A Mature Man's Guide to Feminism

The word "feminism" gets tossed around a lot these days, and I've wanted to write a sensible think-piece about what it means to be a good male feminist for some time. I juggled trying to be funny or light-hearted, but in my experience that devalues the seriousness of the subject matter and can also come across as condescending, so I'm going to try and avoid that.

Why do I want to write about feminism?

Because I think there are too many people who still have confused notions about what feminism really is, and in particular, far too many men who may be confused about what it represents and what it ultimately means for both sexes. I personally feel more comfortable addressing my own gender because I don't have the authority to discuss experiences I have not been privileged to (i.e. life from a women's perspective). What follows, therefore, is a guide for what I believe feminism truly is and why it's important for men to embrace it.

Why do I use the word "mature" in the title of this article? Because I believe there has to be a willing mindfulness on anyone's part to fully understand and appreciate any ideological concept, let alone follow through on it. If you don't approach this sort of thing with an open mind, you probably won't even get through the next paragraph without rage-quitting this article.

Where should we begin? Well...


. . . first, you have to understand what feminism actually is.

Feminism is the belief that women deserve to be treated as equally as men. That's it, and it doesn't get more complicated than that. Anyone that tries to convince you there's more to feminism than one, simple ideology is attaching more weight than is necessary. That is not to say that actually following through on this belief doesn't involve some degree of effort and mindfulness, but everything essentially boils down to this one idea. If someone asks whether you are a feminist, there's no need to meditate on it at length or attach any "but" statements to your qualification. If you believe that women are equal to men, then you are by definition a feminist. It's important to remember that it all boils down to one, simple qualification and...


. . . ignore anything that detracts from it.

There were times when I doubted whether or not I could call myself a feminist. I've had other self-proclaimed feminists tell me that I'm either not a real feminist or at least a horrible one, not because my mindset deviated from the ideological belief that women are equal to men, but because I didn't conform to the very rigid expectations they had attached to the movement.

It took me a long time to realize that feminism is not a club with only a small number of eligible members; the actual movement and advocacy involves a huge amount of people, and like any large movement, there will be an inevitable degree of selfishness from some individuals who warp or twist it to their own selfish agenda. I know a number of people who are nervous to identify as feminists because they don't want to be associated with some of the more militant or aggressive advocates (who they feel represent the movement as a whole). This is incredibly unfortunate, but we must remember that negative representation isn't a feminist tendency - it's a human tendency. Feminism itself is still the simple belief that women are equal to men, and once we unequivocally support that belief, we can ...


. . . understand what people mean by "privilege." 

"Privilege" gets thrown around like a dirty word these days; it is and always has been a word associated with negativity and shame. Two decades ago the word was used in reference to people with wealth and money - people who didn't understand what it was like to be middle/lower class. Nowadays, it crops up in terms like "white/male privilege," and it's important to understand what the word means in that context because although it still holds a degree of negativity, being called privileged isn't necessarily bad.

To admit that one is privileged is to make the mindful admission that one has certain benefits within a cultural/societal system wherein one demographic is afforded more advantages than another. I live in Canada, and I am a healthy/straight/white/Christian/male. Each of those self-descriptors inhabits a category of which my affiliation benefits the most, and in that way, I am an incredibly privileged person. I have never been discriminated against because of my sexual orientation, the colour of my skin, my religious preference, or my gender, but I acknowledge there are people that have. I understand that racism, sexism, and ableism exist in my culture and there are individuals who are/will be unfairly discriminated against.

We have to remember that human culture is based on tribalism - congregating among groups of like-minded and similar people for the purpose of survival - an instinct engrained via evolution since we were primates. We have evolved to be cautious around those that are different from us, and when one group greatly outnumbers another in a multicultural society, the predominant "tribe" is afforded preferential treatment simply because they fall in line with what the majority expects. The majority of the population in the west are white-skinned, and thus visible minorities are at a disadvantage, just as the predominant sexual orientation is straight and therefore anything that deviates from that is still met with caution. There are demographics and members of the population who must overcome more challenges than others because of circumstances they have no control over.

In regards to feminism, men need to acknowledge that in almost all areas of life, being male bears no negative consequence; a man will rarely be refused service, be less likely to qualify for a job, or be more likely to be sexually assaulted simply because they are a man. Women, however, live with a host of scenarios and circumstances in which the simple nature of being a woman will influence how they are treated. Broadly speaking, women will statistically make less money than their male co-workers, suffer gender-based harassment on a sometimes daily basis, and astronomically be more likely to be the victim of sexual assault. It is important for men to acknowledge this divide, because...


. . . the most important thing you can do is listen.

Privilege exists in any culture, and its problem is that it limits the experiences a group of people is able to appreciate. In regards to feminism, men will never experience what it is like to be a woman (regardless of how empathetic or sensitive we may feel we are) and thus we will also never encounter the varying degrees of sexism inherent to our culture. We will rarely ever have sexually inappropriate slurs thrown at us on the street by complete strangers; we will rarely have to worry that our qualities will be judged solely on our physical appearance; we will never feel like we are pressured to perform sex acts because we accepted to go on a date; we will never have our credibility questioned for reporting a heinous crime like rape; and we will never have decisions regarding what we choose to do to our bodies (i.e. abortion) institutionally debated by a group of outsiders. Because we will never experience these things, it's easy to be ignorant of their effects. The current cultural status quo unquestionably benefits men over women.

A good analogy is bullying. Imagine two high school students: one is popular while the other is picked on constantly. The popular student has nothing but fond memories of the school, never aware that bullying ever occurs, while the bullied student lives under constant unease and fear. Now imagine the two students meet and the bullied student tries to convince the popular student that bulling is in fact, a massive problem. The popular student can either a) try to dismiss the problem or worse, become violent in hopes of defending their fond memories of the school, or b) listen to what the other student has to say, and accept that the reality of their high school experience might not be the same for everyone.

