"Why Does Modern Hollywood Hate Stoic Characters?" Probably because Moden Hollywood revels in their hissy fits and emotional over-reaction. Stoic people are no fun--they're adults. And Hollywood is and always has been a place for childish people to make lots of money.
I just saw Idris Elba in BEAST every male in there was stoic and the young girls in there were just normal teen girls, even feminine and there was no racism or blaming and the two lead actors were risk everything for the girls A fine example of hero's and the first one seen in a long time
I went through a good amount in my 20s and early 30s, being a single father, and having to manage several kids and a household while working. If I'd been emotional and fallen apart, my entire household would've suffered.
... as kids in single mom households generally do. Suffering, that is. You know what sociologists say: Give kids a two-parents-different-gender household to grow up in, or a single father household, should You want to avoid all the statistical and personal catatstrophes we have to fathom since the recent epidemic of single mom households with full custody broke out.
Stoicism used to be classified as a virtue, albeit one that nobody could spell. Remember the poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling? Well, that poem is almost entirely about stoicism.
I've read a number of books on survival. A major part of those books consists of the analysis of disasters, shipwrecks, downed aircraft, war stories, being lost in the wilderness, etc. Invariably, the"cool man in a storm" (or woman) is the one who makes it. Panic means death. As a kid, what impressed me most about James Bond was that he was, "cool calm, and collected", not his womanizing. That's why high-strung Hollywood writers with the emotions of children hate the character so much.
@@thecensoredmuscle563 I felt like adding "woman" because in many of the cases studied, big burly men who were bragging about their capabilities before a trip, went into selfish, panicky mode when the accident occurred, and a woman kept her cool. I've seen that happen in skydiving with beginners. Quite often, loudmouth, tough guys have frozen in the aircraft when their turn to jump came up. Never seen a woman brag before her first jump, although many women also freeze.
Some women can absolutely stay calm under pressure. But historically, the role of women was in less risky occupations. Not risk-free, just less risky because women are less expendable than men in some senses.
@@jmchez you brought up shipwrecks, disasters, war stories, lost in wilderness etc. The cool person in the storm in those situations are men. Especially since they are the more physically dominant and smarter reactions in these situations. Obviously not all men are heroes though.
Back in ‘98, I flew off from Montréal to Edmonton to coach wrestling the very day a ice storm shut down electrical power lines. The snow followed by the ice rain put so much weight on the roof that the side walls of our house shifted. My wife had to tap out the hinges to our front door and grab a hand blade from the tool shed and shave a half inch off the bottom & sides to be able to open and close the door. In the dark! I married the right French Canadian woman😁
@@RibeyesteakSachertorte - 5ft -6 inches 120 lbs. three decades later she is still ‘tough as nails’. The fact she is handy with woodworking tools and loves to bake is a dream come true. For a decade in the middle, she actually allowed me to think I was in control. I knew I made a mistake when I woke up the next morning and I had a bruise on my backside that I didn’t get in practice the day before.
@@CoachTMAC My wife is severely handicapped due to brain palsy at birth, and I'm terrified of her when she gets angry, and I would never be of a man I can just punch on the nose. True strength comes from a strong personality. BTW, she's my best friend and I worship the ground she treads (or should I say the ground her wheelchair rolls on? See, that's a joke she would never mind and would laugh off with me, that should tell how huge the abyss that separates her from these idiot pseudo-feminists who just want to emulate physical strength traits from men).
Even though stoicism isn't as marketable these days, there are plenty of film characters in the past that have received unanimous praise for steely bearing under enormous pressure. First one that comes to mind is Ed Harris's portrayal of flight director Gene Kranz in Apollo 13, who helms an initially disastrous mission to cathartic safety. Bonus points good if listening to audio from the actual mission, where controllers and astronauts don't need to heighten the drama for a movie audience and in reality sound like they're checking out books from the library.
