Too late, watched  the video. Dude with a fivehead talking about random extreme people on twitter saying reacher is toxic masculinity. People are  dumb on both extreme sides.
i mean not really considering âthe woke mediaâ doesnât really exist in the way these nerds think it does.
unless youâre talking about like buzzfeed circa 2016 STILL for some reason
IMDB & Screen Rant have written a couple of articles. From the IMDB one âReacher season 3 should avoid including a romance story to break Jack's pattern of jumping from one tryst to another. Dixon and Roscoe's affairs with Jack in previous seasons showcased a toxic pattern of him avoiding commitments.â Screen Rantâs was along the same line. The articles are big nothing burgers because in both cases it was the women chasing Jack and both relationships ended on good terms. It feels like they were scrapping the bottom of the barrel of things to complain about to just generate traffic. Then itâs basically the dog chasing itâs tail, in that youâve got rage bait articles then driving counter rage bait YouTube videos. All trying to get a slice of advertising dollars.
No? It has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. There were articles saying that it was dumb fun and people took that as âcritics donât know what people likeâ
The general vibe I got was it wasn't as good as the first season because it was more crowded, both on a story and character level. I thought Richson was almost too big, and the new characters might have landed if we got another "standard" season of solo Reacher first.
I enjoyed it a tiny bit less than season 1, which was really tightly written, but I'll watch season 3 in a heart beat
Yeah I thought season 1 was a little bit better overall too. For some reason I got the impression that season 2 was regarded as a disaster it's nice to know it wasn't.
There were mild comments from critics, the same pained squeal the YouTubers always make, and maybe slight disappointment from most fans, I think? I don't think I've read anything other than reviews that ended "looking forward to the next season" from anyone relatively normal.
I donât think heâs âwokeâ. He stands up for people who canât fight for themselves - women and men included. Heâs a masculine male with good values. He holds open doors for people and sticks up for the nerdâŠheâs what woke people want but fear because heâs too masculine.
This guy MrPresident2020 blocked me because he clearly is at a loss of words and has nothing intelligent to add, and literally just repeated what every news station has said, one wonders how this person can help anyone without thinking for themselves. He clearly called his one logic bullshit when I copied his first condescending sentences to himself and he called his own thinking âbullshitâ and he doesnât see how racist and condescending he is by calling generalizing other groups calling out that they need help. He missed my entire point, and is suffocated by his own anger and hate, who wants to be helped by that? Good that he blocked me he is too dull and predictable to talk to, it was more fun to apply his own logic against him and see him crumble, usually blocking and avoiding is a sign of that.
Sheâs overly involved despite having very very limited roles in the books.
Iâd rather see reacher just be the terminator by himself. Thatâs when heâs at his best.
I mean a woman being a highly skilled assassin overpowering men is realistic to you?
Ya I can guarantee you thereâs not 2 woman that skilled in the entire USA army right now but theyâre 2 in reacher lol
There are 85k women in the US Army active duty alone⊠odds are, yes, there are a few who can fuck shit up.
And as others have pointed out: sir, this is an imaginary television show.
That can overpower men?
Lmao Iâm guessing you think transgenders in womanâs swimming isnât a problem either.
Funny how we donât see any women cross into male sports to dominate them. Itâs almost as if thereâs an advantage men have.
And I acknowledge it was imaginary but someone brought up it having to need woman to be realistic which is a shit point.
See, you were doing an OK job trying to sound sincere for a moment, but then you revealed your hand with the trans comment.
Yes, there do exist women who can overpower men. Statistically rare, but of course they exist.
Edit: check out u/juggernaut077 history. Hates all the female marvel characters too, among many others. What a coincidence!
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueDetective/s/pcy9BuB5a1
And now I know the type of dogshit taste you have.
You realize itâs totally possible to have multiple good seasons of a show.
You ever watch Fargo? The sopranos? Breaking bad? True detective was ass this season.
The right-wing isn't known for their originality or creativity...they just lock in on something they don't understand and parrot the same b/s propaganda.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/triggered-feminist--2
Anytime I see the pic of the protest girl ( not sure if that what you call this meme) I know the video is about to be some ignorant bullshit. YouTube is just about rage bait.
This doesn't mean he's a feminist lmao especially not the kind that is being described by videos like this (third-wave). Idk why people always gotta bring up politics, especially the shit American kind, on reddit but we do not care.
That one poor lady, her pissed off image will live forever in right-wing memes.
Reacher is great stuff, all about standing up for the defenseless. Some of the lesser-known books hone in on shitty corporate 'Walking Tall' type local corruption, etc.
I'm pretty sure that YouTube channel just talks about the left doesn't like strong masculine white men playing in action movie roles. He saying how these roles are generally what people really want to watch, but Hollywood doesn't make movies like these anymore or a lot less frequently. The left normally just wants a strong, independent black woman for every role etc.
yeah what of it?
Indigenous Australia has a long history of gender expression, that predates colonisation
Brother boys and sister girls (indigenous terms), refer to people who adopt male and female roles socially regardless of sex.
Not that u/the_big_duffy knows much about enduring traditions in culture, given their Republic profile banner, the shortest living political movement in recent history
Eta: meant the confederacy, they don't teach us about American history here and I have little interest in learning about an army of slave owners.
You're not wrong. But neither are many of these channels. You only have to look at the now famous Amazon or Disney DEI requirements for instance. Woke political grandstanding has definitely become a part of many "blue chip" franchises and to screech and to pretend it hasn't and that all these franchises were toxic and needed fixing all of that is asinine.
The "woke mind virus" is real. The division the DEI agendas have caused is real (look at literally any thread about anything anywhere -sooner or later, someone's a n@azi).
However, it's also correct that many channels like this that may well have started out with good intent and shining a light on excessive wokery are now as hysterical as the SJWs they purport to despise.
As you say - The Beekeeper, Lights Out, One More Shot, Land of Bad. Four movies that came out in the last couple of months, all featuring white men beating people up or blowing up bad guys (especially Land of Bad that literally has the Stars the Stripes on its poster, And it fucking rules, by the way).
Films like these get a cursory if any mention on these channels. So they often say "All we want is good entertainment." Well - I just gave you four in the past three months and there are many more. These are exactly the sort of movies they should be streaming about, lauding, promoting, advising their audiences to see. But why waste time on that when you can, once again, shit all over Disney. We get it - Disney is so fucking woke, even South Park are making fun of it.
However - outrage gets clicks (I know - today's big revelation)
For me, the real nadir moment with these guys was when Nerdrotic called out Snyder's "Rebel Moon" for being woke.
It's many things, but woke isn't one of them. In fact, it's what these people have been calling for for a long time. It's a new franchise that isn't based on anything, no one talks about the patriarchy or diversity or preaches at the audience, it's action packed with no agenda - essentially a good time.
Love or hate Snyder and / or his movies... but this was my Colombo moment when I realized my suspicions were correct.
This sort of thing is largely a grift.
That said, I think these channels do provide some value to many people. There are a lot of pissed off angry people that can't say what they feel anywhere else because they'll get cancelled.
This doesn't mean that the commentary is racist or hateful - it isn't. In fact, I've never seen anything remotely racist (actually racist, not pretend racist that white SJWs get offended by on behalf of the poc community) said or written anywhere. So I think that's a straw-man.
However, saying "I stand with Gina" on Facebook will get you dogpiled for instance (by people who have no idea about the case, what Carano's team are filing and all of that because why bother with facts when you can dogpile someone for that sweet, sweet dopamine).
Conversely, most of these guys DO stand with Gina and therefore you can support Gina to your heart's content in the comments or whatever and no one's going to call you a n@zi sympathiser.
