This is the reason for the suit change: Melissa and the brass asked for it - ew.com article.

@Romulus, the post was getting big, so I am not quoting you.

Thank you for your kind reply.

I have not been happy with how the show has been going since S2. With a few exceptions anyways. (But a lot of the audience do seem to like it and consider fourth the best season. And they may have their tastes.)

Irrespective of that, I don't agree with your underlying assumptions about the reasons for the show's direction and Melissa when there is nothing much to backup these points. That was what I wanted to say. It doesn't matter the actors are under gag orders. They haven't said it. Hence, it is not to be assumed.

There are certain implied assumptions that we make about women and that ends up being displayed in situations such as this. And, at times, they are more latent and we make them unaware.

Thus, I was not asking you to mince your words. I was asking you to examine your assumptions. I never considered it a malicious attack on Melissa made intentionally to hurt. I just consider that the underlying assumptions were sexist and gendered (all of them including about her looks). And disrespectful.

Were you asking Stephen and Grant to start a family since their shows are bad? Or any guy who got engaged and was having a bad show in your opinion but popular in general?

If you were asking them to do that, well then. I stand corrected and I apologise.

If not, I stand by my statement.

I will quote you....lol

And I agree, I don't see any of the statements in here misogynistic in nature, but they are stereotypical in nature, in that as you stated SSAV male actors are not asked these questions, nor are assumptions made like those made here. If those things are not called out, they will continue and I believe that is one of the things this series is fighting against, and I think it is hitting home and some are changing, or shouting foul.

I have no answer really for those that do not like the suit, because it isn't the skirt. Not liking the suit is not a big deal to me, that is simply an opinion being given, you want the skirt, ok........not gonna happen, but ok. But when assumptions are made as to why there is a change, or the actor is asking things that diminish the character, or the sky is falling....then I will speak to those things. People that don't like the color, not enough red, etc.....that is a valid point, but I'm sorry I do not see "its just too much of a change" as a valid point, change happens, this character is evolving and what works on a piece of paper drawn, does not necessarily work in live action over the life of a series, things have to change or they become stagnant. That is the nature of it.

I have to say, yes I have seen the tweets of "I miss her legs", "I miss the sexy", etc....but honestly no where near the number I thought we would have....I'm actually surprised and happily surprised at that. I do, however believe some are veiled in "history of the character in print", etc. The history of this character in print, has not always been a good one, and unfortunately (In my opinion) the print version has not evolved nearly enough, and I count that as simply not enough female artists out there to counter the decades of no real evolution of the character;s look, other than what a male artist thinks she should look like in his mind. We are at the cusp of seeing that change, and I for one am so proud that Melissa and this series are leading the way in the evolution of this character's look, Melissa has the nature of the character down, and wearing pants is not going to change that sooooooooo......bravo, and as a woman all I can say is.....it's about damn time.

People seem to forget that despite the best efforts to freshen up / modernise / make more comfortable the look and to please Melissa and the brass, that it is still a raging dumpster fire. Putting it under different lighting still doesn't polish it any more or make it any more favourable. A dookie is still a dookie.

There is no reason to call it a dumpster fire, especially repeatedly, or compare it to a "dookie". And by saying "people seem to forget", you make it seem like your opinions are the objective fact, rather than what they are, which is your subjective opinion. Again, I'm not the biggest fan of the suit. I'd prefer the old suit. But I acknowledge that there are people out there that seem to legitimately love it.

And calling Melissa's appearance "tired an haggard"? Was there really a reason for that? Not to mention that she's probably more rested than she's been in years, because it's the beginning of the season, and this is the first time she hasn't done a film, tv show, or broadway show during her summer hiatus.

I'm not trying to insult you, or anything like that. I'm merely expressing that when you state your opinions in a seemingly disrespectful manner, I can't take the post seriously, and it discredits some of your legitimate points.

****

Fair enough. People are entitled to their opinions and suit preferences. I will do my best to moderate my comments, but I'm calling them as I see them. Four years of the kid glove treatment is more than enough.

The show has pushed people's tolerances past their limits time and again and I've been conservative in my postings, polite, diplomatic, rational and quiet for four solid years, even as the building has undeniably and self-evidently started to structurally collapse. Yet, I cannot and will not stay quiet for something that is clearly indefensible. They've (the show in general) taken four years of dedicated, careful image work and crumpled it up and tossed it out. And they're seriously not expecting some fierce pushback?! Wow! That's priceless.

Please, face facts: She does look tired - 4 seasons of long, gruelling work will do that. The suit does look like a d####ie, trash bin blaze and is indistinguishable from everything else that's out there. They've taken something that was supposed to be a crowning jewel and positive affirmation for girls and women and mucked it up. For Pete's sake, Henry Cavill's MoS SM-version suit has more panache, vim and flair, and that's not meant as a compliment.

Maybe, just maybe, as I've stated before, I'll be pleasantly surprised at how the look turns out on screen over time but I just do not see it happening at the moment. Once people get over the giddy newness of the suit and see it over the long haul, it will become a millstone for her rather than a series refresher.