This is why literally the most important thing a male feminist can do is simply listen. Too often men either deny or turn violent in an effort to discredit and silence women for trying to point out the inequality they face. Anita Sarkeesian, creator of the excellent YouTube channel Feminist Frequency, receives heaps of uninvited vitriol and threats whenever she posts a video or makes a public appearance. All she seeks to do is draw attention to the poor representation of women in video games in a very civil and academic way, while also constantly reassuring her audience that it is still possible to enjoy as well as criticize any form of entertainment (insisting that she still enjoys many of the games she talks about). And yet, she inevitably receives negative reactions from people who at best try to discredit her and at worst threaten to rape or murder her. Rather than take into consideration the thoughtful perspective she presents, a disturbing number of individuals would rather scream in protest in hopes of preserving a system they are already comfortable with, regardless of whether it disproportionately benefits them over others. 

If you are a man, the next time a woman presents you with a feminist perspective, I beg you to listen to what they have to say. It's important to listen, and also to understand...


. . . that by doing so, you lose nothing.

It costs nothing to listen but time. It takes little effort to open your ears to what is being said, to take a backseat and accept that someone different from you with different experiences has something to say. Any advice article on relationships undoubtably says the two most important components in a healthy partnership are honesty and communication. The thing about communication is that it has to involve one party talking and one party listening; a discussion quickly becomes an argument when one side talks but refuses to listen. 

You don't have to agree with everything being said, you're not required to evaluate your whole life with new information, and you're not expected to give anything up too. It's important to keep that last point in mind, because...


. . . feminists aren't trying to take anything away from men.

All feminists truly want is for women to be treated as equally as men, to have the same opportunities, to be judged the same way, and to not face discrimination simply because of their gender. Detractors of feminism often take a glass half-empty approach instead of understanding the flip side of their arguments. Feminists don't hate men, they love women; feminists aren't trying to steal your job, they're trying to give women access to the same career opportunities as you; feminists aren't trying to steal your paycheque, they just want to be paid equally for their work; feminists don't want you to stop holding doors for women, they just want you to do it because it's the polite thing to do and not because you find someone sexually attractive; feminists want the same female representation in movies, comics, television, and games as men, not because they want to detract from what's currently available, but because they want something that appeals to them too.

If after that you feel like something is taken away from you, then at best you're just being selfish and at worst you're an incorrigible asshole. If you feel so entitled to jobs you think women aren't qualified for or movies with poor female representation, then you've placed your own opinion and comfort ahead of the security and liberty of another group of people. If that's the case, you probably suffer from... 


. . . toxic masculinity, and here's what that actually means. 

People who genuinely oppose feminism cling to the notion that men and women are inherently different and that each gender must act a certain way. They believe men are big, strong, breadwinners and women are gentle, feminine creatures. This attitude is what is referred to as "toxic masculinity" and insists that each gender must conform to a set of expectations. It tells young boys they have to play sports, that they can't enjoy feminine things or be gay less they be "sissies," and that they need to dominate over women both in physical presence and practical skills.

This notion might seem extreme, but the effect of toxic masculinity permeates in very real ways: it's men who don't dare date stronger or taller women because they can't stand the thought of being the physically weaker partner; it's men insisting that they solely do household chores like woodwork or carpentry, even if their girlfriend is more capable than them; it's boyfriends who end relationships because their girlfriends make more money than them. These are all examples I've encountered personally, and they are all founded on the male insecurity of not living up to a fictional masculine ideal.

The notion of masculinity itself is not inherently harmful, but this rigid expectation of what a man should be is incredibly unhealthy, and it harms men just as much as women. It traps both genders and represses people from pursuing their passions and reaching their true potential. This is why men need to embrace feminism and...


. . . be more mindful, because feminism helps everyone.

The reason feminism exists as a movement is to spread awareness about the inequality women still face - it is an attempt to teach. Being an effective male feminist requires an ability to listen and be mindful of one's own experience as it applies to others. 

It's perfectly natural to find women attractive, whether it's a celebrity, a friend, or a stranger on the street, but it's important to remember that they are a whole person not defined solely by their appearance. It's also fine to watch pornography for sexual gratification, so long as you remember that (like all movies) what you're watching is not an accurate representation of reality. And it's fine to ask a girl on a date, so long as you remember that they're free to reject you in the same way you are free to reject someone you're not entirely interested in. Women don't owe men anything, whether it's obedience, affection, or attention.

The golden rule when it comes to navigating what is and isn't appropriate when interacting with women is to ask, "would I do this if they were a man?" If you wouldn't say/do something to a man, you probably shouldn't say/do it to a woman. In summation...


. . . there are three steps to being a good male feminist.

1) Listen: People who take up causes love to make it their own, to assign their own ideals, to co-opt it for their own sense of self-importance. Your job as a man isn't to protect women, it's to be open to a different person's experience and to offer support - to listen.

2) Be Mindful: Awareness goes a long way, whether it's about your own actions or the actions of others. Recognize when the things you enjoy might not benefit or satisfy others in the same way: you can still enjoy movies and video games that misrepresent women, you can still admire a woman's appearance, and you can still laugh at a dirty joke, but acknowledging the problematic elements of these things stops them from becoming an unhealthy, subconscious part of your reality. 

3) Encourage Others: The most important thing you can do as a male feminist - the thing that will truly go the farthest in furthering the movement and helping women - is to speak up and correct the problematic behaviour of other men when you see it. When your friend makes an inappropriate comment toward a woman, tell them it's not okay. If you're at a party and you witness a man pressuring a woman into something she doesn't want to do, step in. Confrontation is difficult and it is unquestionably easier to do nothing and remain in a comfortable little bubble, but your comfort may come at a cost to someone else, and being a true male feminist may require you to occasionally get your hands dirty. 

That's what I believe it takes to be a proper male feminist. I hope this has maybe helped clear a few things up, and please feel free to share this if you desire. 

And before I go...


. . . here are some extra thoughts.

There are a few final comments I couldn't find a space for naturally in this article, so I'd like to mention them here.

