Avengers: Age of Ultron and How Modern Feminism is the Religion of the Left

I believe that men and women should be legally equal and that women should play an equal role to that of men in the decision-making apparatuses of our political and economic systems. So does Joss Whedon. Joss Whedon is the writer behind The Avengers, and he is one of the most prominent male feminist activists in the entertainment industry who even endorses the silly babbling of Anita Sarkeesian. If someone who thinks that Anita Sarkeesian makes intelligent comments is not a feminist, then nobody is. Check out this video of a speech he gave to feminists that was very well-received by those feminists. In the speech, Whedon articulates his frustration with the word "feminist" that in many ways mirrors my frustration with the word "atheist" (another topic for another day). The reason this video is relevant is because during his speech (at about the 4:50 mark) he wonders why Katy Perry would hesitate to call herself a feminist. Well, if he didn't totally understand it then, he probably does now. Since the release of avengers: Age of Ultron, Whedon has been called a racist and a sexist in a variety of ways by feminists in the media. Eventually, he cancelled his Twitter account probably because of this harassment. Whedon's experience and the reaction of feminists to his film, illustrate perfectly the illogical arguments and bullying of modern feminism that mirror very closely the behavior of right-wing religious nuts. To make this point, I will examine the arguments made in this article by Marlow Stern of the Daily Beast. There are other articles in this vein (including another on Daily Beast because apparently this is such a deep topic that just one piece wasn't enough), but if you read Stern's, you'll get the gist. To the extent that anything happened in this movie that can truly be spoiled, SPOILER ALERT! The blue quotes are Stern's words.

"In Ultron, following an overcrowded opening action sequence, we're introduced to Romanoff behind the bar at Stark's pad. . . Romanoff, as the token female amid a plethora of towering bros, is tending bar."

Okay, so here we have a pretty good look into the author's bias from the beginning of the piece. Why is Black Widow a "token female" because she is in a group of men? Do women always have to travel in pairs to avoid objectification? Is War Machine the token black guy in all of his scenes? We know that if we have no women, that's sexist. But now if we have one woman, that's also sexist because she must be only a token. So what's the magic number? Was No Doubt a sexist band because of its token female singer? If you want to see the world as a sexist place that hates women, you will. But it's clear from the start that the author WANTS to see sexism, whether or not it's actually there.

"She makes Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) a snazzy drink, and the two exchange a few flirty lines and furtive glances. This triggers Captain America’s (Chris Evans) brodar, as he struts over and launches into an explainer on Romanoff’s history of “flirtation” with several of the Avengers—Hawkeye, Cap, and now Hulk. Romanoff’s demeaning history isn’t entirely Whedon’s fault, and perhaps this was the filmmaker’s way of pointing out how wrong it is, but it came off like a group of chauvinistic mega-men taking potshots at the lone female in the group."

I suppose this is one way to look at this scene. Without violating copyright laws and opening myself up to statutory damages in the thousands of dollars, I cannot show you video of the scene described here. But I'll tell you about it. Banner and Romanoff are flirting at the bar. After the conversation concludes, Cap comes over to talk with Banner apparently because his "brodar" was triggered. I'm not sure what that means, and I had previously assumed that Captain America could detect other men without the aid of enhanced sensory powers. Anyway, he basically asks Banner if he is gonna go for it with Romanoff, and when Banner does the "aw shucks, I don't think she really likes me" routine, Cap tells him that's he's seen Romanoff flirt "firsthand" when it's meaningless, and her interaction with Banner wasn't meaningless. Then he says something to the effect that Banner and Romanoff deserve to be happy, and they should go for it. As far as I can remember, he never mentions Hawkeye. Does that really seem like Cap was launching into a bullying rundown of Romanoff's "demeaning history?" Also, I thought the sexual liberation of women was a good thing, not demeaning. None of the male characters "shame" Romanoff for her sexual promiscuity. Hell, to keep the PG-13 rating, if they mention it at all, it's very obliquely so that it will pass over the head of all the kids whose minds will be forever corrupted if they hear any talk of physical intimacy. So females can be sexually free, but nobody else can speak about it? Or maybe just not men. If the whole show has promiscuous lesbians speaking about their sex lives, is that okay? Finally, in contrast to the typical demure, passive female, she's assertive with Banner. She goes after it. But you don't like that either. Everything is sexist. Every person who survives cancer is a miracle from Jesus.  

