Blame Anita Sarkeesian back in early 2008/2010

Cause virtue signaling and victimhood = power.

It started with "not enough women are represented in movies and games and stuff" and then people pointed out that we had Buffy, Xena, Alien series, Leia in old Star Wars, Lara Croft, Kill BIll etc.

In order for the virtue signalers and victimhood junkies to remain in power they said that strong women have been represented for a long time but it was sexy women from a men perspective. No proof that women did not like this characters and gave no reason why making something that appeals to guys is bad.

This one stuck and women are now victims again, so they want the exact opposite of what guys like seen thru the lens of men hating feminists.

Pointing out that women drool over men swimming competitions at the olympics or half naked Cavil does not brake their grift. For some reason being hypocritical has no power in 2015+.

We live in strange times where being oppressed means you get preferred treatment and are excused from responsibilities of failure while being privileged means you can be discriminated and treated like subhuman with impunity.

This has been around for decades. The thing is, it was universally mocked and everyone laughed at the retards who would screech it. They'd be told to grow up, stop being so insecure, and to stop being bitter and jealous. Feminism achieved it's goals many years ago. It serves no meaningful purpose in 2021 other than as an outlet for their insecurities and paranoid hate-fantasies. The only thing that should exist is a unified group that attempts to handle the now much smaller issues for all.

But feminism is part of the grievance industry. How can people continue to make huge amounts of money by preying off the young, vulnerable, naive, desperate to do good, and insecure, if they don't have a bogeyman to chase after? In the event that there is no bogeyman, what do you think the best course of action would be if you want to continue to justify your career?
The answer is to create one.

 
Almost every single feminist talking point is based on lies, misrepresentation of information, hyperbole, and fantasy. They have no issue at all with perpetuating falsehoods forever either — as long as it gives them the attention and false sense of victimhood they want — such as the myth of the "Gender Wage Gap." This modern narrative didn't begin gaining actual traction and mainstream attention until the advent of social media. With social media came along with it women's perpetual need for attention and to destroy everything that made them feel insecure — such as hot women and men who enjoy hot women.
Women legitimately hate other women who are prettier than themselves. If they can't be "hot" then they'll try to coerce the world to change the definition of what "hot" is so that they can be. Hell, for the most part, women simply don't like other women in general. They're only "sex-positive" as long as the "hot women" in porn push their hate and are subservient to their ideas of what being a woman means. If they don't fall in line, you've seen what happens.
The only thing that unifies feminists is not "sisterly love* like so many of them pretend, it's their bitterness externalized and focused as hatred of men. Naturally, that comes along with a desire to destroy anything that men like or that men participate in.
Of course, feminism is not necessarily a monolith, just like any group. But I'd assume we're talking about actual feminists and not the retarded women who just say they are, because they wanna feel special and like they're part of something like their Grandmothers and Mothers, even though they never participate in anything that feminist related besides watching some retarded movie or something.

The actual feminists are all bitter because they're undesirable or past their prime and single; were abused when young and want to lash out at every man because they're emotionally immature retards who never worked out their issues; are grifters who know it's a niche that's very easy to exploit because there's a never-ending supply of young insecure women; are mentally ill idiots desperately looking for a group to fit in with; or the brainwashed young girls previously mentioned, who may or may not grow out of it when they meet a man or have a son. Pick your flavor.
There's one constant throughout all of it, though: They're all obsessed with men in one way or another.
Which should be obvious when you consider that feminism's "ideal woman" is a masculine one.
When you take all of these things into consideration it becomes quite clear how they can come to form stupid conclusions that men shouldn't like hot women. Even though at a core level that makes absolutely no sense. Of course men will like hot women. Why the hell wouldn't they? Furthermore, why the hell shouldn't they — unless your reason is to alleviate your own insecurity and hide behind a thin veil of virtue to accomplish it?

Feminism has been a society wide shit test that the west has been failing for >150 years now.

Women start shit to confirm the man they are with is strong enough fight back and defeat other men. In this case the test is do the men ignore the whiney women or, in some cases give her a backhand if she gets too uppity, or do the weak men pretend anything the woman says is worthy of consideration.

One correct answer is to double down and replay. "Maybe if you put down the krispy kreme and did some squats you could look like her."

I remember seeing complaints about booth babes in 2004. They made sure to take pictures, and then complain about it.

Sony has this timeline in their heads about the average age of gamers. It's why crash became jak and then uncharted and then the last of us. The age of the characters matches with the expected age of the gamer.

Anita Sarkeesian and the like stepped in when the industry was trying to look more mature and less kiddie. Being about hot babes and explosions was seen as immature. She exploited that.