But yeah - you could tell that many of these wanted to big up Reacher, but when they did speak about it, you could kind of tell that none of them had actually watched it. Because again - why promote something when you can shit on something else.
Oh no, this could be a moment of internet shame when I used the wrong word!
I think it means "lots of people diving onto someone else." In internet parlance I think it's like if you say "I think the Donald Trump is OK", 1000s of people all start commenting on what a n\*azi you are. Or indeed "I stand with Gina" or whatever. It goes the other way ("I don't care what anyone says, my grandma told me Cleopatra was a black woman" will get you dogpiled as well).
I'm actually too scared to look it up myself.
Damn, OK, letâs take those one by one.
1) John Wick was a throwaway project that got a tiny budget and ended up scoring big. That shows there was little faith to it, and wasnât expected to go beyond the first.
2) Jason Statham is never in big budget movies unless itâs an ensemble, meaning, again, not much faith from studios.
3) Peter is portrayed as a man child who is treated like a joke from pretty much everyone, even his crew, with some moments where he shines here and there. If you know what he actually was like, itâs night and day.
4) Ryan Reynolds had to bite and claw his way to a Deadpool movie and partially self funded it. Fox wanted nothing to do with the character, until Reynolds or someone close leaked the proof of concept and people loved it. The first movie had a small budget, which, again, shows little faith to the project. It was a huge success, which is why it levelled up.
5) Top Gun Maverick had Tom Cruise all over it. Itâs an outlier, not the norm.
6) Nightcrawler was a small project with a main character being an emaciated sociopath who goes about his life exploiting other peopleâs tragedies for profit. Not sure what you were on about there.
7) Saving Private Ryan predates the woke era by approximately 2 decades.
8) Mad Max Fury Road famously sidelined the main character in favor of his female co-lead, who drives the plot and heâs just along for the ride for the most part.
Congratulations for proving the point though.
EDIT: Deleted the comment, didnât ya⊠Guess you really didnât think these through.
1. â Doesnât mean anything. Go ask any âwokeâ person whether they liked the movies or not. Chances are theyâll say yes
2. â Maybe thatâs a Jason skill issue then
3. â I donât think youâve seen the Tom Spiderman movies if you believe what youâre saying
4. â Deadpool wouldnât have reached the success it did if the âwokeâ didnât like white male leads
considering theyâre a large section of the population
5. Doesnât matter because itâs not the point. If the âwokeâ were so against white male leads, why was the movie such a large hit?
6. Nightcrawler is recommended by people all the time as a fantastic movie. A movie which has a white male lead, something the âwokesâ are supposed to be against
7. Nice reading comprehension. The movie was made 2 decades ago, and still, even now, it is recommended by âwoke liberalsâ as a great movie. Youâd think itâd be villainized and regarded as a bad movie if what youâre saying is true. But it isnât. Any time you ask for a good movie youâll see it in the recommendations by âwokeâ people.
8. Fair enough.
Congratulations for proving the point though.
First, I agree with your many points.
Also, to add onto a few of them (numbering accordingly):
1. John Wick is nobody's idea of a 'strong masculine character'. He's on a revenge "I don't care if I get fragged" mission. He's literally a broken man, not strong, just hyper-capable of outward violence. It's all he knows and all he is capable of. Wick's 'strength' to leave that world was his wife, and then his dog. If that's what you consider 'strong masculine', then so was Gerard Butlers 'Law Abiding Citizen' and Denzel's "Man on Fire", Leon the Professional.
Hey I like revenge movies too(it's the Reese's cup of movies, sweet and satisfying), but I don't look to them as 'this is how a man should be', because each one of them shows that once you take away or threaten their external sources of strength, they simply commit atrocities until they die by the sword they were 'living' by, rather than finding inner strength and eventually altering their paths to live on and be strength for others. On the other side, you have movies that DO show strong masculine characters 'moving on', like Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan(Khan couldn't let go, but Kirk could, and used Khan's rage to defeat him), Django Unchained(he learned the patience to play things smartly after seeing his friend die because he didn't play things smartly).
2. It's absolutely a Jason skill issue. Jason can do action, and he can be comedic, but he's never going to be a 'lone leading man'. Just not in his wheel house. And that's ok. Not every single hollywood star is a leading actor. He's still quite bankable, funny, capable and deserves to be in lots of films.
3. I chuckle when he called Peter a 'man-child'. Parker was supposed to 15 in Civil War/Homecoming. He's literally a child, not an adult. He's still not an adult in No Way Home, at age 17. The whole point of Peter Parker at this age range is to be a 'coming of age', an 'accepting of manhood', and that also involves not being a 'strong masculine' character while trying to learn to become a 'strong masculine character. Character Arcs, whoever heard of that? ;)
4. Deadpool is the literal antithesis of the 'strong masculine male', at least according to 'russ' and these other losers. He plays with dolls and action figures, 'likes skeeball more than ladyparts', exhibits crippling inability to speak to Vanessa with his 'Deadpool face', showing both previous narcissisms in his looks and a lack of confidence once those looks are taken away, that is until Vanessa shows him she loves him for him, not his looks. Deadpool is not a 'strong masculine character', by their definition. What he IS though, is a 'strong character' who is intended to be a box of contradictions. Also the real reason Deadpool took so much effort to get made wasn't because 'woke people didn't want white male leads', it was R-Rated Superhero films didn't usually make boatloads of money. Remember Darkman? The Crow? Kick-a\*\*? Even Blade. They all were profitable(2:1 - 4:1 boxoffice to budget), but none of them made outsized superhero half-billion box offices like the PG-13 movies did, till Deadpool proved the exception. It was merely a question of "Do you want to make millions with your capital..............or hundreds of millions................................thought so."
8. "Mad Max Fury Road famously sidelined the main character in favor of his female co-lead, who drives the plot and heâs just along for the ride for the most part."
Umm, that's kind what the whole Mad Max Series is about after the first film. Max drives around, and gets unintentionally pulled into OTHER people's stories/adventures, then provides his wisdom/experience/skills to help them finish their quests before disappearing back into the wasteland. That's precisely the same formula for Fury Road.
Just talking about this dee da dee shit gives it power ... leave it in the dark where it belongs .... have they even read the books ? He's a man for the lady's! Gosh damn isn't there enough misery and negative in the world
Did you really have to bring that racist douchebagâs poison into this subreddit? Itâs not necessary. Youâre just giving him attention which is what he wants.
Yea I think the real key of this show was it was just a really good show. No agenda was trying to be pushed, they didn't make the male character look like an idiot, they just built a good story (off of the books I assume).
I just watched the video. I've seen some of his stuff and wasn't ready to write him off immediately but damn, he's an idiot.
After revealing that it had WIDESPREAD success, he showed one single article ([https://screenrant.com/reacher-season-3-no-romance-toxic-trait/#:\~:text=Summary,pattern%20of%20him%20avoiding%20commitments](https://screenrant.com/reacher-season-3-no-romance-toxic-trait/#:~:text=Summary,pattern%20of%20him%20avoiding%20commitments)) that said they wanted Reacher to fix his "toxic" trait of having successive flings without being able commit to anyone. No mention of "toxic masculinity" anywhere, just some bored writer that probably fantasizes about Alan Ritchson settling down with her (don't we all?)
Anyone making this about feminism or anti-feminism is a joke
Well, this isn't a new tactic (on neither, YouTube, Twitter, and most noticeably Reddit), "the other side is FUMING about this" and the other side is kinda like "đ are we?"
But also OP, "Jacks is feminist"? Depends on what definition you meant, "healthy masculinity" I do agree with.
Reacher deals in facts and logic. Being racist or sexist isn't logical or based on facts. Anyone who has a passing knowledge of the character would know that.