The first is that I believe the most heinous circumstance in which women are devalued in society is in the case of rape accusations. The percentage for falsified rape reports is the same as any other crime at 2%, so it's time to stop pretending it doesn't happen and downplay/dismissing instances when it does. One in four women will be sexually assaulted, which means that many of your female friends may be victims. Rape is a crime like any other, yet it is the only one where a victim's credibility is continually brought into question. I believe men must come to the uncomfortable realization that rape and sexual assault are far more prevalent than we think, and that not all rapists are stalkers hiding in dark alleys. The cold hard fact is that some of your friends may be rapists; you may have committed rape without even realizing it. Admitting rape exists is scary, and admitting you may have contributed to the problem is downright terrifying, but consent is simple: if a woman says no, or is unable to say yes, then the instance in question is rape. To continue to degrade and question victims in order to support our comfortable facade is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Second, I didn't touch much on the idea of objectification, wherein women are presented as objects to be consumed by men. Essays and articles have been written to much greater effect than this blog, but what I want to mention is the unhealthy response men often have as a direct result of this "consumption" of the female body. 

The outcry that often comes up over public breastfeeding and images of menstrual blood (such as Instagram's recent controversy) make it painfully obvious how objectionable men are to being presented with images of women as something other than a consumable, sexual object. Demanding that women cover up in these natural instances - while aggressively consuming fetishized representations of the female form - is outrageous and selfish. 

Finally, many months ago we had a debate in this country over a woman's right to wear the Niqab. The majority viewed the piece of clothing as a representation of women's oppression and campaigned for its ban. This mindset was donned with the best of intentions, under the pre-tense of protecting women. Where this mindset failed was in mindfulness, and in a willingness to understand that truly embracing women's rights might include permitting something we find uncomfortable. We tell women they are free to wear what they want, but when confronted with a woman who genuinely wanted to wear something that made us uncomfortable, we came up with a number of excuses to make it go away.

We insisted we cared more about women, insisted we were better than a culture often associated for restricting what women can and can't do, but our solution was to furthermore try and restrict what women could and couldn't do. We wanted to ban the Niqab because it would make us feel safe, but by trying to cure an ailment we began imitating the disease. If we truly care about women being free, we have to be ready to accept that some women may do things we find uncomfortable. We came dangerously close to being a country that not only culturally shames women for wearing too little clothing, but quite literally make it illegal for them to wear too much.

These extreme situations have been coming up a lot lately. The Niqab debate, Donald Trump's campaign for presidency, Britain's recent vote to exit the European Union - all of these events have torn down a facade and revealed that our civilized cultures are still rooted in sexism, racism, and fear mongering. I hope we can do better, and I pray my recent cynicism will slowly dissipate as time goes on. Certain aspects of human nature will never change; we will always fear what we don't understand, but hopefully with proper education, insight, and mindfulness, we can begin to do better.

Unfair Critical Bias: Dawn of Justice vs Civil War

It's been an epic summer for superhero movies. After almost three years of hype, DC finally released Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice in March, while this past weekend Marvel unleashed Captain America: Civil War. With two tentpole movies released so close together, it's hard not to draw comparisons between the two: both feature iconic superhero characters fighting over an ethical dilemma with a villain pulling the strings. So which was more successful?

Dawn of Justice, despite smashing weekend box office records, was unanimously panned by critics (with a 27% score on review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes) and received a mixed audience reaction. Civil War, meanwhile, is receiving near universal praise (90% on Rotten Tomatoes). How could two eerily similar films render such different verdicts? Critics of Dawn of Justice have lambasted it with everything from not staying true to its characters to having a muddled and confusing plot to Zack Snyder just not being a good director. There's a lot of hate for this movie . . . like, a LOT.

But why?

I think it's far more than the "flaws" its critics thrust upon it. I think there's something more psychological at play, because I truly loved Batman v. Superman. I genuinely enjoyed all the elements and thought they worked wonderfully in the movie, including many of the parts other people seemed to hate. And while I also equally enjoyed Civil War, I can't see a difference in quality large enough to account for Batman v. Superman's divisive critical reaction.

In fact, I think poor DC has been working under several major handicaps that many critics and members of the moviegoing audience fail to acknowledge, all of which resulted in a perfect storm of criticism against the film. Let's look at this situation a little more mindfully . . .

**Spoilers for both Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Captain America: Civil War**


1. The Studio Approach: Auteur vs Formula Filmmaking

First and foremost, both Warner Bros and Marvel Studios are taking different approaches to their separate cinematic universes. Grace Randolph, who runs the excellent YouTube channel Beyond the Trailer, labels the different approaches as Auteur vs Formula filmmaking. Warner Bros prides itself on being considered a "filmmaker's" studio, meaning most of the agency regarding their films are in the hands of the director (or "auteur," in film theory lexicon). While there's a continuity that each individual film in their universe plays into, the film's themselves noticeably carry the stamp of their director.

Marvel, meanwhile, has a very formulaic approach to their cinematic universe. They had wild success with Iron Man in 2008 and their approach hasn't differed much a dozen films later in terms of tone and presentation. While some of their directors like Shane Black (Iron Man 3) and James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy) manage to inject a bit of their own personality, each Marvel movie is very distinctly a Marvel film. They have a template and overarching plot which doesn't allow for much creative liberty from their directors.

Each approach has its pros and cons. Auteur filmmaking creates unique pieces of cinema with one creative mind pushing forward, but can also yield a mixed audience response; the more singular the artistic vision, the more divided the audience's reaction will be. Formulaic filmmaking, meanwhile, allows for little deviation from an established template, but the critical and financial response is much more predictable, with films being largely inoffensive while appealing to the broadest possible audience.

If there was a critical flaw with Dawn of Justice, it wasn't with the film itself but rather with Warner Bros' expectations - they assumed they could yield formulaic filmmaking success off an auteur driven spectacle, perhaps because of their prior success with Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. Batman v. Superman was marketed as a movie that everyone could go see when it was very much a film for a specific audience due to its interpretation of the characters, its dark tone, and the storytelling challenge it presents to the audience (more on that later). Warner Bros had inflated expectations for a product that was incapable of meeting them with the approach they chose to take.


2. Brand Allegiance and Entitled Criticism Culture

Like it or not, we humans have a terrible track record of being sympathetic toward other groups of people. We divide ourselves into categories based on our race, religion, country . . . and also among entertainment properties, whether it's betamax vs VHS, Apple vs Microsoft, or DC vs Marvel. Check any webpage comment section involving a debate between two properties and you'll see insults of the harshest variety being slung. Once someone commits to a brand, getting them to acknowledge that anything comparatively exists is like pulling teeth.