"And that isn’t even the most troubling sequence"

It wasn't?! What fresh horrors await us if we keep going?

"Later on, Romanoff is describing her origin story to Banner. Like the comics, it involves her taking part in a ballerina/black ops project as a young child (think:Black Swan crossed with the fraternity of assassins in Wanted). She complains of being sterilized by her captors. She turns to Banner and somberly says, 'You’re not the only monster on the team.'"

No! I can't believe she said that. Why would anyone say that all women who don't have kids are monsters? Well, in this case, they wouldn't, and she didn't. Before the infertile monster comments, Banner had just finished telling Romanoff that she shouldn't be with him because he has no future. He elaborates that he cannot have kids and a family. He calls himself A MONSTER. Romanoff is attempting to bridge the gap between herself and Banner. When Romanoff refers to herself as a monster, it's because she loves him (apparently) and is trying to make him feel less isolated and afraid of being with her. Sexist bitch.

"Her infertility then becomes the main focus of Romanoff’s Ultron journey. While none of the other Avengers really worry about raising a family, Romanoff yearns for the domesticated life of Hawkeye’s secret pregnant wife, Susan, played by Linda Cardellini. They’ve even named their future son after her. At the end of the film, the happy couple texts Romanoff a picture of her wee namesake. Troubled, she looks off into the distance, before regaining her composure and delivering a rousing speech to the rest of the Avengers. Because she’s a woman, saving the world isn’t enough for her. She’ll always got that cursed void to fill."

Romanoff never yearns for a domesticated life. She doesn't talk about adopting or becoming a daycare worker, and she is falling in love with a man who CAN'T HAVE CHILDREN! She never even explicitly says she wants to have children although it's certainly clear that she resents having that choice taken from her. But Stern's analysis betrays an attitude that is really at the root of why many people, and specifically many women like Katy Perry, do not want to call themselves feminists. Modern feminism is not about promoting female equality to men. It's about promoting a particular version of what it means to be a woman. It's trying to replace one feminine ideal with another. Whether you feel this way or not, millions of women have a yearning to have children. Many men do as well. I can't relate to it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, if you meet a woman who is infertile due to factors beyond her control, it's pretty unlikely she's going to tell you how happy she was to not have the choice, and it's very likely she will express some desire to have been able to have children. Romanoff is expressing something that millions of women can relate to, and the feminists are calling it sexist because they don't like it or understand it.

"In the first Avengers, similar to the comics, she gets close to Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye. Then, she’s brought on in Captain America: Winter Soldier as a leather-clad vessel whose sole purpose is guiding his voyage of self-discovery by serving as a lame, quasi-romantic interest."

So here we have the classic feminist arguments that are totally circular and logically inconsistent. Sexy is bad and so are men. I can spin this argument in exactly the opposite way using the same facts.

"Captain America is not treated seriously as a strong male character. Why can't he figure out his own voyage of discovery? Why does he need a woman's help? And why doesn't Cap wear loose-fitting clothes? Why does he have to perpetuate the image that strong, muscular men are the only men fit to be heroes? Stop objectifying men and telling us how to be sexy."

C'mon. You have to see how silly this is. These are people in relationships. EVERY relationship involves people relying on each other. Also, you don't like quasi-romance, but you also don't like it when she is fully romancing Bruce Banner, so what do you want? Zero romance? Is the only feminist-friendly story one involving a woman who is a sociopathic loner? Again. This isn't about equality. It's about forcing one personality type on all other women. Although not on all other men. Men are free to reflect the range of male experience, but women must conform to what some feminists can relate to. Interesting.

On the merchandise issue. This isn't sexism. It's economics. Little boys play with action figures more than do little girls. Little boys generally don't want to play with toys modeled as girls just like the American Boys doll series hasn't yet taken off with young girls. It's not because Disney hates women. It's because they love money. The moment they think they can maximize profits by producing more Black Widow gear, they will.

I understand that many of the people who write these things and make these arguments are trying to justify some obscure humanities major and somehow cannot find any real problems in this miserable world to complain about. But leave Joss Whedon alone. He likes Anita Sarkeesian for crying out loud. This is like the Catholic Church excommunicating Thomas Aquinas. In fact, it's exactly like that. That's the problem. Feminism has become a lefty religion. It's not as damaging, but it's just as silly and illogical.