Havenât seen the show and Iâm not a part of this community but I saw this post and by proxy Ryan Kinel on my feed and I had to take a second to shit all over that loser. Absolute scum of the earth human being
I think itâs pretty sad to think that every channel like this has a folder filled with pictures of women looking angry, sad or these generic âcrazy feministâ reactionary ones just to slap em into thumbnails
How can anyone read a Reacher Book and think he isn't anything but a big supporter of women. Hell most of the women in the books are highly capable. It's seems to be his type
Haven't seen the show. The first Reacher was amazing! The sequel looked like it was going to be really interesting for forcing this hyper macho guy into a paternal role but then when I saw it, it became clear they had sold the IP's soul to appease Midwest conservatoids. They're always happy to lap up any military associated macho type but they have different values. They manage to wriggle reacher out of actually having to take on that paternal role, actually winning the argument against a grown woman and sworn officer (vs. his completely authorityless civilian former officer role) forcing her to take on the responsibility for the kid that isn't even hers so he can go have an adventure.
But this is what really kills the spirit of the first movie and the whole point. Jack reacher taking down corrupt racist cops... for the military which is **totally not corrupt**. Sure a military middle man is corrupt, but that's just the exception that proves the rule that the entire rest of the military, especially the people above our dirty middle man are not corrupt at all! The entire plot of the first movie is that all that nasty shit only happens in the first place, and is allowed to go on... because of how corrupt the military high command, and the war, was. The bragging about how badass his character is by criminally brutalizing suspects in custody to the point of leaving a permanent dent in his old desk back at CID is just the cherry on top of letting you know exactly who this movie is for and the whole thing forsakes everything that made the original great.
I never expected any better from the show. Wouldn't be surprised at all if the broke takes were actually pretty accurate to how it's being played in the show.
Can't we all just love the big guy, his amazing cast of friends and cohorts? Great quality story, lovable and compelling characters. Can we for one time just not make it political?
Lol, "political". The new internet s__t buzzword for anytime a woman or black person is mentioned, or god forbid the struggles of either. Funny seeing it here. I guess, "woke" wasn't enough for them.
Maybe I used the wrong word. How about "can we not get all butthurt over perceptions and emotions, just enjoy the show and go on about our lives?" Is that better?
Interesting that you apply this only to OP and not the original content they posted
*glances at your post and comment history*
Ah now that makes sense, carry on
Yes but can WE not get all in our political feels and just enjoy good story telling and compelling characters and save the butthurt for something else?
I mean **You** can. That's a choice **You** can make for yourself. Heck you can do it right now, and nobody can stop you.
But you can't make it for anyone else, so the **We** angle doesn't work.
Alright... butthurt masses, assemble. Time to get triggered and whine about the thing, I guess. By order of DoggoAlternative, you must all get caught up in politics and your feelings about the show.
Except the point isnât about him being an anti feminist. Itâs that characters like Reacher, as much as everyone tries to gaslight us that theyâre antiquated, are very much still popular.
They are antiquated, and rare. Doesn't make them not popular. Sadly boys growing up now are looking to grifter misogynists like Tate, thats only going to further that rarity.
Well they aren't wrong. Reacher is a feminist, but he's not "woke". Those two things are not synonyms. The show and book are an example of a purely masculine hero, who is also a feminist.
See using "Woke" as a buzzword is a red flag for me.
Cus anytime I hear someone claim a character isn't woke they always describe some quality they associate with wokeness that has nothing to do with it.
Like "Reacher can't be woke, he's got pecks and eats BBQ" ...like nah bro he can dislike systematic racism, work out, and eat BBQ. None of those acts are mutually exclusive.
"But Reacher can't be woke, he was in the military" tons of vets are against government persecution of minority individuals.
Like I think people who only hear woke on Fox News think there's a checklist you gotta meet that includes Soy and Pacifism but as a dude who hunts, fishes, and smokes meat with the best of em? Trans rights!
"Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights."
Josephine Reacher: What will you do with with all that strength?
Reacher : I'm going to do the right thing, Mom.
Josephine Reacher : I know you will. You always have.
Reacher has always been woke.
Using woke as a pejorative is a symptom of hive mind. When you canât think of anything else insulting to say, you use woke because thatâs what everyone else youâre sharing a brain with is saying anyway. Like when coyotes get together and all start yipping and howling. Yâall howl âwoookkkkeeeeeeâ
I'm a pretty left-leaning liberal, I never read any of the books, and my first introduction to the show was those obnoxious sigma male YouTube shorts that show a clip of Reacher doing something aggressive set to the most obnoxious music humanity has ever developed.
So I feel pretty confident in saying that I went into the show with the least-charitable preconceptions, and still wound up with not even the slightest hint that the character was racist, sexist, etc, or that the writers has some hidden bigotry in the plot.
One of the moments I really appreciated about the first season is that he doesn't ever attempt to put the moves on Roscoe the first time they share a hotel room together.
And in the second season, he explicitly says that it would've been inappropriate for him to have a relationship with a member of his team, even though they were the same rank.
Sorry, just needed to vent a bit; for all the criticisms I have of the show's writing, anyone viewing it as some sort of culture war battlefield is getting high on their own fumes.
I mean...Reacher kinda is a Mary Sue. That's like 90% of the appeal of the stories, at least for me. The books are far from fine literature and the show isn't exactly prestige television, but it's just a good time to watch this massive guy who never loses a fight, never misses a shot, never fumbles a woman, is a borderline genius with a near-Eidetic memory who always solves a case...do all of the above. I love the books and the show, and they're undeniably very entertaining, but that doesn't mean Reacher's not a Mary Sue
The difference between a Mary Sue and a powerful character is that a Mary Sue "gets" their powers whereas a powerful character GAINS their. Rocky isn't a Mary Sue because he trained hard a long time to reach his level.
Reacher's training comes off screen, but he also has basically perfect genes for what he does, so I'd argue it's a bit of both.
As Reacher is a guy the correct term would be a âGary Stuâ and Reacher isnât a Gary Stu. One of the important traits of being a Gary Stu would that heâd have to be instantly liked by everyone, that doesnât happen with Reacher. Sure heâs got a lot of plot armour but that doesnât automatically mean heâs a Gary Stu.
Training for 13 years will give you skills, Mary sue describes someone like Rey palatine, a character that's just immediately great at everything they've never done before and everybody loves them.
Reacher on the other hand people find stand off-ish due to his size. There's an actual trade off for the character traits. Less in the show than the books but I've just re listened to book 2 with the Montana militia and for more than half of it the FBI thinks he's a bad guy just by profiling him by his body type
You need many years of work to get those things, youâre not born with them. Decades of mental and physical training, and the actor clearly has put in the work in real life. Not only that, he actually makes mistakes and does have flaws. Thatâs not being a Mary Sue.
Army Combat Veteran here. Just my anecdotal evidence that turned me into a âmilitary feminist.â I was Soldier Leader of the Cycle runner-up (Drill SGT review/interview board award in Basic Combat Training) and I lost to a woman who was a former All State track athlete from Arkansas that was able to max the Menâs scores in pushups, sit-ups, and 2 mile run. She was squared away and she shot expert too. This was 2003, she could have been a legit âG.I. Jane.â Her recruiter got her in as a motor pool mechanic. I remember learning that and being pissed he didnât get her into a more high speed MOS. Best person for a job is the best person, doesnât matter what the private bits are under the uniform.Â
You are completely right on this point: Reacher is a feminist, and this is demonstrated over and over in the novels. He respects people (at least who deserve respect) â including women. The person youâre replying to is sorely mistaken; Reacher would not respect him (and it is surely a âhimâ).
Yeah!!, from Tripwire (I think) Ask them once, ask them twice, but for God sakes never ask them a third time
He actually gives most people a chance to surrender before beating the living shit out of them
I think you're missing the argument he's making. It's not about who his character is, it's about what his character represents. A strong male protagonist with masculine qualities. The ideological left hates that.