I think it'd also important to note the problem with stoicism. Stoicism isn't a personality. It's a philosophy. And it's basically the philosophy of lack of emotion. It's extremely uncaring for both the bad (what they talked about like dealing with hardship) but also for the good (if you see a puppy you shouldn't express and hopefully not feel giddy about it). I think it's a dangerous philosophy. I understand the appeal of stoicism but I'd much rather be more rational than more stoic. Rationality enables all the positives of stoicism but discards the toxic negatives that are usually hypocritical by nature. Men (and women) should be emotional when appropriate for them but be able to almost become stoic on command when a situation calls for it. Being stoic because of a decision is different to upholding it as a philosophy as a whole because it is just used as a tool to suppress emotions when they are simply inappropriate (in a fight for example). I agree that Hollywood seems to hate stoicism in any form but I disagree with stoicism being THE philosophy to adhere to. Can be toxic. Just be rational and the more rational you will be, the more your emotions will align with your rationale. When someone you care about you'll feel bad and cry if the situation allows it because there is nothing wrong with being vulnerable depending on the context.
@@SiMeGamer Having read much of the available Stoic literature, I think your take on the philosophy is somewhat misguided. Stoicism has a level of detachment, yes (sometimes perhaps taken too far, like in some of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, but those were for private use and never intended to be published). Stoicism doesn't deny emotion, but seeks to put it in its rightful place - that is, sublimated to reason. Seneca even remarks that, "who can be more joyous than the Wise Man"?
It's a control technique to get overly emotional about something and either have other people console you or join in with your emotional disregulation. Stoicism is immune to this, therefore it is seen as undesirable by people wanting to exert control in this manner.
Indeed. It often seems to me that a lot of post-modern thought and behavior is an effort of narcissist and histrionics trying to control society. Or rather, it's a result of normal people growing too pampered and conflict avoidant to stop them.
To be fair, its easier to get some types of women into bed if you shed the odd tear, and pretend to care. So being emotional as man, does have its benefits.
Just had a thought: maybe the reason that the "Strong female character" is written to be domineering and arrogant is because the writers themselves are domineering and arrogant. It apparently works for them, so they put that in their work. The problem is, it actually doesn't work, they just think it does. For example, being loud and obnoxious during an argument does not help you win the argument. It only makes the other side leave because you cannot be reasoned with. Sure, the opposition is gone, but you have not successfully convinced them that your position is correct, and therefore, the argument is not over. Similarly, being loud and demanding in other areas of life just makes people want to get rid of you. So, they'll give you what you want, just to make you shut up. The writers aren't "strong", their annoying, and because they get what they want, they think that their strong. Because they think themselves strong, they put those traits into the work. This also explains why the writers lash out when their characters are disliked. They've put so much of themselves into it, they cannot help but feel personally attacked.
Nope - they are sell outs, trying to make the product attactive to the women of today - as they think, wpmen want to be irl.. But they only fantasies of being the strong one in the relationship. Just like in bed - for most of them of course.. Some are lebsian..
Actually I think the arrogant, domineering , so-called "strong woman" is actually kind of realistic especially when you read history on these women. The only unrealistic thing is that they dont die a brutal death by Joan of Arc or Anne Hutchinson did 😆
I think it's because they dont know how to write them. They have NO CLUE how to keep their emotions in check..they can't get into that characters mindset. To them, keeping your composure, thinking things out to their logical conclusion, and being rational are alien concepts.
A stoic man is the opposite of a toxic man. A narcissistic man is a toxic man. And sadly, a lot of gullible fans confuse narcissism for masculinity. When stoicism is much closer to being equivalent to masculinity.
@@clogs4956 Function theory is fallacious at the core, based upon the individual perception of an intellectual or group of intellectuals. None of it would come back as is upon research if the currently existing theory were to be lost. It's pseudo science, which implies its value and applicability is probably as low as religion or much lower. Religion at least inspired art and architecture all over the world, even if it's based upon collective delusions of civilization it brought beautiful visuals.
@@stonerawks9882 .... okay, I was using a frickin' shortcut... You've proven your credentials, now go fish for a discussion in a more appropriate Twitter page.
@@hamizanyunos1502 It is absolutely a bad thing - You can't keep up an industrialized, complex society in need of foresight, maintenance and trouble-shooting with a buncha simping betas unrealisticly written to make boring female characters look good only.
I played Resident Evil 8 The Village recently. I was looking at Chris Redfield, his stoic but still emotional delivery and was like... "Why the f**k this type of protagonist is now almost absent from modern cinema?".