It doesn't take much for people to commit to a brand either, and like it or not, Marvel was the first to establish a shared cinematic universe. Their films have been successful both financially and critically, and to many they represent what interconnected comic book movies should be. As a result, there are no doubt a large number of moviegoers predisposed to disliking whatever DC's attempts at a cinematic universe might be for the simple reason that they're committed to the conventions and tone that Marvel established first. 

We also live in a culture where - thanks largely to the Internet - everyone has an outlet to voice their opinion. Unfortunately, the go-to that people use to ensure their voice is heard is to make their opinion harsher, louder, and more controversial than the rest. I call this phenomenon "Entitled Criticism Culture" because there are many amateur film critics (not to mention several professional ones) who write harsh reviews with an air of unearned authority as if their opinion is the be-all-end-all. As a rule of thumb, I never take any review seriously that shits on a film with the same vernacular one would use to describe the Holocaust or a natural disaster. There were many reviewers that referred to Dawn of Justice as an "abomination" of filmmaking and an "insult" to DC fans, despite a fair number of fans having received it positively. This is not good, responsible criticism - this is being explicitly cruel for the sake of garnering page views. 

All of this to say I feel a large chunk of the criticism levelled at Batman v. Superman had nothing to do with the actual quality of the film and more to do with the selfish and biased nature of people in general. And that's not to say people aren't entitled to dislike the film if it genuinely didn't appeal to them; it's just hard to take an opinion seriously when a review strays from subjective statements like "I didn't enjoy the film" to misguided objective statements like "this film is terrible." A critique is a personal opinion, not an omnipotent declaration - confusing the two only undermines your credibility as a reviewer.


3. Zack Snyder, Film Director

Zack Snyder's early films were great successes, in particular his 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead and his 2006 adaption of Frank Miller's 300. Afterward he was entrusted with the monumental task of adapting Alan Moore's groundbreaking graphic novel Watchmen for the big screen, which he did a commendable job at (especially since many considered it an impossible task). And yet this was around the time that public perception of him started to turn. He became pegged as a director that valued style over substance, a monicker which reached its full-blown pitch with 2011's Sucker Punch.

The previews for Sucker Punch promised a wildly stylized action film about a group of young women fighting Nazi zombies, dragons, and killer robots. Almost immediately it was criticized and dismissed as pure exploitation, an unfortunate stigma which stuck well after the film's release. Critics assumed only teenage boys would find any value watching young women prance around being impossibly awesome, yet even that specific audience was deterred when presented with the film's real narrative about a group of young girls forced to struggle under the heel of a sexist patriarchal system. Ironically, the film was dismissed as pure objectification when it in fact carried a very feminist message. Zack Snyder's fatal error was requiring effort on the part of the audience to put that message together.

The themes and metaphors for patriarchy and feminist rebellion in Sucker Punch are not readily apparent or particularly obvious without some critical thought, and if one doesn't look for them then the film can easily be dismissed as pure exploitation. It requires active engagement and mindful analysis on the part of the viewer to truly appreciate, and Dawn of Justice is no different. The motivations and intentions of the characters are largely cerebral and there are a host of thematic parallels that aren't obvious at face-value. We are introduced to a very bitter Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck) and left subtle hints to infer what pushed him to the point of moral bankruptcy at the film's start. Meanwhile, the villain's motivations aren't fuelled by revenge or a mad lust for power, but by a philosophical mistrust of anything more powerful than him. These concepts are more existential and require mindful attention and engagement on the audience's part and encourage multiple viewings; Snyder does not spoon-feed viewers, instead assuming an inherent degree of intelligence in their ability to thoughtfully analyze the elements he presents. Again, this was a gamble that Warner Bros took that inevitably wouldn't pay off with a large audience.

I feel because of the almost "hidden" intellectual nature of Snyder's films (a phrase I'm sure many would disagree with) and his obvious talent for stylized action, public opinion of him often sways into the "style over substance" category. His attachment to films brings with it unjustified eye-rolling and a taint which clouds viewers' bias, which is exactly what happened with 2013's Man of Steel when it was first announced he would direct a Superman film - public perception of the movie took a turn for the worst before it even came out. 

It's kinda like how everyone used to love Nickelback but now everyone hates them, and yet no one can actually pin-point when or why public opinion suddenly turned.


4. The Pop Culture Handicap

There's a final handicap that DC has been operating under that I'm surprised I haven't seen more acknowledgement of. To understand it, let's dip back into human psychology and try to understand how the weight of expectation can cloud perspective.

Imagine you're meeting someone for the first time. You know literally nothing about them, and then someone tells you the person you're about to meet is an asshole. What happens to your expectation of that person, regardless of whether they're actually an asshole or not? That comment suddenly informs everything you know about that person because you have no other reference point. You'll be cautiously looking for signs of asshole-ishness, even if they appear to be the nicest person in the world.

What does this have to do with Batman v. Superman? Although Marvel was the first to start a shared cinematic universe, Warner Bros had been releasing superhero movies for decades beforehand. Batman and Superman are arguably the most famous superheroes in the world; Batman had seven standalone films before Batman v. Superman, while Superman had five before Man of Steel. Whenever Warner Bros creates a new iteration of a character, they have decades of past expectations and history to overcome. Marvel, meanwhile, had a clean slate with almost all of their characters. Audiences knew almost nothing about Iron Man or Thor, which meant they were establishing expectations for the first time with each of their films. There was no previous bar to hit, unlike with DC and Warner Bros. Every film and casting announcement is inevitably compared to what came before (just look at the response Heath Ledger and Ben Affleck received) while no one could have cared that Robert Downey Jr. was cast as Iron Man because they had no reference for that character or the quality of the film they should expect.