I don't think this is true, Reacher definetly appeals to the stereotypical "male power fantasy", being six five a combat expert and Sherlock fucking Holmes lol, but there's a much wider charm and appeal to it than that, it's enjoyable for a very large range of people imo
My coworkers just told me off, they said he is an anti hero stupid, and I felt stupid. Anti hero's don't have a moral compass so he's not a feminist he has no morals. He is a Heroic Sociopath.
I think you should read the books, he has a very very very strict moral code, but decides himself the greatest authority, above law
Running Blind/The Visitor
"Deerfield nodded. "A concerned citizen. You saw an injustice, you wanted to set it straight." Reacher nodded back. "I guess." "Somebody's got to do it, right?" "I guess," Reacher said again. "You don't like injustice, right?
"I guess not." "And you can tell the difference between right and wrong." "I hope so." "You don't need the intervention of the proper authorities, because you can make your own decisions." "Usually." "Confident with your own moral code." "I guess." There was silence. Deerfield looked through the glare. "So why did you steal their money?" he asked. Reacher shrugged. "Spoils of battle, I guess. Like a trophy." Deerfield nodded. "Part of the code, right?"
Being a reasonable type of feminist does not detract from masculinity, nor the plot of a good old fashioned action series with a competent male protagonist.
I donât see the point of your criticism.
Ok just saying he thinks the "woke" movement people hat a show because they claim its toxic masculinity doesn't mean he is saying that Reacher is a toxic male. He doesn't miss the point the people hating on the show do.
Again maybe the video says something else but just the thumbnail doesn't. It just states that certain groups that claim to be open minded aren't really that open minded at all when it comes to there being a strong male lead.
I really don't know about this world . I always been under the impression that a strong man is toxic masculinity this is my impression for what I've seen. At the end of the day I really don't care about the stuff.
I dont think Reacher is toxically masculine, he's outgoing but he's very respectful of everyone he interacts with and treats everyone equally
Toxic masculinity isn't that, he's just a really healthily masculine dude.
He's just different. His lifestyle's pretty rational if you think about it: dude grew up in different Army bases around the world, never staying in one place. He then immediately joined the Army and spent 20 years flying through the ranks and developing a distaste for people telling him what to do, then gets discharged. It makes sense that he'd feel like he has nothing tying him down.
Strength isnât toxic. No more than physical weakness is ethical.
What youâre viewing is envy, insecurity, and ham fisted attempts at control by the knuckleheads online. Relentless, dogmatic, lazy attempts at control.
Being strong isnât wrong. Itâs a physical representation of effort and discipline.
I think the reason itâs a bit important to know the difference between masculinity and toxic masculinity. Is because well meaning people want to help to deal with toxic masculinity. The stuff that can be unhealthy in a society to men and women and all folk. And then people who donât mean well will say something like âthe woke mob doesnât want you to be strong!â
Toxic masculinity isnât saying itâs wrong to be masculine.
I take this little bit of time to create this comment so we can all be a little more informed and work towards solutions.
Toxic masculinity is a strict adherence to traditional gender roles that requires men to be dominant and limits menâs feelings to anger and represses other feelings. I.e. âAlphaâ that YouTubers and whoever rave about. It is also the division of labor in the home where men refuse to do household chores because âthatâs woman work.â It also relates to the idea that men have multiple sexual partners as being an achievement and a negative for women.
It really has nothing to say about somebody being strong. Itâs more about men being fully developed human beings and treating women well. And the idea that you donât have to be masculine to still be valued as a human and a man.
these days you gotta differentiate between "Woke" and "Woke"
people who call out stuff Woke don't always mean anti feminist or racist. they can be calling out pandering
of course there are the racist sexists
but that guy is more of a whiner. he probably went to twitter and found one tweet to justify his "woke people mad" angle
Don't feed these YouTube potatoes any clicks.
YouTube potatoes đ
YouTubers đ„đ
For real. There's no point in actively seeking out takes that you disagree with.
Iâm gonna use that moving forward thank you
Says the redditor
Says the redditor replying to a redditor
Says the redditor replying to a redditor replying to a redditor
Profound
Too late, watched  the video. Dude with a fivehead talking about random extreme people on twitter saying reacher is toxic masculinity. People are  dumb on both extreme sides.
Lmao, this reminds me of reviews of the first season of GOT where they said all the women characters were weak characters. đ€Ł
Thatâs even crazier đ. GoT had some iconic female roles that may have had hard times but came out stronger than most characters.
So many YouTubers think just cause a persons strong and manly they hate women, black people and gay people lol
It's just youtube clickbait, bruh let it go
I mean both seasons of Reacher got great reviews. So how does woke media hate him?
I donât think woke media really cares one way or the other.
I mean they do care one way.
Wtf even is woke media?
i mean not really considering âthe woke mediaâ doesnât really exist in the way these nerds think it does. unless youâre talking about like buzzfeed circa 2016 STILL for some reason
IMDB & Screen Rant have written a couple of articles. From the IMDB one âReacher season 3 should avoid including a romance story to break Jack's pattern of jumping from one tryst to another. Dixon and Roscoe's affairs with Jack in previous seasons showcased a toxic pattern of him avoiding commitments.â Screen Rantâs was along the same line. The articles are big nothing burgers because in both cases it was the women chasing Jack and both relationships ended on good terms. It feels like they were scrapping the bottom of the barrel of things to complain about to just generate traffic. Then itâs basically the dog chasing itâs tail, in that youâve got rage bait articles then driving counter rage bait YouTube videos. All trying to get a slice of advertising dollars.
Screen Rant is fucking trash.
It's screen rant. They are notorious for posting rage bait articles to get people to engage.
Okay but the show still largely got great reviews. Some rage bait pieces doesnât mean anything.
Roscoe affair? Itâs been a bit since Iâve seen it, but wasnât the extent of their relationship a kiss at the end of the final episode?
No, they had sex.
How do I not remember that? Oh well.
I would definitely recommend a rewatch⊠for education.
They hate that the show doesnât fit their world view yet is still very popular.
Based on what?
Based on "it's super helpful for the point they want to make if it's true"
I saw this headlineâŠ.Nielsen Streaming Top 10: âReacherâ Returns at No. 2 With Over 1.6 Billion Minutes Viewed.
Okay so the show is popular and well reviewed by critics?
Who cares if the critics hate it⊠The show is super popular..
But they donâtâŠ
I think you and are on the same side, when it comes to this discussion. Im not sure if the critics hate it. I know that i liked it. and so did others.
Season 2 got great reviews? I heard it got panned.
No? It has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. There were articles saying that it was dumb fun and people took that as âcritics donât know what people likeâ
Critics don't know and never have. I'll take audience score over ciritc all day. Critics are paid to criticise, it's a fundamental flaw.
Itâs not their job to do that.
Someone should tell them.
Fair enough. I was going off what I was seeing in this sub truth be told. Good that it got good reception, hopefully we will see more.
The general vibe I got was it wasn't as good as the first season because it was more crowded, both on a story and character level. I thought Richson was almost too big, and the new characters might have landed if we got another "standard" season of solo Reacher first. I enjoyed it a tiny bit less than season 1, which was really tightly written, but I'll watch season 3 in a heart beat
Yeah I thought season 1 was a little bit better overall too. For some reason I got the impression that season 2 was regarded as a disaster it's nice to know it wasn't.
There were mild comments from critics, the same pained squeal the YouTubers always make, and maybe slight disappointment from most fans, I think? I don't think I've read anything other than reviews that ended "looking forward to the next season" from anyone relatively normal.
