Author: Crowhill Report

I never read comic books, and I’ve learned to avoid superhero movies. I watched them with my kids, but I think superhero movies are stupid and I don’t enjoy them.

As a consequence, I know very little about any of the characters, which “universe” they’re in, etc. It’s not that I’m against pretend worlds. I like Tolkien. I like Dune. I just find superhero stuff over the top in too many ways, and underwhelming in too many other ways.

So I don’t give a rat’s fleas about She-Hulk, or any of that stuff, but one comment about that show (from this page) caught my eye.

Writing female Heroes as smug and sarcastic isn’t ever going to work well. It’s like writers these days only have one default personality they go to when making “strong” female characters. Masculine and smug.

That rings true.

There are all kinds of male heroes, with different temperaments, personalities, and quirks. But female heroes seem to fall into a very narrow zone. They have a chip on their shoulder. They’re snarky. They’re angry. And it’s all the fault of men.

Okay, fine. Do that character every once in a while. But for the sake of (the most holy and honorable) Diversity (praise be its coming and going), why not try something different? How about a female hero who’s grateful? Full of thanks. Pious.

How about one who doubts herself — not because she’s a woman, but for some other reason?

Or how about this? Rather than finding some male hero and making a female version of him, make an authentically female hero, who isn’t a copy of anybody.

There are probably some examples of each of these things. But not nearly enough. We usually get one, very narrow and predictable female character.

It’s boring.

In the last few days, Google has let me down three times.

First, I tried to buy some photos. Google Photos said I could pick them up at the local Walmart. Unfortunately, the Walmart had a fire and that section was closed. Didn’t they have some system to ensure the order was received?

Second, I was looking for a restaurant that served Peking Duck. Google showed a local restaurant as open for sit down eating, but it was only open for carry out. It may be on the restaurant to update such things, but the bottom line is the same. What I saw on Google was wrong.

Third, I wanted to get Mrs. Crowhill some cinnabons for her birthday breakfast. Google said the store was open until 9:00. I got there at 8:04 and they were closed. This was not only a failure in data, but customer service. They should have sold me something anyway.

There have been several examples recently where Big Tech has rushed to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden by banning people or apps or concepts from their search results, app stores, or platforms. They move swiftly, in lock step, whenever a left-leaning talking point is threatened. They’re protecting us from those dangerous people who say hurtful things like “men are men.”

The woke clearly have Big Tech by the sensitive parts, and Big Tech dutifully perform according to woke demands.

How does Big Tech respond to other requests, like when an FCC commissioner asks them to remove TikTok from their stores because it’s abusing customer data, and because it’s probably a front for Chinese espionage?

Oh, who cares about that? I mean, they didn’t do anything awful, like use the wrong pronouns.

Wokeism must be destroyed, and Big Tech must be reined in.

William passed along a video of four men and four women who think they’re men discussing masculinity. (What a weird world we live in!) I had a slow morning, so I watched it.

One interesting element was the generational difference on the trans side. The older “trans man” (i.e., a woman who presents as a man) had much more reasonable views than the younger ones.

For example, the older one was against any form of medical transitioning for children, but did believe in social transitioning — i.e., if you’re a girl who thinks she’s a boy, living as a boy.

I think that’s a matter of degree. A girl who is a tomboy is a different thing than a girl who wants to be called Dave and “he” and wants people to believe she is a boy.

But at least the older one was against giving kids drugs and chopping off pieces of their bodies. It’s almost unbelievable that anybody thinks that’s a good idea.

I’m sick of the emasculating BS I keep hearing in this dysfunctional hellhole we live in. E.g., that “being vulnerable” is some sort of virtue. E.g., “I’m being vulnerable. You must pay attention and give me kudos and hugs and likes.”

Sorry.

That would be like saying “retreating is a virtue.” Or “quitting is a virtue.” Or “asking for help” is a virtue.

No. None of those things are virtues.

They’re the right decision in particular cases, but they are not “virtues.”

A virtue is something that displays moral excellence. Retreating, being vulnerable, quitting, or asking for help may be tactically wise, or appropriate in some cases. But you can’t fit it into a statement like this.

“He’s _____. We should respect that.”

E.g.,

• He’s retreating. We should respect that.
• He’s being vulnerable. We should respect that.
• He’s asking for help. We should respect that.

No. No. No. We could just as well say …

• “He’s retreating, let’s destroy the coward.”
• “He’s being vulnerable. What a pussy.”
• “He’s asking for help. He should figure it out on this own.”

I understand that people are reacting against the (allegedly dominant) macho man stereotype, and are trying to reinforce that men can cry, be vulnerable, etc. Okay. Fine.

That doesn’t mean we applaud every time a man cries. Sometimes he needs to grow a pair.