Great video, Critical Drinker! You've hit the nail on the head with your analysis of why modern Hollywood seems to have a disdain for stoic characters. It's refreshing to see someone delve into the deeper themes and cultural trends that have led to this phenomenon. Your insights and commentary are always thought-provoking Keep up the great work!
Seems like they don't like stoicism, as this makes men less consumeristic, less likely to be malleable and manipulated. This is what it comes down to, making us better little consumers and anxious to fit in and please. See what happens when the shit hits the fan, if we aren't all Trans human uni-gender by then. Another really interesting guest and intelligently hosted as always. 🙏
This is a great point that I hadn't seen brought up yet. Someone who is content with nothing doesn't throw away money on petty distractions and shiny baubles. Everyone has been focusing on the parasocial nonsense, but there are economic reasons as well. If you aren't driven by neurotic consumption, you're worthless in the eyes Hollywood. If my heroes are thoughtless, egotistical, and pathetic, so too will I be. Then I will be apt to reach for my wallet for superficial validation.
I love this channel. I am really curating my RU-vid feed and it’s taken weeks lol but I’m getting there and I will definitely keep this one. I am trying to follow the channels and actually watch the videos. Have a wonderful day everyone ❤
And what Hollywood doesn't understand is that Stoicism also served to make those emotional moments punch much harder, when things get SO bad that the outer stoicism can't hold anymore, and even the unbreakable, reliable, character cracks. Optimus prime and Aragorn are both stoic characters that show a lot of the humanity beneath them and have moments where they break down. Example, Aragorn losing it at thinking the Hobbit's are dead, or when he straight up collapses after the halls of the dead when he thinks all is lost. Gandalf straight up starting to cry at the black gate. These moments don't hold the same meaning when it happens to someone who wears their emotions on their sleeves. As a writer, I have one character that tends to bury their emotions like that, put up facade, convince themselves that they have to be strong for the sake of others when they are barely holding it together on the inside,because someone has to be what others can rely on in their mind. That's also done intentionally so the moment that facade breaks, it should hopefully hit the reader like a sledgehammer to the heart.
I've endured some real hardships through my 20s, and it made me stoic, and if not for my stoicism, I would've honestly harmed myself. For instance working from home, while caring for someone aggressive with Alzheimer's / Dementia for 6 years. It emotionally burned me out, every 3-8 mins to be subject to this cyclic & repetitive loop. But personally, stoic didn't make me unemotional / apathetic, it just meant I was able to emotionally distance myself from certain situations where it is not fitting to be totally vulnerable. I see "feelings" & "rationality / logic" as two drivers in a vehicle. Sometimes, you have to switch seats with the 'logic' copilot, because 'feelings' isn't the appropriate driver to navigate the twist and turns of the situation, nor solve the problem. And when the roads are smooth and comfortable, you develop the ability to switch drivers again, and "give" your sensitivity / feelings, instead of explicitly "being" sensitive all the time. People who aren't stoic, act before they think, and are more prone to impulsivity, poor decisions / judgement, and neuroticism. A stoic man is a contemplative man; one who carefully considers consequences / cause and effect of his words and actions before acting.
I know that Leonard Nimoy’s Spock in Original Star Trek had his emotional & comic relief moments being Half Vulcan/Half Human but part his main character was his stoicism nothing like the modern Spocks in the recent Star Trek rehashes I absolutely hate that are too emotional & comical too often which makes his Human side coming out his Vulcan shell less impactful unlike in the Original Trek era
This is one of the reasons I loved Shin Ultraman. Both Ultraman and the guy he accidentally kills when landing initially and bonds his life with are the definition of stoic. Even when his team mates are threatened by a government leader he threatened to wipe out the rest of humanity if they're harmed. All without even raising his voice.
I don't even think it's about gender politics as much as just that stoic characters are seen as "boring". Making them interesting requires better writing, acting and an audience qilling to focus and able to grasp things not made screamingly obvious. The current writers like the cheap, easy drama generated by over emotional characters. Pretty much every show these days, regardless of setting, feels like a teen drama set in high school. Everyone, men and women, cries at the drop of a hat, everyone constantly needs a pep talk.