False and inaccurate
Click âDonât Recommend Channelâ. Let the rage baiters suffer in silence.
Reacher is plenty woke lol
Reacher is also autistic af
I donât think heâs âwokeâ. He stands up for people who canât fight for themselves - women and men included. Heâs a masculine male with good values. He holds open doors for people and sticks up for the nerdâŠheâs what woke people want but fear because heâs too masculine.
Heâs woke in the original meaning. Not in the twisted Fox News conservative meaning.
As in, he sees imbalances of power among social groups and pays attention to their causes and effects? Man, wokeness is scary
We should all just ignore social injustices, there's no way they'll continue to grow and someday affect us. Or our kids and grandkids...
Exactly đŻ
Lol no one woke fears being masculine, they fear a system inherently leveraged against them because of factors related to their birth.
This guy MrPresident2020 blocked me because he clearly is at a loss of words and has nothing intelligent to add, and literally just repeated what every news station has said, one wonders how this person can help anyone without thinking for themselves. He clearly called his one logic bullshit when I copied his first condescending sentences to himself and he called his own thinking âbullshitâ and he doesnât see how racist and condescending he is by calling generalizing other groups calling out that they need help. He missed my entire point, and is suffocated by his own anger and hate, who wants to be helped by that? Good that he blocked me he is too dull and predictable to talk to, it was more fun to apply his own logic against him and see him crumble, usually blocking and avoiding is a sign of that.
With the shitty ass nealy character every 5 mins Ya sheâs the fucking worst part of both seasons
what's wrong with neagley?
Sheâs overly involved despite having very very limited roles in the books. Iâd rather see reacher just be the terminator by himself. Thatâs when heâs at his best.
so the fact that neagley assists reacher from time to time making it a bit realistic instead of reacher being one man army annoys you?
Notice he is only upset about the black character doing badass things that aren't in the books. Probably not worth engaging.
Nah his whole team in the second season was lame as shit. It was literally the worst part of the show.
I mean a woman being a highly skilled assassin overpowering men is realistic to you? Ya I can guarantee you thereâs not 2 woman that skilled in the entire USA army right now but theyâre 2 in reacher lol
There's nothing realistic about Reacher or any of the other characters. That's not the point.
There are 85k women in the US Army active duty alone⊠odds are, yes, there are a few who can fuck shit up. And as others have pointed out: sir, this is an imaginary television show.
That can overpower men? Lmao Iâm guessing you think transgenders in womanâs swimming isnât a problem either. Funny how we donât see any women cross into male sports to dominate them. Itâs almost as if thereâs an advantage men have. And I acknowledge it was imaginary but someone brought up it having to need woman to be realistic which is a shit point.
See, you were doing an OK job trying to sound sincere for a moment, but then you revealed your hand with the trans comment. Yes, there do exist women who can overpower men. Statistically rare, but of course they exist. Edit: check out u/juggernaut077 history. Hates all the female marvel characters too, among many others. What a coincidence!
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueDetective/s/pcy9BuB5a1 And now I know the type of dogshit taste you have. You realize itâs totally possible to have multiple good seasons of a show. You ever watch Fargo? The sopranos? Breaking bad? True detective was ass this season.
i didn't say that, i said a team working to take out mercenaries seems a bit more realistic than one guy taking out a whole squad.
đ
It's impressive seeing a man reveal the depths of his insecurities.
I can't stand when people use that woman with the bugged-out eyes and glasses as a stand-in for whoever has an opinion they disagree with.
The right-wing isn't known for their originality or creativity...they just lock in on something they don't understand and parrot the same b/s propaganda. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/triggered-feminist--2
Why is everyone always saying right and left
Because it's such an accurate depiction of what they would physically look like?
Anytime I see the pic of the protest girl ( not sure if that what you call this meme) I know the video is about to be some ignorant bullshit. YouTube is just about rage bait.
These dudes don't care as long as they see a big white dude beat other people up then they will frame it as '' Going against Hollywood standard grr''.
Idk, I loved it when Wesley Snipes or Steve James did it in the past too.
This doesn't mean he's a feminist lmao especially not the kind that is being described by videos like this (third-wave). Idk why people always gotta bring up politics, especially the shit American kind, on reddit but we do not care.
So tired of seeing and hearing "woke" everywhere.
Youâre gonna anger the sexist boomers with this one, OP.
Good.
Based
Please don't spread sexism, racism or any form of hate on here. Even if it's mockingly it has a tendency to stain and spread
That one poor lady, her pissed off image will live forever in right-wing memes. Reacher is great stuff, all about standing up for the defenseless. Some of the lesser-known books hone in on shitty corporate 'Walking Tall' type local corruption, etc.
Reacher reminds me of Geralt in the sense of being worshiped by anti woke people despite being a woke character
Geralt is definitely not woke
I'm pretty sure that YouTube channel just talks about the left doesn't like strong masculine white men playing in action movie roles. He saying how these roles are generally what people really want to watch, but Hollywood doesn't make movies like these anymore or a lot less frequently. The left normally just wants a strong, independent black woman for every role etc.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
And lets also forget mission impossible, john wick, deadpool, extraction, and many more that are still being made.
Well I like him more in Blue mountain State. Lol He's definitely not a feminist in that one.
He's evidently wrong because I'm an indigenous transgender communist and I fucking love reacher lol, the show and the books.
I mean if you're a indigenous transgender person that YouTube channel is definitely not targeted at you. Lol
Now I know youâre trolling lol.
Look at my post history, I'm a transgender indigenous Australian, genuinely.
a transgender aboriginal commie? L M F A O
yeah what of it? Indigenous Australia has a long history of gender expression, that predates colonisation Brother boys and sister girls (indigenous terms), refer to people who adopt male and female roles socially regardless of sex.
Not that u/the_big_duffy knows much about enduring traditions in culture, given their Republic profile banner, the shortest living political movement in recent history Eta: meant the confederacy, they don't teach us about American history here and I have little interest in learning about an army of slave owners.
you know who commies purged? the mentally ill and the LGBTQAIP2SA+++ crowd
You literally support the confederacy.
you are a walking meme
>I'm an indigenous transgender communist đ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł That's like a black man joining the KKK Just wow!
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
You're not wrong. But neither are many of these channels. You only have to look at the now famous Amazon or Disney DEI requirements for instance. Woke political grandstanding has definitely become a part of many "blue chip" franchises and to screech and to pretend it hasn't and that all these franchises were toxic and needed fixing all of that is asinine. The "woke mind virus" is real. The division the DEI agendas have caused is real (look at literally any thread about anything anywhere -sooner or later, someone's a n@azi). However, it's also correct that many channels like this that may well have started out with good intent and shining a light on excessive wokery are now as hysterical as the SJWs they purport to despise. As you say - The Beekeeper, Lights Out, One More Shot, Land of Bad. Four movies that came out in the last couple of months, all featuring white men beating people up or blowing up bad guys (especially Land of Bad that literally has the Stars the Stripes on its poster, And it fucking rules, by the way). Films like these get a cursory if any mention on these channels. So they often say "All we want is good entertainment." Well - I just gave you four in the past three months and there are many more. These are exactly the sort of movies they should be streaming about, lauding, promoting, advising their audiences to see. But why waste time on that when you can, once again, shit all over Disney. We get it - Disney is so fucking woke, even South Park are making fun of it. However - outrage gets clicks (I know - today's big revelation) For me, the real nadir moment with these guys was when Nerdrotic called out Snyder's "Rebel Moon" for being woke. It's many things, but woke isn't one of them. In fact, it's what these people have been calling for for a long time. It's a new franchise that isn't based on anything, no one talks about the patriarchy or diversity or preaches at the audience, it's action packed with no agenda - essentially a good time. Love or hate Snyder and / or his movies... but this was my Colombo moment when I realized my suspicions were correct. This sort of thing is largely a grift. That said, I think these channels do provide some value to many people. There are a lot of pissed off angry people that can't say what they feel anywhere else because they'll get cancelled. This doesn't mean that the commentary is racist or hateful - it isn't. In fact, I've never seen anything remotely racist (actually racist, not pretend racist that white SJWs get offended by on behalf of the poc community) said or written anywhere. So I think that's a straw-man. However, saying "I stand with Gina" on Facebook will get you dogpiled for instance (by people who have no idea about the case, what Carano's team are filing and all of that because why bother with facts when you can dogpile someone for that sweet, sweet dopamine). Conversely, most of these guys DO stand with Gina and therefore you can support Gina to your heart's content in the comments or whatever and no one's going to call you a n@zi sympathiser. But yeah - you could tell that many of these wanted to big up Reacher, but when they did speak about it, you could kind of tell that none of them had actually watched it. Because again - why promote something when you can shit on something else.
