Today we reviewed Captain Phasma, whose popularity has more to do with a cool design than anything she actually did on-screen. But unsurprisingly, there was at least one stunted man-child who never liked her at all.
Last August, the official Star Wars Facebook page posted info about an art contest, showcasing an image of Phasma by Seth Groves:
Some MRA-in-the-making named Cody Paul was not impressed: "Not to be sexist, but it's really hard to tell that's female armor for me." Whoever was running the account was ready to deal with the dumbness:
And boom goes the dynamite.
Cody may be an idiot, but he wasn't alone. For instance, here's mental superstar Kale Dolfin, bringing the "all lives matter" point of view to the argument:
She doesn't, dumbass. Phasma doesn't "have" to be female any more than Rey "has" to be female or Han Solo "has" to be male. That's the entire point, you 1950s chucklefuck. Unless the plot involves standing up to pee, no character "has" to be male, and unless the plot involves menstruation, no character "has" to be female. Captain Phasma is female for exactly one reason: that's what she is. Asking why she has to be female is as astoundingly dense as asking why Finn has to be black, with the only difference being that the people who would hold that point of view are smart enough to know that they need to stick to their hateful little Subreddit enclaves.
"Well actually, it's about ethics in space armor."
"whose popularity has more to do with a cool design than anything she actually did on-screen" ... so she is the new Boba Fett.
Social Justice Warrior Feminist Propaganda written by a brainwashed white knight mangina beta-male.
Hey look, Commissioner Gordon turned on the Sad Lonely Loser Signal, and Dumbfuckman raced to the scene! Watch him throw his trilby-rang in between pulling fistfuls of Flamin' Hot Cheetos out of his utility skort!
Imagine my amusement at finding this blog entry nearly a year later after the hype over the awful Force Awakens has worn off.
The point I was making, which escaped intellectually vacant SJWs, was that men and women have different physiology. Anyone who has taken a simple life drawing class understands this remedial difference. A difference in physicality, would demand a difference in design.
For instance, a man would find it difficult to wear skinny pants designed for a girl, who in most cases has no nads. A man needs a bit more room in the crotch area, to accommodate external genitalia. That's not a sexist and/or misogynist thing. That's a geometry thing.
Furthermore, if Phasma or Rey don't "have" to be female, then why did SJWs screech demands for equal representation for months before the film was released? Doesn't the very concept of equal representation demand a percentage of genitalia presence? In other words, if they don't have to be, then why do they have to be?
It seems that the producers wanted us to marvel at the equally represented females in the cast while simultaneously demanding that we ignore Phasma's swiveling hips. Or maybe they just wanted all praise and are using the pretense of sexism and/or misogyny to silence criticism. I'm guessing the latter.
Incidentally, the Finn/black man issue that you're shoehorning into this discussion is purely imaginary.
"Local Idiot Googles Own Name, Takes Umbrage with Toy Website"
Googles own name, drills down to, like, page five, and picks the least important site around to get mad at.
Also, what is it with misogynists being unable to parse sentence transitions? First those Gamergate morons, and now this. It's not "shoehorning" something when that thing is directly related...
It took you 363 days to be egotistical enough to search your own name and get indignant, so we were going to wait that same amount of time before responding. But then we figured fuck it, you're not worth remembering next year, so this response comes in only half that time.
You are entirely correct that women's clothes are a different shape to men's clothes. No one would deny that. However, that's not what you said. You wandered into a discussion that basically started with 'but I can't fap to this!!!' and bravely added 'what's the point of putting a girl in the movie if she's not going to look girly?'. Pretending now you meant otherwise is arguing in bad faith. If you'd meant to say 'that armour looks like it's designed to fit on a male body, not on a female body', you could have said that. But you didn't. Because it's not what you meant. What you meant was 'it doesn't have giant metal tits'. And as the Star Wars account pointed out, it's truly and actually worn by a woman, so clearly it fits her.
As for people getting mad about Finn, yes mate, we've seen the Free Beacon link. We ignored it, because it's entirely incorrect. A right-wing site being intellectually disingenuous simply to further its own skewed agenda? Imagine that! (You'll recognise that in most of the English-speaking world, that's known as 'lying', but 'both-sides-ism' means we're all supposed to pretend it happens equally everywhere, instead of mainly coming from those on the losing side of history.) To say that again in plain language: the author of that piece is not trustworthy. He lied. Facebook, 4chan and Twitter were awash in dumdums who got their tighty whitey robes in a twist, and if wasn't able to find any at the time, he wasn't looking.
It's funny you bring that up though, because while people ('people', quote/unquote) were getting mad at Finn and Disney and J.J. Abrams and S.J.W.s, you know what there wasn't? Anyone screeching for representation for months before the film. By the time anyone had any inkling what the film would be about, the casting had already been announced. And only a bloody idiot (or someone, for instance, arguing in bad faith) would equate the notion of 'you know, maybe Star Wars is already set when it comes to white boy heroes, it might be cool if the 21st century was time for somebody else to have a turn' with 'I DEMAND FEWER SPACE-PENISES OR ELSE!'
In short, if you're going to say stupidly sexist things online, you could at least have the integrity to stand behind them, rather than heading to the least relevant place you can find and going 'no, you see, what I was TRYING to say was--'. Because they'll still be stupidly sexist, but at least you won't be trying to lie.
"It's good armor, Kyle."
There was an "awful" Force Awakens? That's weird. You should have gone to see the good one, like everyone else did. They showed it in theatres and then released it on home video, so it was quite easy to find.
Force Awakens was terrible. It was just a rehash of A New Hope with some ripped-off elements from the EU thrown in.
As for Phasma, I think people are just confused why they made a big deal out of the first (movie) female stormtrooper then proceeded to make an entirely masculine design for that character. The character was barely even in the movie, too.
As for being a rehash, in the words of smarter folks than me, "That's not a bug, it's a feature." After the prequels (I like 'em, but we're talking about general fan reactions here), SW needed to have a strong, solid foundation rebuilt, so they could afford to try crazier new things. They needed to say "yes, things are different, but look at how familiar it is. This is still Star Wars, you still know what it is, now come along for this ride." You may not like that choice, and that's fine, but there's no denying that they did a terrific job of making the exact film they wanted to.
And as for Phasma? Man, you gotta think about the context of the question you're asking. Transpose it to literally any other army and see if it still makes sense. "Why is the US government making a big deal out of their first female frontline infantry soldier, when she's just wearing the same kind of uniform as all the men?"
(To say nothing of the fact that SW/Disney weren't the ones who made a big deal about it: I didn't even know the silver-armored character was a woman until the fans and press started talking about it. The studio just treated her like what she is: another soldier...)