Honestly, I feel like the entertainment industry started moving this way after the success of the likes of Twilight and The Hunger Games....they all saw that female protagonists was the new wave and tried to ride it. I mean think about it. There's a very specific reason the bow and arrow was a prominent weapon in The Last of Us (and in other games moving forward) and it was very clearly Katniss influenced.

But to me that was the beginnings of it. Twilight and The Hunger Games were huge hits (for reasons still unknown) and everyone jumped on the trend going forward. Then the ideologues started letting their voices be heard.

People here can blame Anita all they want -- I mean I'm no fan of Anita and think she's your everyday con-artist -- but this really wasn't just Anita's doing alone. (not entirely)...the entertainment industry saw the success of the two noted franchises and all rushed in that direction like a bunch of hacks just looking to ride the $$$. Anita didn't help...of course...but to me she wasn't the sole cause of this.

And here we are....that's not to give a pass to the ideologues...the ideologues didn't help in preaching this shit...but the reality is you have the likes of Twilight and Hunger Games to blame for this shit.

I think there's been a general move away from good looking actors in general for whatever reason. It started subtly; the first thing they hit was TV commercials, to make them more "relatable" or some shit (and I vaguely remember reading an article about this back in the early 2010s.) Example: The "Shop like a Mother" ads from Sloblaws. That's the first ad I recall seeing actually ugly/crazed looking people in. Now we have some ad that seems to be replicating the "Dance of the Hours" segment from Fantasia, only much, much fuglier ... and ads in general are using more, ahem average/normal looking human specimens.

The male leads will be the last to be uglified, because the gays like the same sort of muscle-men straight women like, while dykes prefer butchybitches.

Own it. Thats what I do. It really throws them off.

It's been around for a lot longer than the late 00's roll-up to Gamergate, but Sarkeesian's push for the blatant bullshit in the Tropes vs Women series are probably what pushed it to the forefront in gaming.

I mean, let's be honest here. Dudes are visual creatures. We like looking at tits and ass, full stop. Women are more cerebral in their desires, but that doesn't keep them from hooting like a pack of howler monkeys when they're on a girl's night out at Chippendales. We all like hot, naked bodies. Any woman who claims a hot guy with ripped abs and a chiseled chin on the cover of a bodice-ripper romance novel is there as a "male empowerment fantasy" is full of shit.

The "you're just mad because you can't whack it to the character" argument is easily dismissable, too, in that most guys are pro enough to be able to beat it to anything. It can more readily be said that the women bitching about it don't want a hot female character in the game because it makes them feel bad about their femcel lard-ass selves that need to eat a salad and get up off the couch and go for a walk, because there's no way they're going to be able to pull a hot dude with the way they currently look. It's no more objectification of women in a game than it is for them to stare at Momoa in GoT and flick the bean to him later that night, but they don't want to admit they have the same carnal desires that men do.

It’s something women wanted since at least second wave feminism, they just have full power now and have implemented it.

The core idea is: Anything that a man finds pleasurable that does not directly benefit women is evil and bad and shall be destroyed.

Women become the final authority of when you as a man shall experience pleasure or happiness, and you shall not unless she benefits directly.

What's funny is they don't talk about how getting rid of sexy babes pisses off the lesbians too.

Beach Body ads featuring a smoking hot chick in a bikini? Banned.

Dating app ads featuring an extreme close up of two male tongues licking each other? Yes please!

The Church using sexuality to manipulate, control, and politic is nothing new. Non-church politicians simply picked up the same things.

I remember this narrative in the 80's - that it's "unfair" that women have to look good and put on makeup. Did that go away? No. What changed? Now men are judged based on how they look about as much as women.

If you look for it you'll notice the effect of what they're doing is always the opposite of what they say. They say "you can't have attractive women" but the result is that their shows only allow attract men. It's women's sexual strategy in action.

Cultural Marxism really began to shift into high gear in 2014 or 2015 - first in colleges then everywhere else.

10 years ago. Where have you been?

it happened shortly after gg.

Fascinating, I was just going to welcome you to the community but I realized you have other posts here.

What did you think this community was about, because we literally exist because we are a reaction to the phenomenon you've identified.

It all started with the the alphabet was increased with a little "t" im sorry t people , this will end very bad if you don't stop it.

Around when did the idea that you can’t have an attractive woman in artwork or entertainment come about?

It's been around since the 60's. Had zero traction outside communist-infested academia until the mid 90's when it started first started slipping into the mainstream under a cloak of 'think of the children!'

The 2000's saw cartoon boobs gradually banished from western animation (animators often compensated by giving female characters gigantic asses instead), and by 2010 it was really starting to seep into western videogames.