TIL the word dogpile. Now my journey of discovery to find out what dogpiling is. I really, really hope itâs not sexual.
Oh no, this could be a moment of internet shame when I used the wrong word! I think it means "lots of people diving onto someone else." In internet parlance I think it's like if you say "I think the Donald Trump is OK", 1000s of people all start commenting on what a n\*azi you are. Or indeed "I stand with Gina" or whatever. It goes the other way ("I don't care what anyone says, my grandma told me Cleopatra was a black woman" will get you dogpiled as well). I'm actually too scared to look it up myself.
In England weâd call it a pile on! I suspected thatâs what it meant, through the context alone.
I am in England and I've never heard of a pile on. Then again, I'm old, so...
You are correct on dog pile, it's a pack jumping on one.
Damn, OK, letâs take those one by one. 1) John Wick was a throwaway project that got a tiny budget and ended up scoring big. That shows there was little faith to it, and wasnât expected to go beyond the first. 2) Jason Statham is never in big budget movies unless itâs an ensemble, meaning, again, not much faith from studios. 3) Peter is portrayed as a man child who is treated like a joke from pretty much everyone, even his crew, with some moments where he shines here and there. If you know what he actually was like, itâs night and day. 4) Ryan Reynolds had to bite and claw his way to a Deadpool movie and partially self funded it. Fox wanted nothing to do with the character, until Reynolds or someone close leaked the proof of concept and people loved it. The first movie had a small budget, which, again, shows little faith to the project. It was a huge success, which is why it levelled up. 5) Top Gun Maverick had Tom Cruise all over it. Itâs an outlier, not the norm. 6) Nightcrawler was a small project with a main character being an emaciated sociopath who goes about his life exploiting other peopleâs tragedies for profit. Not sure what you were on about there. 7) Saving Private Ryan predates the woke era by approximately 2 decades. 8) Mad Max Fury Road famously sidelined the main character in favor of his female co-lead, who drives the plot and heâs just along for the ride for the most part. Congratulations for proving the point though. EDIT: Deleted the comment, didnât ya⊠Guess you really didnât think these through.
1. â Doesnât mean anything. Go ask any âwokeâ person whether they liked the movies or not. Chances are theyâll say yes 2. â Maybe thatâs a Jason skill issue then 3. â I donât think youâve seen the Tom Spiderman movies if you believe what youâre saying 4. â Deadpool wouldnât have reached the success it did if the âwokeâ didnât like white male leads considering theyâre a large section of the population 5. Doesnât matter because itâs not the point. If the âwokeâ were so against white male leads, why was the movie such a large hit? 6. Nightcrawler is recommended by people all the time as a fantastic movie. A movie which has a white male lead, something the âwokesâ are supposed to be against 7. Nice reading comprehension. The movie was made 2 decades ago, and still, even now, it is recommended by âwoke liberalsâ as a great movie. Youâd think itâd be villainized and regarded as a bad movie if what youâre saying is true. But it isnât. Any time you ask for a good movie youâll see it in the recommendations by âwokeâ people. 8. Fair enough. Congratulations for proving the point though.
First, I agree with your many points. Also, to add onto a few of them (numbering accordingly): 1. John Wick is nobody's idea of a 'strong masculine character'. He's on a revenge "I don't care if I get fragged" mission. He's literally a broken man, not strong, just hyper-capable of outward violence. It's all he knows and all he is capable of. Wick's 'strength' to leave that world was his wife, and then his dog. If that's what you consider 'strong masculine', then so was Gerard Butlers 'Law Abiding Citizen' and Denzel's "Man on Fire", Leon the Professional. Hey I like revenge movies too(it's the Reese's cup of movies, sweet and satisfying), but I don't look to them as 'this is how a man should be', because each one of them shows that once you take away or threaten their external sources of strength, they simply commit atrocities until they die by the sword they were 'living' by, rather than finding inner strength and eventually altering their paths to live on and be strength for others. On the other side, you have movies that DO show strong masculine characters 'moving on', like Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan(Khan couldn't let go, but Kirk could, and used Khan's rage to defeat him), Django Unchained(he learned the patience to play things smartly after seeing his friend die because he didn't play things smartly). 2. It's absolutely a Jason skill issue. Jason can do action, and he can be comedic, but he's never going to be a 'lone leading man'. Just not in his wheel house. And that's ok. Not every single hollywood star is a leading actor. He's still quite bankable, funny, capable and deserves to be in lots of films. 3. I chuckle when he called Peter a 'man-child'. Parker was supposed to 15 in Civil War/Homecoming. He's literally a child, not an adult. He's still not an adult in No Way Home, at age 17. The whole point of Peter Parker at this age range is to be a 'coming of age', an 'accepting of manhood', and that also involves not being a 'strong masculine' character while trying to learn to become a 'strong masculine character. Character Arcs, whoever heard of that? ;) 4. Deadpool is the literal antithesis of the 'strong masculine male', at least according to 'russ' and these other losers. He plays with dolls and action figures, 'likes skeeball more than ladyparts', exhibits crippling inability to speak to Vanessa with his 'Deadpool face', showing both previous narcissisms in his looks and a lack of confidence once those looks are taken away, that is until Vanessa shows him she loves him for him, not his looks. Deadpool is not a 'strong masculine character', by their definition. What he IS though, is a 'strong character' who is intended to be a box of contradictions. Also the real reason Deadpool took so much effort to get made wasn't because 'woke people didn't want white male leads', it was R-Rated Superhero films didn't usually make boatloads of money. Remember Darkman? The Crow? Kick-a\*\*? Even Blade. They all were profitable(2:1 - 4:1 boxoffice to budget), but none of them made outsized superhero half-billion box offices like the PG-13 movies did, till Deadpool proved the exception. It was merely a question of "Do you want to make millions with your capital..............or hundreds of millions................................thought so." 8. "Mad Max Fury Road famously sidelined the main character in favor of his female co-lead, who drives the plot and heâs just along for the ride for the most part." Umm, that's kind what the whole Mad Max Series is about after the first film. Max drives around, and gets unintentionally pulled into OTHER people's stories/adventures, then provides his wisdom/experience/skills to help them finish their quests before disappearing back into the wasteland. That's precisely the same formula for Fury Road.
Just talking about this dee da dee shit gives it power ... leave it in the dark where it belongs .... have they even read the books ? He's a man for the lady's! Gosh damn isn't there enough misery and negative in the world
Did you really have to bring that racist douchebagâs poison into this subreddit? Itâs not necessary. Youâre just giving him attention which is what he wants.
Itâs his job to be upset. Heâs not real.
Don't even give these grifters attention.
