Hollywood loves agenda laden narratives. However, their latest undertaking is possibly the most destructive endeavor yet — the war on masculinity. The silver lining is that inscrutable producers seem incapable of conceding that their agenda is subversive to profitability and consequently stand poised to lose their ideological war.
We all know Hollywood is occupationally detached from reality and exceedingly liberal. Consequently, it’s unsurprising that many of their most elite social climbing A-list performers and writers harbor radical predispositions and matriarchal sympathies.
It’s particularly interesting that Hollywood can harbor these radical proclivities while still practicing overt capitalism. It is peculiar because capitalistic business administrators hold the leashes of the socially liberal artists paid to produce their products.
It’s possible that the business side of Hollywood companies eagerly seeking the next fashionable trend have allowed flagrantly liberal artists leeway to explore their radical propaganda within their projects. Of course, it could just be that studio heads are woefully out of touch with reality and believe the majority of folks in society are in step with the Social Justice agenda.
Whatever the reasons are behind the scenes, there is an unmistakably unabashed bigoted war campaign against masculinity complete with it’s own buzz words. Labels like “misogynist” and the ever popular, “toxic masculinity” readily spring to mind. To the uninitiated, Toxic masculinity means that if you exhibit neoclassical male traits such as logic, strength, while submitting to traditionally accepted gender roles — you’re inherently immoral. It’s absolute rubbish.
In Hollywood’s haste to tear down masculinity and typify radical feminism as societal indices, they’ve clearly overlooked one key point — Feminists aren’t a general audience demographic. While a majority of women believe in equality, they don’t consider themselves feminists.
According to the BBC, “Fewer than one in five young women would call themselves a feminist.” So, the real question is why would Hollywood actively denigrate the archetypal masculine male figure and elevate the radical feminist protagonist at the expense of profitability?
Usually, increased profitability is the sole concern for people at the top. However, it seems Hollywood leaders have decided it’s their moral imperative to force feed liberal ideals down the throats of the population in order to bring about social change they can believe in. They have taken on the role of activist and abdicated their roles as entertainment purveyors at the expense of profits.
This is where the rubber of reality meets the road though. If a company doesn’t turn a profit it’s unlikely to thrive. Profits are generated by people who support companies by purchasing their products — in this case movie tickets. If your product’s content evolves to meet the needs of a smaller audience while disparaging the larger audience that made the product successful, then the dichotomy thusly replaces instead of includes the new audience. When this happens the product dies.
If the majority of society agreed that overwhelming evidence showed men were bad, simply by virtue of being manly, and as such women that act like men are destined to be the rightful benevolent lords of the Earth, I might deem Hollywood’s campaign against masculinity to be meritorious. However, the converse is true.
We’ve seen repeatedly that there is virulent push back on films which blatantly attack masculinity while simultaneously elevating radical feminism. Even Super brands once thought to be entirely bullet proof such as “Star Wars” now feel the sting of declining box office performance and backlash from this toxic Hollywood agenda. It speaks volumes that the most reviled character in the Star Wars Universe was once Jar Jar Binks, but has been supplanted by a purple haired raging feminist played by Laura Dern in “The Last Jedi.”
Of course, Star Wars isn’t the only brand to see a box office decline due to misandry and feminist pandering. More recently the feminist remake of “Charlie’s Angles” went up in flames like the Hindenburg at the box office.
According to Box Office Mojo, the film only made a domestic haul of $17,803,077 on a $48,000,000 budget durring it’s entire theatrical run. The movie was barely saved by returns from it’s international sales.
The recent remakes of “Ghost Busters” and “Oceans Eight” with predominately empowered female casts didn’t fair well at the box office either. Curiously still is Hollywood’s determination to ignore their man bashing feminist crusade as the causal factor of their financial flops.
Bob Iger (the former president of the Walt Disney Corporation) notoriously blamed the failure of “Solo” on Star Wars fatigue rather than placing the rightful blame on Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy’s multicultural feminist agenda.
Kennedy (and other producers like her) consistantly refuse to acknowledge the general audiences displeasure with their virtue signaling. Instead they concoct erroneous excuses to explain their box office failures.
Reinforcing Hollywood’s bad behavior is — of course — the ever complicit media full of guys like Scott Mendelson over at Forbes, ready and waiting to make excuses for the woeful progressive doctrine of intersectional multiculturalism at the expense of abject honesty. With such a reinforcing echo chamber like that in place, it’s no wonder Hollywood can’t see past their own agenda.
Perhaps Hollywood may eventually come to the irrevocable conclusion that they’re going broke because they went woke, and their disgusting war on masculinity will end. Until then, we should keep letting them know we’re not interested in buying into their radical matriarchal utopian nightmare. I leave you now with words on the subject from youtube’s Critical drinker.