By 2014 there were no tits bigger than double D in western videogames.

It's been in feminist discourse since the 1950s.

Women are being oppressed because sexy women sets too high expectations for young girls. Patriarchy sees women as nothing more than objects to be posessed and finally women are defined more by their looks than their intelligence because of sexy women.

If you've ever heard of any of the these phrases above. They are the feminists arguments for making women ugly.

I actually don't have any issues with artists making women ugly. That's their choice but I have a big problem with society accepting the feminist rationale as sane and not completely stupid and irrational. Female delusion of behaviour straight jacketted by social constructs should not be taken seriously yet they are.

Women are in charge of household spending. If we exclude houses and cars probably 90% of all money is spent by a woman, for a woman, or with the approval of a woman. It's why only car commercials cater to men.

Women watch waaaayyyyy more TV and entertainment than men. Not to mention paying attention to gossip rags and other paralell industries. Many of them are stay at home, statistically speaking, and far from being "the hardest job" modern appliances means it's easy and there are plenty of hours to veg out.

Women don't pursue their own goals. They go to school and do whats asked of them. They stay at home tuned into the narratve. They go to work and follow the crowd. They conform. They buy whatever they're told to buy. They defend whatever is the prevailing ideology. They mercilessly defend the in-group as defined to them, and attack the out-group. They follow the leaders of their pack, and modern technology has allowed for the most contagious brain viruses to create massive packs of millions, eating up anything that's local until now only a handful of packs remain with the rainbow empire ideology by far the biggest and most powerful.

Women are tuned into group think. If you can get a few influential ones to like something, all of them will like it. Marketing to women is much easier than marketing to men.

Making a few shitty series for women will get you far more views than making one brilliant series by any sort of aesthtic or intellectual or philosophical standard - and it will be much cheaper. It's much easier and more profitable to sell cheap shitty crap to women, than to produce anything of actual value. Companies exploit this fact all the time. A razor blade for women is much worse quality and much more expensive. Yet they still buy it because it's pink and they are told to buy it.

Women dislike things that increase their anxiety and they like things that decrease their anxiety. If you ask them to judge 100 movies and rank them they won't produce a result that's much different than men. It's not that they don't have the ability to make aesthetical or moral judgments. But if you give them the 100 movies they'll consistently and consequently spend time engaging with the movies that deacrease their anxiety, and avoid the ones that increase their anxiety, regardless of quality.

Catering to women and their sensetivities is the better long term strategy if all you care about is to make money and to suppress your competition to ensure that you will continue to make money.

Companies are falling over themselves trying to appease women. They want their brand to feel safe. They want to be associated with appealing to women.

The "literature" is just talk. Woke studies are just indoctrination camps churning out the thought police. It doesn't matteer what they say or believe. It's just a smokescreen. The rhetoric is just an excuse. It's pointless to listen to what they are saying, it's just a mishmash of rationalizations and excuses. The truth is that yuo now live in a gynocentric world, and the world and all the power within it will always push stuff that women like and chastize things that women dislike. With women on board and conditioned to be appeased, the system will push things that the people with the most money and power like and wrap it in the language of the empire ideology, and the conditioning will kick in and the wrapping language will perform its function, and broad support is achieved. Likewise things that the elite dislike or see as a threat will be supressed and reviled.

You get mass immigration because that's great for the people at the top - they get all the good like lowered vages and more conflict to exploit, and they get none of the bad in their secluded enclaves.

You get regulation and laws that kill local businesses, because that increases the power and profit of the largest players.

You get your schools turned into brainwashing centers, because that's how the system protects itself.

You get division and strife and manufactured outrage because a distracted population is unlikely to fight back.

You get the destroction of tradition and values and the family unit, because an unhappy and depressed population is easier to control.

You get the worship of individualism and the ego, because sccessful communities are a threat to the common order.

You get demoralization because apathy keeps any opposition powerless.

You get normalization of mental illness because a confused population is unlikely to revolt.

You get ever shifting rules of language and political correctness because it keeps the population occupied and scared.

You get mass manipulation and information warfare because a misled population is disorganized.

You get propaganda at all times in everything because that's what's holding it all in place.

You get censorship, self cencorship, struggle sessions, cancel culture, and people policing each other because the system can not tolerate dissent.

All the while everything is becoming more and more centralized and the biggest powers keep growing and swallowing more and more of the economy, to the point where soon a few corporations will eat the profit of everything, every old taxi company, every old movie rental place, every old mechanic, taking 30% of all restaurant revenue, taking a cut of everything everywhere, in ever fewer conglomerates, and the people at the top become more and more like the kings of old, while they lecture you about equity and take away your rights for the greater good.