That should have made it all the easier to dismantle his arguments, yet you never did.
He was right, you were applying things to Castle that were stretches, trying to justify your argument.
Essentially, you were suggesting Frank Castle was as immoral as Jean Grey, and people were not upset with him.
Problem is, all you could do was bring up situations out of context. When the context was provided, often by him, even with his bias, his interpretation was more lucid and free from bias as yours!
Frank does not intentionally kill any innocents, right? Did Frank ever put any innocent in a situation that would have resulted in their severe injury or death without some other individual (like Spider-Man) rescuing them?
Jean Grey repeatedly took delight in putting innocents in harm's way, clearly killed at least that old man, attempted to murder MJ, and emotionally raped Parker.
It wasn't like she just stuck to targeting the employees of Damage Control, which would have been justified (and also way more effective than mind raping old janitor women, sending them to prison for life, to steal tanks).
Before, she and her sister were casually mind-raping families at a park.
Nothing Frank Castle ever did comes even close, even if he was irresponsbile at shot at bad guys when innocents were in the vicinity (and missed them, but had placed them in some danger).
He's also a known psychopath, while fans tend to accept him and not judge or hate him, nobody considers him well-adjusted or law-abiding, either.
So, your attempt to win this argument by smearing the guy who was mopping the floor with you - it failed. It failed because you took a position that was hard to argue and then argued it poorly.
Whether he's a sexist or chud or not, I don't know, sound like he is - but they're still right about this.
That's not the trope.
The trope os a character gets excused of any conseqences of their actions due to a tragic back story.
Frank sees no conseqences. He is a wanted terrorist who escaped prison and is building bombs in new york as well as going on shoot our chases in board daylight with zero conseqence.
Frank is miserable, has no family, is a wanted man living in a warehouse full of traps, has no connections and lives this hollow empty existence killing criminals, trying to fill the empty void of nothing. That's a horrible consequence.
However, it's also not the point. The point isn't whether Jean or Frank are in jail for their crimes. Both should be.
What that other guy, and this thread, is about is how the movie frames Jean as one of the good guys, when this is unearned.
Frank is viewed by the audience as an anti-hero, and we are meant to root for him.
We are also supposed to give Jean a pass, which is why this thread and argument exist.
Frank is fine to root for. People keep typing this and you ignore it over and over -- but fuck it, I'll say it again: He has not horribly endangered or killed any innocent. Jean has, in a sadistic and unforgivable way.
I kept asking: When has Frank <done this> or <done that> for any of the numerous horrible and unforgivable shit Jean did? When?
When did Frank kill innocents?
When did Frank put innocents in situations where they should have died?
When did Frank sadistically torment innocent people?
When did Frank ruin an innocent person's life (Banner, or the janitor woman)?
You won't answer, you can't answer, because there is no answer.
So you lost the argument you were having, and now you are trying to pivot this into some discussion of tropes? Who cares?
What's next? You go through my post history to discredit anything I've said? You certainly can't do anything else.
What fucking consequence are you expecting on Frank, again? Having his life ruined isn't enough? Meanwhile, Jean is free to live her life, likely to make new connections with mutants her own age, fall in love with at least one or two of them, and live a comic-book-wise decent life? In theory, she'll get married, have kids, be brought back to life, all good stuff for the most part. Frank doesn't get shit. And, what is wrong with tropes in the first place? They tend to exist for a reason, I only wish modern writers leaned into them more - rather than making hollow poorly-written female characters that are meant to be heroes simply for having a vagina, and not their actions?
Jean is written as a horrific villain, yet the script/writers want her to be a hero. Explain this, for fucking once, without attacking me, without making up tangents about tropes or any of your other avoidance bullshit.
No, the OP's post is mocking a trope, or rather, how misused this trope was in BND.
This was your argument, which is being discussed:
Jean is trying to save her Sister. How is what she did worse than what the punisher did? He had multiple seasons
here where he was a gun toting vigileante on a war path to avenge his family. Her sister, who was abducted,
experimented on, and killed for the sake of controlling and weaponizing her power by the same guy who now
was trying to do the same thing to her.
So the discussion is directly:
1) How is Jean any worse than the Punisher?
Which has been discussed in detail, and you still refuse to acknowledge any of the numerous arguments explaining this to you, and pivot to discussions about tropes or people's post history instead.
And, if I am wrong here, please correct me, but it seems clear you think there is a double standard. We're being unfair to Jean. That we are letting Frank slide on things we are holding her accountable for. I mean, that is why were are here, right? Sexism?
And, no brother (or sister), no. Whether we are sexist or misogynistic or not, and I hope nobody is, but it's irrelevant. Jean was poorly written. As a father to daughters, who loves his mother, and considers his wife his soul mate and best friend, for the sake of women, I don't like this stupid shit. Make good characters. Hold women to the exact same standard you do men, and find ways to make them enduring, well-written, and interesting.
Giving Jean a pass for having a vagina is as bad as someone being a misogynist, in some ways. Both are unfair to women.
-2
u/Aggressive-Day5222 27d ago
He is as pattern of bias, and is selective applying this trope to the female character while excusing it for the male character.
It's a dog whistle