yearning for a male”...Just one of those tropes in films that is dying. Gays, apathetically sexual(almost like myself) and others with different ideals are taking over. Soon it’ll be a different Hollywood mammoth.

 

The problem was that Natasha called herself a monster because she's infertile.

It's not about being above motherhood. It's about not treating women who can't or won't procreate as as if they aren't real women. That there's something not natural or wrong with them.

 

1. You’re confusing what a character says in the movie for the actual message. Natasha struggles with seeing herself as a monster because she’s an incredibly lethal killer as well as infertile; she is exceptional at destroying life and totally unable to create it. That’s her dilemma. However, we’re clearly not supposed to agree with her negative self image, as the film clearly portrays her as a heroic character. I haven’t seen the film in a long time, but I believe her realizing that she is a hero and not a weapon is sort of her arc.

2. Sorry, but if you are physically incapable of producing offspring, that is, in fact, a deficiency. Making a choice not have children is a separate issue, but physically being incapable of having them is factually considered a physical deficiency.

 

"Sorry", but not being able to have children doesn't make you a lesser woman. Having a deficiency doesn't equal being a monster.

I was talking about how one are looked down up as lesser for not being able to procreate and your answer is "Sorry, but it's a fact it's a deficiency". Wow.

 

Gonna be brutally honest - if you can’t even be bothered to look at wha I quoted to establish that it wasn’t you with whom I was offended, then you’re probably not in the best position to judge something’s potential to “offend”.
Your post inspired a response of withering sarcasm. It was Quantum’s post specifically that was insulting (I never said I was offended, I said it was insulting. They’re distinct things)

 

Literally not what I said, at all. Reply to arguments fairly or don’t reply at all.

 

Well put. Natalia’s character(despite it lacking) was explained very specifically on what she felt. She wasn’t saying “women who are infertile are lesser beings”. She was denying her own self image even though she is clearly a hero.

“The problem was that Natasha called herself a monster because she's infertile.”

That’s the entire point. Exactly.

 

I replied fairly to someone who said being infertile is in fact a defiency when my post was about women being seen as lesser because of it.

 

So you’re still not getting it. Infertility is a deficiency, but it doesn’t make someone a lesser person. I never once said or even implied this, you twisted my words to fit your argument.

I have high functioning autism, and guess what? I can accept that it’s a deficiency without thinking it makes me a lesser person.

 

In Jurassic World, Claire said to her sister she isn't sure if she want to have kids one day but her sister was like "you need to! It's worth it!". The movie said she is so busy that she doesn't see her nephews for 7 years but she end the movie being "maternal" to the kids (the director even talked about her "femininity" in the story's progression).

 

Again, my post was about how women who can't or even won't have children are sometimes seen as lesser or something is wrong with them (as in "not real women")
Trying to lecture about how it's in fact a deficiency was unnecessary and had nothing to do with what I said. It sounded like a "No, no, it's a fact there's something wrong with them."

 

Except that yes, factually, there is something wrong with physically not being able to have children. That’s exactly what I meant. That doesn’t mean that infertile people are “any less of a person”, which you seem to think it does. I personally think that having a problem doesn’t make anyone less of a person. Because of that, I don’t have to pretend that problems don’t exist. If I lost my legs, that wouldn’t make me any less of a person, but there would be a problem.

And we’re getting very of topic now, but again, the whole point of the character arc is that Natasha ISN’T less of a person for being infertile. TBH, I’m not sure what you’re even arguing about at this point.

 

You must be trolling at that point. Bye.

 

Dismissing reasoned, throughly explained opposing arguments as trolling is just a sign that your own arguments aren’t strong enough.

 

Saying "That doesn’t mean that infertile people are “any less of a person”, which you seem to think it does. " When I explained 35567 times in my post that women shouldn't be seen as lesser.

Or doubling up on how it's a physical deficiency after I said it had nothing to do with my post. It's unnecessary and cruel given that I'm talking about worth and humanity.

The one thing I agree is that it's off-topic.

 

Infertility is only a "deficiency" if a woman wants to have biological children. It doesn't make a woman unhealthy or physically struggle in her day-to-day life, so it really doesn't matter at all if it occurs in a woman that is totally content to never have biological children.

 

Yes and, If I'm correct, the movie tried to show as if Bruce and Natasha situation are similar (and it doesn't make sense because Bruce can really hurt someone if Hulk lose control).

I can't have kids and when I saw this I was like

 

I know you said that. My implication was that, from my point of view, you were saying that someone having something wrong with them makes them less of a person. Therefor, there can’t be anything wrong about being infertile.

My stance is different. There is something wrong with infertility, but that doesn’t make anyone who is infertile any less human. Just as I don’t see my autism as making me less human.

You seem to think that recognizing infertility as a disordered thing means seeing infertile people as less human. Thus, you deny that there’s anything wrong with being infertile. That’s what I was trying to say, not that you actually see infertile people as less human.

Which it doesn’t. I don’t know how anyone can get this out of the story without deliberately trying to shove it into the story.

 

The story comes a lot closer to this interpretation than what you are peddling. It's not as if she went up to someone with asthma or migraine headaches and said "I also have a chronic medical condition that has affected my life."

She went up to some who is literally a freakish radioactive, inhuman being. Who has been on multiple occasions presented as too dangerous and uncontrolled to even be reliably trusted not to hurt his own friends. Someone who, by the admission of the other heroes in the MCU, the villains, and even the character himself, is so toxic and destructive that he is only tenuous fit for participation in human society. Meeting someone with this host of problems, she made an explicit comparison to the mere fact that she is not able to have children--which in most versions of that character's backstory she would be too old to do in any case.

AG Obama said they are making infertility seem like something unbearably awful and inhuman because that is literally the comparison the film itself makes.

 

You’re still missing the point. You seem to think how Natasha sees her infertility as being how the movie wants you to see her infertility. This is simply not correct.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people think that if a character says something, then the movie must be saying it as well.

 

Yes, I could see why women wouldn't want to be represented as always holding a baby, or longing for one- being defined by reproductive abilities- kind of like men wouldn't want all male characters to be portrayed standing there holding their penis.

 

So that is a real thing? How long (hah!) do they stand there (and do their hands get a bit tired)?

 

Why would she plausibly think this? That's certainly not the the attitude towards infertility that exists in any part of the indsutrialized world, where Natasha was born, raised, and has spent the overwhelming majority of her life. Even in ancient cultures that arguably did reduce women to reproductive objects, infertility could bring about a sense of personal shame or failure, but not a feeling that one is a deeply violent, monstrous, uncontrollable force. Are you just assuming all negative thoughts are identical?

For the character to react this way not only normalizes such attitudes, it posits them where they've never actually existed in human society.