There's been a few movies recently where the director or leading actor during the pre-release press would say something like "Straight, white, men shouldn't see this movie. It's not for them." But then when the movie does poorly at the box office (because there are women, non-whites, and non-straights who also don't like what was said) the same people insist that it's only bigots who didn't see the movie and not that they literally told a large part of the viewing public NOT to see it.
My family love the How To Train Your Dragon. All three of my kids & wife have merch. My favourite character is "Stoick the Vast". He's so stoic they named him Stoick. He's such a great character and I was genuinely sad when he died. At the same time that first movie has a great message as Hiccup try's to live up to being his Dad, failing and often making things worse but eventually he finds his own way and in the process changes the whole villages outlook on the dragons. Crazy to think that movie came out 13 years ago and to see how far Hollywood has strayed from that type of movie in such a short time.
i think you can totally have men that are heroic and strong, but also capable of showing emotions. the best example is Iliad. it captures both the heroic side of men, but also the sad part of it. Warriors who weren't afraid to kill and die, but were also capable of mourning for a dead brother and friend. And the heroes where great not because of absence of emotions behind their act, but because of them.
@@markvictor8776 1. thats not iliad, thats the trojan war you are talking about. the whole affair of paris and helen isnt in it. 2. Taking dishonour face on isnt "regulating your emotions", its being a whimp. The real tragedy of iliad is war itself. Brave men gain glory in battle, but at the cost of another form of glory. The honour of of seeing your father off to his last breath, the glory of watching your own son grow. this was the dilemma of achilles till the end, this was his tragic destiny. homar tripled down on this point with priam meeting with achilles at the end
In our country, we have mandatory army for men at the age of 18 (or after university). The boy that entered the armies and the man leave the army one year later have a big difference. They become much more stoic, pick their fights and ignore other peoples’s BS. Girls won’t marry men that didn’t go to the armies.
Stoicism is a masculine ideal that most women can never achieve. It is the exact opposite of how most women interact with society which is to emphasize how hard something is for them, how scared they are, how much they need someone else to help them/do something for them. That's why it's unpopular in Hollywood.
Women can be serious, they can even be calm in dangerous situations. But they can never be stoic, which is why the feminist movement has such a problem against it.
@@thecensoredmuscle563 I disagree a woman can never be stoic. If you've ever met women that lived through the blitz in London, spent most of their early adult life living through rationing, then you'll meet quite a few. The problem now is (as The Drinker says) you won't meet anyone in recent generations that even know what hardship is.
Apparently if a medical procedure was undertaken to remove a women’s uterus, they get less hysterical- as I was once told at Med School. Ergo , Hysterectomy
Stoic characters are more difficult to write. Must create actions that define the character and create depth. Relying on dialogue is faster and easier. Believe it or not, this is a technical issue that manifests on the page inadvertently.
Well, if you're an actual talented writer, it's quite easy to overcome. For example, if you have a story set in a survival situation, you typically have a crew. You characterize by contrast. Have one person be the one bitching and moaning about the situation, while another does the work and gets things done. You characterize them both by how they contrast. Then, by the end, the character that started off bitching develops to be less bitchy and more hardened due to learning from the stoic one. It writes itself.
After watching this I listened to original Mulan song "I'll make a man out of you" " Be a man, you must be swift as a coursing river, with all the force of a great typhoon, with all the strength of a raging fire, mysterious as the dark side of the moon" once upon time Disney actually cared about sending the right message to men/boys
Being stoic expects you to find strength within. Hidden Figures seems to be one of the last few movies that show stoicism. From no the strength within you.
I blame 00's Seth Rogen since he came in as the inept man-child who was always way outta his league in every movie he was in. Ironically, that's the type of guy women wanna see in Hollywood now after they despised Seth Rogen in the aughts
"...good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times" Just the regular part of the cycle, nothing to worry about. Hard times are coming, and strong men will be in high demand. "Relic of the past" yeah, right...
Hopefully this is all part of the ebb and flow that is quality in films. Now that each of these badly written films are doing mostly abysmally with regards to sales more and more studios will readjust and remember what made great films, great.