Batman and Superman have a rich history in movies, TV, cartoons, comics, and video games, so much so that it's almost impossible for anyone - not just comic book fans - to not have a set definition of the characters before seeing Dawn of Justice, which leads to unfair and divided expectations. It's why some say the "true" Batman is quirky and colourful because the grew up watching Adam West, while others believe the "true" Batman is dark and gothic because of Tim Burton's 1989 film. Superman is no different, with his character having undergone multiple iterations across several mediums over the past century. Everyone has a preconceived notion of what the "best" version of a Batman/Superman movie is, so a film like Dawn of Justice is either going to satisfy those expectations (which you'll love) or challenge them (which you'll hate). It's why Superman can be criticized for being too perfect and unsympathetic in the comics, then lambasted for being too emotional and brooding in Man of Steel; it's why we can say superhero movies should be more serious like Nolan's trilogy, then criticize them for being joyless like Dawn of Justice.

Warner Bros literally had no way to present a version of their characters or create a film that would satisfy everyone's expectations, which is why they now have a film that a lot of people love and a lot more people hate. This is why the character of Wonder Woman (portrayed by Gal Gadot) is praised even by critics who disliked the film because this is most people's first introduction to the character; there is no previous expectation or popular definition for what a "good" portrayal of her should look like.


In Conclusion . . .

For the record, I'm enjoying what Marvel and DC are both doing with their cinematic properties. I like the dependable, lighthearted, and charming tone that Marvel has established and I like the dark, serious, more philosophical tone that DC has struck. I deeply enjoyed both Dawn of Justice and Civil War. Do I think both films are perfect? No, of course not. They each have their respective flaws and outstanding moments, yet I can't decipher why Dawn of Justice has received harsher criticism for similar "flaws" as Civil War.

For example:

Both films feature a villain (Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor and Daniel Brühl as Baron Zemo) who seeks to destroy the good guys (Superman and the Avengers) by turning one superhero (Batman and Iron Man) against another (Superman and Captain America). To accomplish this, they both bomb a political venue to divide public opinion against a superhero (Superman and the Winter Soldier) while using parent(s) as the final emotional trump card to instigate a fight between heroes. 

And yet, Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was heavily criticized for being unclear with his intentions, despite flat-out saying he wants to destroy Superman because he doesn't believe a being with such power is capable of being as righteous as public perception insists. Baron Zemo, meanwhile, has been called one of the better and more sympathetic Marvel villains despite his motivations being nothing more than a simple revenge trope (his family was killed during the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron). Two villains with equally convoluted agendas, and yet one receives harsher criticism than the other.

Both films also feature a major fight between superheroes, and yet the circumstances in Dawn of Justice has been criticized despite requiring just as much suspension of disbelief as Civil War. In Batman v. Superman, Lex Luthor manipulates Bruce Wayne into trying to kill Superman while pushing Superman into the fight by threatening to kill his mother. The fight ends when Superman - broken and beaten - mentions his mother's name, "Martha," which also happens to be Bruce's deceased mother's name. Bruce has a moment of reflection, reliving the trauma of his parent's murder before realizing how close he's come to being the same sort of monster that destroyed his own life.

The film was criticized for the ease with which Batman and Superman begin fighting without Superman trying to reveal Lex's master plot, and the fight's end has been painfully simplified by many who insist Batman only stops because their mothers share the same name, ignoring the reflection Bruce undergoes to the memory of his parents' death.

Civil War, meanwhile, features a spectacular superhero brawl with almost a dozen characters. It is being heralded by critics as one of the most spectacular fight scenes in superhero history (which it rightfully is) and yet there is almost no mention about how equally unbelievable the circumstances are regarding the fight's beginning and end. The characters have all been teammates for several films and have overcome monumental challenges together, and yet they too are willing to fight one another with little provocation. The fight subsequently ends when War Machine (Don Cheadle) is injured . . . with everyone seemingly astonished that beating the shit out of each might lead to one of them getting seriously hurt.

I am by no means trying to criticize Captain America: Civil War in an attempt to elevate Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. I am simply trying to point out the hypocritical nature by which one film's flaws are highly criticized while another film's similar flaws are praised and/or ignored. Warner Bros had a host of obstacles set before them, and while some of challenges were the result of the filmmaker and the studio, I find it impossible to ignore the unfair and severely harsh criticism it's received as a result. There is too much else at play to dismiss it (as many have) as simply a bad film.

And there are clearly a number of people who love it, like me. In an age when we have so much available to us, I find the rampant degree of entitled criticism disheartening when we should be thankful that we have such a variety of art available about our favourite characters, regardless of whether we personally love the current iteration. But what the fuck, right? It's always been easier for people to criticize than trying to understand the challenges inherent to the creative process.

So suck it, Internet. You can kiss my adorable Dawn of Justice loving ass.

Harry Potter and the Case of the Nefarious Shoe Wanker

The story so far . . . 

After the climactic battle with the evil lord Voldemort, the wizarding world recovered and settled into a peaceful utopian state. Harry married Ginny, Ron married Hermione, and everyone lived happily ever after at least until the nineteen year epilogue-mark, then J. K. Rowling regretted not pairing Harry with Hermione and because it's magic n' shit, the wizarding world adjusted accordingly.

So one day after Ron was getting back from whatever-the-fuck he was doing after the series ended, he stumbles home to find Harry - magical cock in hand - in bed with his wife. Ron tries to give Hermione the business, but because Hermione is an absolutely boss, she tells Ron she's tired of all his drinking and watching magical football (or magical quidditch, which is just regular quidditch I guess). And yeah, he'd tried to clean himself up recently, but it's Harry-fucking-Potter and his magical-fucking-cock vs Ron-ain't-nothin'-but-a-thang-Weasley. Easy choice. 

It's all dramatic n' shit, and Harry takes off. After a few days Ron tries to be the bigger man and tracks Harry down to talk . . . and then stuff happens. You know, STUFF stuff. The conversation was something like:

RON: "I don't know about this Harry."

HARRY: "Ron, you're my best friend and I just wanna be close to you."

RON: "Harry! Don't go pullin' your magic bean sprout out of your trousers!"

HARRY: "Oh for fuck's sake, it ain't like you haven't seen it a million times at Hogwarts."

RON: "That was different! We was kids, and . . ."

HARRY: "And?"

RON: ". . ."

HARRY: ". . ."

RON: ". . . can I touch it? I mean . . . just the tip?"