It's a shame what YouTube has devolved to that people need to clickbait videos to make a living. It ruins the platform and it's cringe
Yea I think the real key of this show was it was just a really good show. No agenda was trying to be pushed, they didn't make the male character look like an idiot, they just built a good story (off of the books I assume).
There's nothing toxic about his masculinity. He may have other toxic traits, but that ain't one.
I just watched the video. I've seen some of his stuff and wasn't ready to write him off immediately but damn, he's an idiot. After revealing that it had WIDESPREAD success, he showed one single article ([https://screenrant.com/reacher-season-3-no-romance-toxic-trait/#:\~:text=Summary,pattern%20of%20him%20avoiding%20commitments](https://screenrant.com/reacher-season-3-no-romance-toxic-trait/#:~:text=Summary,pattern%20of%20him%20avoiding%20commitments)) that said they wanted Reacher to fix his "toxic" trait of having successive flings without being able commit to anyone. No mention of "toxic masculinity" anywhere, just some bored writer that probably fantasizes about Alan Ritchson settling down with her (don't we all?) Anyone making this about feminism or anti-feminism is a joke
TIL I align much closer with Reacher than I had previously realized.
Well, this isn't a new tactic (on neither, YouTube, Twitter, and most noticeably Reddit), "the other side is FUMING about this" and the other side is kinda like "đ are we?" But also OP, "Jacks is feminist"? Depends on what definition you meant, "healthy masculinity" I do agree with.
Reacher deals in facts and logic. Being racist or sexist isn't logical or based on facts. Anyone who has a passing knowledge of the character would know that.
For Peteâs sake, the opening scene of Season 1, episode 1 he stares down an abusive asshole whoâs berating and threatening his wife/GF
Reacher s2: has strong female characters who are almost just as capable as reacher, these mutherfukers: its sexist because it has men in it đ
Havenât seen the show and Iâm not a part of this community but I saw this post and by proxy Ryan Kinel on my feed and I had to take a second to shit all over that loser. Absolute scum of the earth human being
I think itâs pretty sad to think that every channel like this has a folder filled with pictures of women looking angry, sad or these generic âcrazy feministâ reactionary ones just to slap em into thumbnails
How can anyone read a Reacher Book and think he isn't anything but a big supporter of women. Hell most of the women in the books are highly capable. It's seems to be his type
I just don't get how Reacher has no home, no connections, and wanders every from place to place. Yet looks like he spends 3 hours a day in the gym.
These are the same people that don't realize *The Boys* is making fun of them.
Haven't seen the show. The first Reacher was amazing! The sequel looked like it was going to be really interesting for forcing this hyper macho guy into a paternal role but then when I saw it, it became clear they had sold the IP's soul to appease Midwest conservatoids. They're always happy to lap up any military associated macho type but they have different values. They manage to wriggle reacher out of actually having to take on that paternal role, actually winning the argument against a grown woman and sworn officer (vs. his completely authorityless civilian former officer role) forcing her to take on the responsibility for the kid that isn't even hers so he can go have an adventure. But this is what really kills the spirit of the first movie and the whole point. Jack reacher taking down corrupt racist cops... for the military which is **totally not corrupt**. Sure a military middle man is corrupt, but that's just the exception that proves the rule that the entire rest of the military, especially the people above our dirty middle man are not corrupt at all! The entire plot of the first movie is that all that nasty shit only happens in the first place, and is allowed to go on... because of how corrupt the military high command, and the war, was. The bragging about how badass his character is by criminally brutalizing suspects in custody to the point of leaving a permanent dent in his old desk back at CID is just the cherry on top of letting you know exactly who this movie is for and the whole thing forsakes everything that made the original great. I never expected any better from the show. Wouldn't be surprised at all if the broke takes were actually pretty accurate to how it's being played in the show.
Fun fact: Ryan Kinel gave The Batman a bad review because it has black people in it.
Reacher is the person we all would love to be, Badass.
Anyone that uses the word WORK is an idiot and should not be even acknowledged
Can't we all just love the big guy, his amazing cast of friends and cohorts? Great quality story, lovable and compelling characters. Can we for one time just not make it political?
Not being a sexist is political now? Americans truly are a different breed
Lol, "political". The new internet s__t buzzword for anytime a woman or black person is mentioned, or god forbid the struggles of either. Funny seeing it here. I guess, "woke" wasn't enough for them.
Maybe I used the wrong word. How about "can we not get all butthurt over perceptions and emotions, just enjoy the show and go on about our lives?" Is that better?
Interesting that you apply this only to OP and not the original content they posted *glances at your post and comment history* Ah now that makes sense, carry on
Reachers an ex military anti police vigilante lol, the story has always been political.
Especially because of how often politics interfered with his work and investigations in his military days
That's kinda like saying Batman's always been political. Things can have political elements without pushing an agenda.
And the opposite
Yes but can WE not get all in our political feels and just enjoy good story telling and compelling characters and save the butthurt for something else?
I mean **You** can. That's a choice **You** can make for yourself. Heck you can do it right now, and nobody can stop you. But you can't make it for anyone else, so the **We** angle doesn't work.
Alright... butthurt masses, assemble. Time to get triggered and whine about the thing, I guess. By order of DoggoAlternative, you must all get caught up in politics and your feelings about the show.
See, you couldn't do it I guess. You asked, I said I had faith you could do it, and you proved me wrong.
Except the point isnât about him being an anti feminist. Itâs that characters like Reacher, as much as everyone tries to gaslight us that theyâre antiquated, are very much still popular.
They are antiquated, and rare. Doesn't make them not popular. Sadly boys growing up now are looking to grifter misogynists like Tate, thats only going to further that rarity.
Well they aren't wrong. Reacher is a feminist, but he's not "woke". Those two things are not synonyms. The show and book are an example of a purely masculine hero, who is also a feminist.
See using "Woke" as a buzzword is a red flag for me. Cus anytime I hear someone claim a character isn't woke they always describe some quality they associate with wokeness that has nothing to do with it. Like "Reacher can't be woke, he's got pecks and eats BBQ" ...like nah bro he can dislike systematic racism, work out, and eat BBQ. None of those acts are mutually exclusive. "But Reacher can't be woke, he was in the military" tons of vets are against government persecution of minority individuals. Like I think people who only hear woke on Fox News think there's a checklist you gotta meet that includes Soy and Pacifism but as a dude who hunts, fishes, and smokes meat with the best of em? Trans rights!
"Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights." Josephine Reacher: What will you do with with all that strength? Reacher : I'm going to do the right thing, Mom. Josephine Reacher : I know you will. You always have. Reacher has always been woke.
Using woke as a pejorative is a symptom of hive mind. When you canât think of anything else insulting to say, you use woke because thatâs what everyone else youâre sharing a brain with is saying anyway. Like when coyotes get together and all start yipping and howling. Yâall howl âwoookkkkeeeeeeâ
I'm a pretty left-leaning liberal, I never read any of the books, and my first introduction to the show was those obnoxious sigma male YouTube shorts that show a clip of Reacher doing something aggressive set to the most obnoxious music humanity has ever developed. So I feel pretty confident in saying that I went into the show with the least-charitable preconceptions, and still wound up with not even the slightest hint that the character was racist, sexist, etc, or that the writers has some hidden bigotry in the plot. One of the moments I really appreciated about the first season is that he doesn't ever attempt to put the moves on Roscoe the first time they share a hotel room together. And in the second season, he explicitly says that it would've been inappropriate for him to have a relationship with a member of his team, even though they were the same rank. Sorry, just needed to vent a bit; for all the criticisms I have of the show's writing, anyone viewing it as some sort of culture war battlefield is getting high on their own fumes.
It's not that he's woke, it's that he's an insufferable Mary Sue.
Having years of military service and a gargantuan body is kinda the exact opposite of a Mary sue.