I do not yet see that in general to be honest. Yes, there still are things like "Yellowstone" which is about the most successful show recently and STILL has the most relatable, best written and strongest female- and injun- figures, by far, and there's of course Tom Cruise and his adventure-movie universe securely delivering timeless man-lives-to-enjoy, living for themselves in terms of success and return on investment, but that inclusive-boring-politically-correct crap-writing regrettably still isn't extinct yet in Hollywood and elsewhere. It is quite soothing to see how even the proverbial "aircraftcarrier" can be ruined in an eyeblink or two with woke broke writing and storytelling, as we can watch in Disney for some time now, but I'm afraid the real reality did not yet knock on enough doors with "liberal artsy", "gender criticality" and quite some other crap-degree-holders behind 'em.
@@manfredschmalbach9023 At the very worse there is still a positive to come from all this. That being that it has reminded us of how great the classics really are. And has even nurtured a new and grater appreciation of the best aspects of story telling and cinema, even in movies we once thought irredeemable.
@@Rascal-of-War Yes, that's right about the classics, but think about absolutely groundbreaking art like Memento, Pulp Fiction, Barbarella or Easy Rider, movies so far ahead of their time they still to date were textbook examples in artsy studies .... We didn't have things like that for ages, right? And with the current bluehaired, woke anti-art in cinematic context (be it me2-ing the great enablers out of the door, be it cross-casting in ways even a ten-year-old would find appalling was he not already wokely indoctrinated in turbo-mode since first class ....) we won't get anything like that anytime soon again, I'm afraid.
@@manfredschmalbach9023 I feel you're wrong. There have already been fantastic works produced devoid of all the aforementioned agendas. SAS Rogue Heroes, Top Gun Maverick are a few examples of some of the best movies and TV shows I've seen in my lifetime. And they're all very young. I feel they're not revered because they're not old enough to be deemed 'a classic' as it were. They are it least proof that the most important influence on success are still sane. That influence being the mainstream audience.
Funny that they call good male traits "Toxic" then write their leads with traits that would actually be considered toxic in men (and women too for that matter).
My ideas about sex and dating as a young man were informed by movies. Goofy, adorable guys like Bill Murray and Tom Hanks won their way into women's hearts with jokey jokes. It was entertaining, sure, but any guy, especially me, who acted that way around women in real life got the side-eye lip curl. Took me a long time to figure out what was wrong.
This is awesome. I great discussion. Its like us as humans know all this but maybe we don’t necessarily articulate it in our minds so its nice to hear why we find modern movies stale and unrelatable! I thought it was me and my attention span but its actually that movies got bad
As much as I appreciate drinker, I can't help but notice that this is kinda contradictory to his statement about modern female characters. Captain Marvel is a stoic character that we all hate. Stoic characters generally are not good regardless of gender. We can't relate to plank of wood who do not emote and take care of things like a robot. Thats why I love Logan. He is highly emotional guy who just try to suck it up and do his job. Showing emotion doesn't instantly make a man cry-baby.
Amen. I want a male character to have a range of emotions. Otherwise you have Stallone, or Arnold. People get tired of that . That's why their careers fizzled. No thank you.
Is Captain Marvel stoic, though? In order to be stoic, you have to really suffer. Does she suffer? Does the audience identify with her quietly dealing with hardship and inadequacy? Or is she just ... insufferably arrogant? 'Cause that's not stoic. I ask, because I never saw those movies, but that's the impression I got.
Which is funny, since the guys in my D&D group are hardasses that play hard, tough, stoic guys. And if they don't, they play the comic relief types that are still stoic, but have a strong helping of snark in them. The women in my crew also usually play very feminine, but still very capable characters as well. This is what the common audience wants. Not... whatever the hell that movie will be.
in relation to that principle of how life is meant to be improving yourself, Back in my boot camp days in the military, in order to properly train people, the first thing they had to do was break you down and essentially remake your mental image from the ground up. This is why the shave your head, burn your clothes, and spend the first week calling you a maggot (or whatever endearing term your drill Seargent used). Part of improvement in all areas of life is the willingness to lay down "what you thought you were" , and pick up the new you, "what you should be." improving your life involves change, and as long as you celebrate your sameness, you are literally locking yourself into a mental jail.