HARRY: "Yeah Ron . . . just the tip."

Were you reading it in your head with an English-accent? Remember, this is all happening in Britain. I'm trying to be authentic here.

And then they had sex. And they continued to have sex for many years. Everyone got divorced and Harry had to have the I'm-sorry-I-had-sex-with-your-brother-and-also-his-wife talk with Ginny, which didn't go over well. Hermione almost killed Ron until he pointed out she had sex with Harry first, and Harry and Ron finally ran off into the sunset together.

Anyway, that was many years ago. Everyone's well into their forties now, embittered with age. Peace allowed everyone to get lazy, and to stave off boredom Harry and Ron started their own detective agency.

This is their story . . .

The grey clouds had polluted the otherwise quaint little town for nigh-on two weeks. It was another utterly unpleasant day, and the threat of rain that just wouldn't come hung heavy on everyone's demeanour. The magic police-tape that sectioned off the small shoe-shop in Diagon Alley was an ill-omen. A considerable crowd had gathered by the time the blue flying car swooped down in front of the store, narrowly missing a reporter snapping magic-photos of the scene.

"Hey! Just 'ho the 'ell do you think you are?!" yelled the reporter in a thick accent.

The door swung open and a grizzled man with a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead stepped out. His trench coat bellowed out of the car after him, along with the heavy smell of Irish bourbon. His heavy stubble and the cigarette dangling from his mouth painted a different picture of 'the boy who lived' then the spectators were used to.

"It's Harry Potter!" whispered the crowd.

The passenger door swung open and Ron Weasley, looking more ginger than ever, followed.

"And the fat one!" yelled someone else.

Ron threw a disgusted look at the crowd as his lover walked to his side, gesturing him to the shop entrance.

"Don't pay any attention to them," said Harry. "You've still got a quidditch player's hot body."

"I 'aven't played quidditch in ages," replied Ron, slapping the beer gut that had grown with his bitter resentment after his twenty-fifth birthday. "It wasn't even an injury which did me in."

"I know," replied Harry, putting his hand on Ron's shoulder. "You got old, but . . . come on, I still love ya."

"Don't patronize me!" yelled Ron, hitting Harry's hand away. "You don't have to lie to me anymore."

Ron barged into the shop. Harry glanced back at the mesmerized crowd. He could hear the whispers and rumours that would grow from this single incident, rumours that his new relationship was failing like his first marriage, that 'the boy who lived' was having trouble in paradise.

"I save them all and this is what I get," he muttered to himself. "Come on, Mr. Quackers."

The back door of the car sprang open and a duck dressed in a miniature Sherlock Holmes ensemble waddled out of the backseat. Losing Hedwig had been tough, but Harry had found solace in another winged friend. And the little detective outfit? Well, that just made sense.

The tiny bell over the shop door echoed perilously as Harry and Mr. Quackers entered the store. There were shoes . . . magic shoes all over the place. Like a Payless but with wizards n' shit. Ron was already talking to the store owner, another friend from school - Mrs. Lovegood. Her eccentricities had followed her into middle-age. Harry couldn't remember who she had hooked up with after the final battle with Voldemort; the movies and the books were different, and he couldn't decide which continuity he lived in. He smiled at the wedding-ring on her finger though - at least one of them seemed to be making it work. He glanced down at the empty space on his own finger. Together for years, and yet Ron was still reluctant to make it official.

"Harry!" said Luna as she saw him, rushing over to give him a hug.

"Hi Luna," he replied. "It's good to see you, although not under these circumstances."

"It's unfortunate, yes," she replied, her eyes waving back and forth while staring at the floor, "but perhaps nothing is truly unfortunate that reunites old friends."

"I don't know about that," replied Ron, holding a magical evidence bag with a shoe in it. Harry approached it slowly, unzipped the bag, and removed the shoe.

"It was a strange man who came in here," explained Luna. "Very quiet. He took that shoe into the back of the store, and . . . well . . ."

Harry saw an odd substance caked to the bottom of the shoe. He dabbed it with his finger and touched it to his tongue, tasting it. His eyes went large as he glanced at Ron.

"That's wank!"

"Of course it's fuckin' wank," replied Ron. "Christ, what else was it gonna be?"

(Author's Note: "wank" = British sperm)

"Luna, do you mind if we have a minute to look over the store?" asked Ron. "We'll need some time to use our magic detective skills."

"Of course," she replied, heading for the exit before pausing. "Oh, I should tell you both that I saw Ginny this morning."

Harry and Ron's attention was immediately fixed on their quirky old classmate.

"How was she?" asked Harry.

"It's . . . been a long time since either of us have spoken to her," added Ron.

"She's good," replied Luna, "but . . . she's still mad."

The little bell over the store entrance broke the sad silence as Luna exited the shop, leaving the two embittered lovers to their solitude. They glanced at each other, looking for the love that had been lost between them.

Mr. Quackers let out an awkward duck call before shitting on the floor.

                                                    *          *          *

The apartment was dark except for the faint flicker of light from the television. Ron had taken to his old ways, drinking magic beer while watching old quidditch matches in the dark in his underwear. He sank back into the couch, his gut covered in crumbs and supporting his sixth beer of the evening. The announcer commended another save his younger-self had made as his current-self took a reluctant swig.

"I used to be amazing," he muttered,

"You still are."

Ron quickly turned, the crumbs on his stomach an avalanche falling on the floor. In the doorway to the living room stood Harry in nothing but his magic underwear, his rippling six-pack of abs a constant reminder to the glory which Ron had lost.

"Go away, Harry," said Ron. "I ain't in no mood for snoggin' or buggery tonight."

"Come on," said Harry. "It's been a long day, and that case of the shoe wanker is going to take up our time for the rest of the week. Let's take a night to ourselves before we get deep into the magic detective shit or whatever."

"Not tonight," muttered Ron.

Harry approached the couch slowly, kissing the back of Ron's neck.

"Just the tip?" he whispered.

"NOT TONIGHT!!!" screamed Ron.