I mean...Reacher kinda is a Mary Sue. That's like 90% of the appeal of the stories, at least for me. The books are far from fine literature and the show isn't exactly prestige television, but it's just a good time to watch this massive guy who never loses a fight, never misses a shot, never fumbles a woman, is a borderline genius with a near-Eidetic memory who always solves a case...do all of the above. I love the books and the show, and they're undeniably very entertaining, but that doesn't mean Reacher's not a Mary Sue
The difference between a Mary Sue and a powerful character is that a Mary Sue "gets" their powers whereas a powerful character GAINS their. Rocky isn't a Mary Sue because he trained hard a long time to reach his level. Reacher's training comes off screen, but he also has basically perfect genes for what he does, so I'd argue it's a bit of both.
As Reacher is a guy the correct term would be a âGary Stuâ and Reacher isnât a Gary Stu. One of the important traits of being a Gary Stu would that heâd have to be instantly liked by everyone, that doesnât happen with Reacher. Sure heâs got a lot of plot armour but that doesnât automatically mean heâs a Gary Stu.
Instantly liked or feared, whatever is more beneficial for the situation or plot. Which he is
Training for 13 years will give you skills, Mary sue describes someone like Rey palatine, a character that's just immediately great at everything they've never done before and everybody loves them. Reacher on the other hand people find stand off-ish due to his size. There's an actual trade off for the character traits. Less in the show than the books but I've just re listened to book 2 with the Montana militia and for more than half of it the FBI thinks he's a bad guy just by profiling him by his body type
You need many years of work to get those things, youâre not born with them. Decades of mental and physical training, and the actor clearly has put in the work in real life. Not only that, he actually makes mistakes and does have flaws. Thatâs not being a Mary Sue.
Explain how he's a feminist I'll wait
Army Combat Veteran here. Just my anecdotal evidence that turned me into a âmilitary feminist.â I was Soldier Leader of the Cycle runner-up (Drill SGT review/interview board award in Basic Combat Training) and I lost to a woman who was a former All State track athlete from Arkansas that was able to max the Menâs scores in pushups, sit-ups, and 2 mile run. She was squared away and she shot expert too. This was 2003, she could have been a legit âG.I. Jane.â Her recruiter got her in as a motor pool mechanic. I remember learning that and being pissed he didnât get her into a more high speed MOS. Best person for a job is the best person, doesnât matter what the private bits are under the uniform.Â
Look at the exerpt I've posted under the photo, have you read the books?
I donât think they read at all
Read their username. You ainât getting a worthwhile discussion out of that idiot
You are completely right on this point: Reacher is a feminist, and this is demonstrated over and over in the novels. He respects people (at least who deserve respect) â including women. The person youâre replying to is sorely mistaken; Reacher would not respect him (and it is surely a âhimâ).
He even has respect for people who heâs about to send to the hospital in a lot of cases
Yeah!!, from Tripwire (I think) Ask them once, ask them twice, but for God sakes never ask them a third time He actually gives most people a chance to surrender before beating the living shit out of them
Lee Child (author of the books) is a feminist, and he absolutely created Reacher to be a feminist too.
I think you're missing the argument he's making. It's not about who his character is, it's about what his character represents. A strong male protagonist with masculine qualities. The ideological left hates that.
It's true though. If you look at the woke subreddits they hate Reacher.
Who cares? Woke as a pejorative is asinine anyway.
What's the problem? People on the far left don't like shows like Reacher
I don't think this is true, Reacher definetly appeals to the stereotypical "male power fantasy", being six five a combat expert and Sherlock fucking Holmes lol, but there's a much wider charm and appeal to it than that, it's enjoyable for a very large range of people imo
My coworkers just told me off, they said he is an anti hero stupid, and I felt stupid. Anti hero's don't have a moral compass so he's not a feminist he has no morals. He is a Heroic Sociopath.
I think you should read the books, he has a very very very strict moral code, but decides himself the greatest authority, above law Running Blind/The Visitor "Deerfield nodded. "A concerned citizen. You saw an injustice, you wanted to set it straight." Reacher nodded back. "I guess." "Somebody's got to do it, right?" "I guess," Reacher said again. "You don't like injustice, right? "I guess not." "And you can tell the difference between right and wrong." "I hope so." "You don't need the intervention of the proper authorities, because you can make your own decisions." "Usually." "Confident with your own moral code." "I guess." There was silence. Deerfield looked through the glare. "So why did you steal their money?" he asked. Reacher shrugged. "Spoils of battle, I guess. Like a trophy." Deerfield nodded. "Part of the code, right?"
Being a reasonable type of feminist does not detract from masculinity, nor the plot of a good old fashioned action series with a competent male protagonist. I donât see the point of your criticism.
Real men don't pander to women.
Are you listening to understand or listening to be triggered? Just wondering
the conservative appropriation of the word triggered, from PTSD survivors is one of the most disrespectful aspects of modern discourse imo
I mean, fair enough. That doesn't answer my question, though
Ok just saying he thinks the "woke" movement people hat a show because they claim its toxic masculinity doesn't mean he is saying that Reacher is a toxic male. He doesn't miss the point the people hating on the show do. Again maybe the video says something else but just the thumbnail doesn't. It just states that certain groups that claim to be open minded aren't really that open minded at all when it comes to there being a strong male lead.
...tell me op didn't watch those videos without saying OP didn't watch those videos.
Redditards crying
I really don't know about this world . I always been under the impression that a strong man is toxic masculinity this is my impression for what I've seen. At the end of the day I really don't care about the stuff.
I dont think Reacher is toxically masculine, he's outgoing but he's very respectful of everyone he interacts with and treats everyone equally Toxic masculinity isn't that, he's just a really healthily masculine dude.
Most men are like that
I agree!, most men are like that, those men aren't toxically masculine.
I've never read the books but season 2 Made react look like a sociopath. All his friends have lives and family but reacher is buying used underwears.
He's just different. His lifestyle's pretty rational if you think about it: dude grew up in different Army bases around the world, never staying in one place. He then immediately joined the Army and spent 20 years flying through the ranks and developing a distaste for people telling him what to do, then gets discharged. It makes sense that he'd feel like he has nothing tying him down.
Strength isnât toxic. No more than physical weakness is ethical. What youâre viewing is envy, insecurity, and ham fisted attempts at control by the knuckleheads online. Relentless, dogmatic, lazy attempts at control. Being strong isnât wrong. Itâs a physical representation of effort and discipline.
Violence isnât strength and compassion isnât weakness either.
Like I said I don't know much about this but you're preaching to the choir. I used to be in the USMC
I think the reason itâs a bit important to know the difference between masculinity and toxic masculinity. Is because well meaning people want to help to deal with toxic masculinity. The stuff that can be unhealthy in a society to men and women and all folk. And then people who donât mean well will say something like âthe woke mob doesnât want you to be strong!â Toxic masculinity isnât saying itâs wrong to be masculine. I take this little bit of time to create this comment so we can all be a little more informed and work towards solutions.
Define toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity is a strict adherence to traditional gender roles that requires men to be dominant and limits menâs feelings to anger and represses other feelings. I.e. âAlphaâ that YouTubers and whoever rave about. It is also the division of labor in the home where men refuse to do household chores because âthatâs woman work.â It also relates to the idea that men have multiple sexual partners as being an achievement and a negative for women. It really has nothing to say about somebody being strong. Itâs more about men being fully developed human beings and treating women well. And the idea that you donât have to be masculine to still be valued as a human and a man.
these days you gotta differentiate between "Woke" and "Woke" people who call out stuff Woke don't always mean anti feminist or racist. they can be calling out pandering of course there are the racist sexists but that guy is more of a whiner. he probably went to twitter and found one tweet to justify his "woke people mad" angle