I like how you guys talked about the art and what is going on. Thanks it’s important. I was recently wondering about how some people could fall for this. Being a spiritual person I first think it is the Jezebel and Ahab spirit. But those are demons and people have to come into agreement with it. My husband is very masculine. My feminist mom and siblings can barely stand him. (I think most of them have mellowed out on the feminist thing. Certainly I shedded it to the best of my ability.) Well, sometimes my husband suddenly becomes so submissive and cautious, for lack of better words. He tries to please others a lot for what they think about him. I had a male friend tell me that his greatest fear was to become irrelevant. I guess as he got older. It is just strange to see it develop in real life. I’m not trying to feed it. I’m just amazed to see it occur because what do you get out of it? Maybe they are just falling into a well played trap.
Stoicism is just a holding pattern of how to maintain dignity while trying to preserve something to pass down during hard defeated times. But just the fact it doesn’t show pain is to much for women to bare.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand this new business model for Hollywood. When people don’t like your product attack them…doesn’t seem like the best sales pitch.
I watched the movie 65 and thought it was a really good movie, I now realise why it had reviews by the professional reviewers, it was basically a man protecting a young girl.
We all like strong female heroes in movies. I grew up with Princess Leia and Ellen Ripley and thought they were great. They were tough women who risked their lives to do the right thing. But what made them great was that they didn't always have the answers. Sometimes, they got scared. Sometimes they made mistakes. They sometimes got pissed off with the men around them but never put them down. And, they never beat up men who were almost twice their size in height and body weight. They were human and we related to them because they struggled. But today's movie makers believe they have to pander to feminists with super fragile egos. So the female characters can't be anything less than tough, karate~kicking ultra~geniuses who easily achieve their goals. So easy, in fact, the movies are very boring to watch
Watch a series called Vision of Escaflowne(the 2016 dub they did, as it had a very poor dub originally back from the 90's). Its basically what Disney has wanted, but can't truly make, in terms of a female led epic adventure. The series itself is excellent and does so many things right.
Yes, Escaflowne is fabulous! One of the best mecha/shounen anime of all time, especially considering Hitomi is such an important and strong character. Like Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood, it breaks the barriers between genres and is not easily pigeonholed. BTW, Winry from FMA is also a very good example of a strong female character, and she's bossy without ever being annoying. So Is Izumi Curtis. For me, her relationship with her huge-ass husband Sig is extremely endearing, especially considering her past trauma.
@@alexandresobreiramartins9461 Christine Glass voices Hitomi and the voice actor who plays Edward Elric, voices Folkien in the 2016 redub of Vision of Escaflowne. Overall, its Escaflowne as it should have been dubbed. But I bring the aeries up because it is a perfect example of how to do a female character right. She has power but it shows how she actually winds up messing things up. There is a strong theme throughout the whole series of how you have to have your heart right, and then you can male things better. That's not what the mainstream today wants one to think. They think that, just give people resources, and they'll just do the right thing. I've rewatched the series since it came out decades ago, and there is always something in it to think about. Also, I really like how the man of her dreams is somebody who is a jerk and doesn't like her much to begin with, and actually the "perfect man" of her fantasy, is actually a playboy who might go out with anybody, even though I do like Allen's character. With Fullmetal Alchemist, just like with Escaflowne, it has fully fleshed out, organic characters and themes that dominate the entire series and are all connected
@@alexandresobreiramartins9461 Is like a fine whine... it ages well. I discovered the redub, and watching it again, it was like watching again for the first time. Although I always had it in the original japanese with subtitles.
If I wanted to attack and take control of a jungle village which was defended by fearsome warriors armed with spears and shields I would first neutralise the the villages means of defence. I would turn the warriors into defenceless women. There in lies the tactics of the belligerent but they do it on a worldwide scale.
Stoic characters are great. Problem is actors have to be able to do them well. And unfortunately it's hard to pull off. Because of the fine line between stoic and just plain boring and unrelatable. So good directors, good actors are needed to do right by this archetype. And I don't see a lot of people pulling it off. The wrong actor picked can do a terrible job. A Ryan Gosling for example, can't stand how boring he is. He draws attention to women who crush on him but I get nothing out of the boring contemplative scenes he's in. They look dumb and he can't maintain it. The other thing we see is that movies themselves have ruined stoic characters because a lot of garbage movies try to use a stoic-like character, but really it's just hot garbage and that becomes cliche where viewers no longer trust actually well-written characters. Mismatched motivations, dumb stories in general make us hate that archetype because everytime we see it, it's garbage. So a good one will be ignored.