Harry stepped back, dejected. There was a passionate fire in his lover's eyes, but it wasn't one that he wanted to see. It was a rage that Harry knew wasn't directed toward him. No, Ron was angry with himself, and all Harry could do was die a little inside as the man who had stuck by him through so many trials sank deeper into self-loathing and a sea of cheap beer and potato chips.

Harry retreated to the bedroom and collapsed on the bed, startling Mr. Quackers who ruffled his wings before settling down again. Harry's mind flashed between his current failing relationship and the case today. What kind of man jerks off into a shoe in public? What kind of man sleeps with his best friend's wife, and then his best friend?

"Am I a monster?" he asked Mr. Quackers.

The duck stared at him with as much sympathy as a duck is capable before taking another shit on the floor.

It was going to be a very long week, and Harry just hoped his relationship could survive the casework that accompanied someone masturbating into a shoe. He sighed and pulled himself to the bedside table, grabbing a cellphone that totally would have been fucking helpful when he had been battling Voldemort instead of relying on fucking owls for all communication.

He slid through his contacts until he settled on one name: Hermione.

He pressed 'dial' and held the phone to his ear.

                                                 To be continued . . . 

Understand People to Understand the World

I've been told that I'm one of those people who's good at formulating and articulating complex ideas. I attribute this largely to writing and wanting to be creative; art in all its forms is about trying to express an idea, and the more practiced you are at a medium, the better you get at conveying what you want to say. I'm also one of those assholes who's great at giving advice but can't seem follow any of it myself (I do try . . .) but regardless, I feel like I've developed a good sense of understanding people.

The more you understand the world and the individuals in it, the more sense life tends to make. And while it's hard to boil down the complexity of the unique individual experience on this earth into a blog post, there are certain fundamental notions I've pulled from various experiences over the years that have given me - what I believe - tools to better understand the human condition, and thus give a better understanding of who people are and why we think and act the way we do.

If you'll permit me a moment of your time, I'd like to share some of those notions with you in no particular order.

PEOPLE GENERALLY DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of human psychology, take a second and visit this link here. I'm mainly posting it because I want to give credit where it's due, and this is the only article I can distinctly remember that was a direct influence for what I'm about to say.

If you didn't click the link (shame on you) I'll try to summarize: it's an article on Cracked.com by author David Wong, who proposes a game to understand whether you're a filthy liar to yourself. He asks you to write a list of your top five priorities, followed by a list of the top five things you did yesterday in order of how much time you dedicated to them. If the two lists don't sync up, then you're not being honest with yourself. If you say that following your faith is important but you only begrudgingly go to church an hour a week, it's clearly not your top priority and probably shouldn't be on that list. If you say spending time with your kids is important, but you spent more time watching Netflix last night than you did playing with them, what was actually more important to you?

All of this to say that generally people will often talk about the things they would like, but actually put time into the things that they genuinely want (and aren't always honest about what those things are). We might say that we want to be fit and exercise regularly, but will take any excuse not to. We may complain endlessly about how we hate the job we're in, but if we're not taking steps to remedy that, then clearly the security of working a shitty job is more important than taking the chance of pursuing something more meaningful. We grow up with an ideal of what we should be doing with our lives, and feel if we can't achieve those aims then we've done something wrong. In my experience, the majority of people have the time and resources to pursue the goals they claim are important to them, but simply aren't honest enough to admit that in actuality those goals aren't their top priority.

To put it in personal context, I enjoy writing and playing music. Someday, I'd love to make a living as a writer, but right now I'm content with just writing stories and not pursuing publishing them. That priority might change in the future, but for the time being I accept that publishing isn't as high a priority as actually writing. Likewise, I play music in a band with my best friend. We don't play as much as we used to and don't write any original songs anymore, and while we sometimes talk about "what might have been" if we'd put more effort into it, we acknowledge that we have no one to blame but ourselves for not being rock stars. We also acknowledge that "blame" isn't a negative word in this scenario, but rather an admission that our success as musicians is entirely dictated by our own efforts, and that we've gained enough satisfaction already not to pursue it beyond what we've already achieved.

The next time you think about how much you want something, ask yourself if you've done everything in your power to achieve it (and of course I'm not talking about breaking the law or hurting anyone - don't be a dick). If you haven't, then ask yourself if that thing is truly important to you.

WE HAVE UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS OF OUR FUTURE SELVES

The human race is unique as a species in that we're the only one on this planet that are cognitively aware of our own existence (except for maybe dolphins, because dolphins are smart as fuck). We're the only species that knows we exist in a place in time, and that in the future we will exist in another place and time. Other animals are only concerned with survival in the here and now, which is why you've never seen your dog listening to Linkin Park and asking "What's the point of it all?" If your dog could talk it'd probably say "What do you mean 'what's the point of it all?' I'm alive, motherfucker! Isn't it amazing that I'm alive?!"

Which is why dogs make better friends than people sometimes.

Anyway, my point is that people are still evolving out of the primordial ooze, and one of the pitfalls that comes with our recent cognitive capabilities is the habit of projecting unrealistic expectations on future versions of ourselves. It's why we say "I'll start my new diet on Monday" and then Monday comes and we're no less motivated to start. Why would Present You worry about starting your diet right now? That's Future You's problem! We live our lives under the assumption that a future version of ourself will somehow be more capable then our present version. What we often fail to recognize is that Future You and Present You are more or less the same person; you're not going to magically gain more motivation or discipline.

It's why I get nervous whenever I see someone in a bad relationship say "I can change!" It's placing an empty promise on a hypothetical future scenario. It's more or less saying "Don't judge me for being an asshole now, just believe that I'll somehow not be an asshole later." People who wish to enact change in their lives don't talk about doing it, they actually do it. Saying that you'll do something in the future is taking a gamble on whether or not a magical interim event will cause a radical shift in your psyche between now and then. With this in mind, you learn to trust facts and history rather than hope for the best, like when Honey Nut Cheerios say they "might help" lower cholesterol - empty promises all around.

Displacing agency from a present version of yourself onto a hypothetical "other" version removes the responsibility for immediate change. Everyone does it, and most of the time, we do it to ourselves.

EVERYONE HAS THE SAME FEAR

Fear is the great binding force for all humanity. It unites us in so many things, and to boil it down to its simplest element, there is one universal fear that almost everyone the whole world over shares.

We fear the unknown.

And this makes sense. We fear things that are different from what we're familiar with because we don't understand what they are and how they might affect us. It's why when we were all primitive apes we were cautious about approaching that massive cat with sharp fangs, or drinking from that unfamiliar watering hole. Those things might eat or poison us, so we grew this collective fear of the unknown as a defense mechanism. Unfortunately, that mechanism has evolved with us and manifested in unforeseen ways.

Our cognitive evolution has gifted us with a brain that can think beyond the capacity of our primitive ancestors, and yet is still locked in the same "fear the unknown" mindset that informed day-to-day survival millions of years ago. When confronted with the unknown in our day-to-day life, our first reaction is almost an immediate threat analysis of "What is this thing and what will it do to me?" And when we cannot obtain those answers, we freak the fuck out. Not knowing the parameters of a potentially threatening situation can be terrifying; it's what Batman bases his whole goddamn philosophy for beating up criminals on.

And it exists at large in society too. Religion is a response to the fear of our own mortality, because it gives an understanding and explanation for what happens to us when we die; staring into the abyss is terrifying, but being told on the other side is a compassionate and loving deity makes the abyss a little less scary.

The root of racism and sexism is a fundamental fear and misunderstanding of one demographic by another. Protests of non-segregated schools didn't occur out of genuine hatred; they occurred because people didn't know how the introduction of another ethnicity would threaten their current, comfortable existence. It's why the predominant mentality against feminism isn't "I'm scared about what women might gain" but rather "I'm scared of what men might lose." And while homosexuality is becoming widely accepted now that people realize it's not some kind of threat to established societal institutions, there's still misunderstanding over bisexuality and transsexualism because there's still a general lack of knowledge in the public consciousness, which fuels caution and ignorance and elicits responses such as "bisexuality is just a phase" and "deep down, you're still a guy, right?"

Most people fear what they don't understand, and in my experience, emotions like hate or love can be the result of a fear over something else. "I hate that person who did better than me on a test . . . because I'm afraid I might not be the smartest anymore" and "I can't imagine living without my girlfriend . . . because I'm terrified of being alone" are scenarios we witness everyday.

WE'RE TERRIFIED OF BEING THE BAD GUYS

People love narratives. Storytelling is an ancient art, and it's our natural tendency to consume it because it's how we learn about life and the world, whether it's learning right from wrong through the stories of the Bible or Grimm's Fairy Tales. Storytelling is a multi-billion dollar industry whether it be books, films, comics, the news, or anything in between. It's a natural tendency to associate with relate-able characters and follow a protagonist through to a satisfactory conclusion, which is why we always feel a bit conflicted about rooting for villains or when good guys don't win.

In the context of our greater understanding of life, we think of ourselves as the hero in our own narrative. One thing we also share, however, is a fear of being the villain.

According to statistics, 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted. If you work in a public environment, look around, but don't look at the women, look at the men. In order for that statistic to be true, there have to be a lot of perpetrators, which means more than a few of the men you work with and see everyday are probably guilty, and some of them might be your friends or maybe even you. If you were to ask, however, I doubt anyone would honestly admit that they've ever sexually assaulted anyone. That means that there are two possibilities: either women have greatly exaggerated their stories of assault (and if you believe that, then you can fuck right off to an M.R.A. website) or the more likely scenario, that most men don't believe they've done anything wrong.

And that, dear readers, is the biggest obstacle to all advocacy.

No one wants to think or admit that they may be responsible for having done something wrong, whether its trying to convince yourself that at least YOU are not a racist after reading about a celebrity getting caught saying a racial slur even though you've probably said much worse (you just didn't get caught) or a college kid trying to convince himself he's not a rapist because he simply "misread" the signals a female friend was giving him before she passed out. Admitting that you've done something wrong - especially if doing so comes with a title that will forever haunt you such as "racist" or "rapist" - is practically a death sentence in polite society.

People will defend themselves to the death if it means never having to acknowledge a problem in a system they're comfortable with. It's why male gamers will scream about how sexism doesn't exist in gaming instead of admitting that their all-boys club has been exclusive for far too long; it's why white people will say racism isn't an issue anymore instead of admitting that their comfortable existence has come at the cost of repressing another ethnicity. It's why advocates will always have an uphill battle, because they often have to convince the general public that a problem exists, and they're the problem. People immediately get defensive when they feel they've been accused of something, regardless of whether they've actually done something wrong, which is why you can't throw around the term "white-privilege" without someone immediately yelling "but my family never owned slaves!"

And that's not to say that people on the other side of the fence are without fault too. I've encountered militant-advocats who are so staunchly entrenched in the notion that they are crusading on the side of the good and just that they resort to the same underhanded tactics and negative actions that they are supposed to be campaigning against. Everyone wants to be right, and the easiest way to assure yourself that you're righteous is to vilify your opposition, which is also the direct root of victim blaming.

Our minds are locked into very rigid constraints for what we think is socially acceptable, and rather than admit fault or acknowledge that we should change, we make excuses, hurl insults, or play mental gymnastics to convince ourselves we're in the right.

A FINAL THOUGHT . . .

These are some of the broader notions I've come to realize when trying to understand how people generally behave and operate. It's a lot easier to comprehend why someone behaves a certain way when you try to fully understand their motivations, priorities, and fears.

Have you ever had a friend who constantly talks about wanting to exercise, but when you show up to take them to the gym, they make any excuse not to? Ask yourself what their real priorities are. Have you ever met someone who makes a bad decision and excuses it by saying "I'm just a bad person"? Ask them whether they truly believe that or if they just want an excuse not to change their behaviour because that's the much tougher course of action.

Just don't take it too far and assume you know someone better than they know themselves and therefore think you know what's best for them, because in spite of everything you've just read, we very rarely can truly understand absolutely everything about another person. Unless you know someone's entire history - all their thoughts, feelings, and the extent of their goals and dreams - the only real life you have full authority over is your own. 

We're all still human at the end of the day, however, and a lot of our behaviours and ways of thinking come from the same biological mould.

We're all unique snowflakes, but we're still all made of snow.