Let me tell ya something. Nowadays, everybody’s gotta go to shrinks, and counselors, and go on “Sally Jessy Raphael” and talk about their problems. What happened to Gary Cooper? The strong, silent type. That was an American. He wasn’t in touch with his feelings. He just did what he had to do. See, what they didn’t know was once they got Gary Cooper in touch with his feelings that they wouldn’t be able to shut him up! And then it’s dysfunction this, and dysfunction that, and dysfunction vaffancul!
Depends on the definition of stoicism. Marcus Aurelius could be pretty emotional but yes he got shit done, while burying his children in the Antoine plague. And women can do this too- just needs to be a mix and yes the Hollywood characterisation is a problem. I’m all for being a sigma wolf
Critique of Stoicism: First and foremost, Stoicism fails to address the fundamental philosophical origin of emotional disturbances, which is the tendency to escalate preferences into absolute demands, musts, and shoulds. For example, a Stoic might say, "It would be preferable if I could control my partner's actions, but I must absolutely be able to control them when they criticize me." This oversimplification disregards the complexities of human emotions and relationships. Stoicism heavily emphasizes the dichotomy of control, categorizing things into those that we have control over and those that we do not. However, it overlooks the reality of situations lying on a continuum, where some things may be influenced but not fully controlled. For instance, aspiring for world peace is an ambition that falls within our sphere of influence, even though it might not be entirely within our control. An unrealistic aspect of Stoicism is its recommendation to feel neither positive nor negative emotions towards things we cannot control. For instance, while we may have no control over the weather, it is natural and reasonable to feel joy on a sunny day and disappointment during an ice storm based on personal preferences and well-being. Stoicism claims that moral virtue is the sole requirement for achieving happiness. However, this assertion overlooks the complexity of human psychology, as moral virtue alone does not necessarily lead to the alleviation of conditions like depression, which often have multifaceted causes. Stoicism tends to neglect the significant impact of genetic predispositions on an individual's outlook and emotional responses. These inherent traits can shape one's temperament and emotional experiences, influencing how Stoicism is practically applied in different individuals. The philosophy of Stoicism omits the recognition of the extensive effort, practice, and self-discipline that most people require to truly adopt a stoic perspective towards themselves, others, and the circumstances of their lives. The process of internalizing Stoic principles is more intricate than it may initially appear, and it requires dedication and commitment to embody the teachings fully. In conclusion, while Stoicism offers valuable insights and guidance on leading a virtuous and mindful life, it is not without its shortcomings. Addressing these issues and acknowledging the complexities of human emotions and experiences can lead to a more nuanced understanding and practical application of Stoicism in contemporary life.
I'll take a slightly different view. Post WW2, much of culture reflected stoic lead men who displayed competence, even if they were initially weak and had to follow the Hero's Journey to achieve this stoicism. I think this peaked in the 70s (see almost any Robert Redford 70s movie). The initial inversion of this came in the early 80s, along with the gradual cultural acceptance of women's liberation. This meant men didn't have to do everything and could be weak. Where you had generally clever first takes at this (see Dustin Hoffman's neurotic character in Tootsie, who, in a thoroughly modern way, is a man who is a better woman than all of the women in the story), that was largely dependent on quality of the writers. The 80s aged out many of the competent, classic writers whose heyday was the 1950s-70s. It's not coincidental that the 1980s was the wider acceptance of the sequel (Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc.) and western culture has not progressed far from that in 40 years. So, stoicism and competence gave way to weakness and cheap copies of older ideas on the way to sequels and reboots. It's a cynical cash grab founded on a lack of originality and solid writing fundamentals. But this, too, is cyclical. Weak times make strong men...
Exactly. The backlash to this woke bs is brewing, and you can already see the way the winds will be blowing in a few years. I feel that in just a few years, there will be blowback to all this nonsense, and it's gonna hit hard and fast and take no prisoners.
John Wick? Captain America? Paul Atreides, the walking embodiment of stoicism? K in Blade Runner 2049? Waymond Wang? Charlie in The Whale, which just won Brendan Fraser an Oscar? Do you people just watch Disney films?