As for these posts discrediting my other "more" legitimate/credible posts, that's a matter of interpretation. I have reasoned my responses out and checked them thrice before posting. I have not disrespected Melissa's abilities as a performer or her in general, just the horrendous costume choice and hairdo makeover which she approved, what wardrobe made, and the brass ultimately signed off on. Once you realise (and I mean this with complete respect to you) that people will like and say anything without taking a cold, hard second look at things, you'll be less harsh of my assessment.

I may be mad as a hatter now, but I fear that this reboot / redo they're going with will be the straw that breaks the show. I won't get into other already-hashed out issues (such as writing, direction, plots, storylines, etc.), but the ad-nauseum soft reboots will eventually come back to haunt the production in a huge way.

And, to play nicely with the VIP passers-by who might stumble across said posts (notice - they're not on the News Page), the truth does hurt, especially if this is a decision that should have been made before the series started and not after it moved to another colder climate. If the costume change had been rumoured at be in the works since S2 or S3, it should have been done then.

As for Melissa's health and well-being due to the limitations of the other suit, there are work-arounds. For actors and people in general who have lived and worked in much harsher environments than Vancouver (Toronto, Montreal, etc.), this is almost an automatic given. Unfortunately, this was not carefully thought out despite it being in the hopper for two plus years.

@SSAV and @Kelly:

Thank you for your insights and comments. I will address them quickly to keep the dull roar down.

1) Stereotypical assumptions - no. I would ask the same of male actors. It's just that society in general skews the responses / reactions that way. Heck, I'd ask any male lead the same thing and if they balked, I'd rake 'em over the coals. Twice as hard.

2) Starting a family - this was added simply because Melissa has already stated this desire in an interview. I am only giving a valid set of reasons why she may wish to opt out of SG after this season. Again, like my previous point, I'd ask the same of male actors. Given the huge workload, and increasingly inherent problems with the show, I simply stated that she might consider this option. It's not a demand, nor an assumption that she will or won't do this.

@SSAV and @Kelly:

Thank you for your insights and comments. I will address them quickly to keep the dull roar down.

1) Stereotypical assumptions - no. I would ask the same of male actors. It's just that society in general skews the responses / reactions that way. Heck, I'd ask any male lead the same thing and if they balked, I'd rake 'em over the coals. Twice as hard.

2) Starting a family - this was added simply because Melissa has already stated this desire in an interview. I am only giving a valid set of reasons why she may wish to opt out of SG after this season. Again, like my previous point, I'd ask the same of male actors. Given the huge workload, and increasingly inherent problems with the show, I simply stated that she might consider this option. It's not a demand, nor an assumption that she will or won't do this.

So, when they made changes to Flash's costume, you automatically assumed he would be leaving the show soon to have a family????? Really????

It's not about "asking" the question.....it is about the "automatic go to" in this case. NO ONE, (well some called foul on the suit changes for Flash, yes) automatically had the "thinking" whelp this is the end of that and I bet he wants to have a family.

What interview did she state wanting a family with Chris, the only time I've seen her asked about a family was the interview on Kelly Ripa's show (don't remember which co-host she had at the time) and was asked that and she said she had children.....her dogs.

@Kelly replied:

"So, when they made changes to Flash's costume, you automatically assumed he would be leaving the show soon to have a family????? Really????

It's not about "asking" the question.....it is about the "automatic go to" in this case. NO ONE, (well some called foul on the suit changes for Flash, yes) automatically had the "thinking" whelp this is the end of that and I bet he wants to have a family. "

******

Thanks for the questions.

Not to be rude, and forgive me if it appears so, but it's a gargantuan no on all counts. Please do not make assumptions or jump to conclusions or try to put words in my mouth in this matter. The "automatic go to" in this case is of your narrow interpretation of my postings, not my intent, assumptions about, or line of thinking. You're looking for a convenient bogeyman or scapegoat where one does not exist. This is your reflex "go to" assumption reaction showing, not mine.

Since I don't watch the Flash as a point (it is truly a chore to sit through - worse in many respects than SG) and cannot stand Arrow for a variety of reasons, your assumptions about them have little bearing. If I was a fan of the show(s), and having seen what I already have of them, they've been thoroughly ditched. I have a hard time enough with them when they are in the crossovers. They do absolutely nothing for me, and as it relates to F & A's multiple costume changes, both costumes (and any variations thereof) are write-offs in my view. As it pertains to male cast members wishing to start families, it is a cyclical, counterproductive, and academic argument.

As for the Melissa Benoist bit regarding wanting a family (your "automatic go to" trigger, so to speak), if I recall, the interview may have been when she was married to Blake Jenner and may or may not have been intended in jest. You can score a point here if you wish but the "automatic go to" was not there nor was it implied or intended. I may have misinterpreted what was said and that was an error on my part. They do happen form time to time. No one is perfect.

The bottom line is this: I am not a fan of Melissa's choice for the new suit and think it will be hugely detrimental to the show in the long run for a variety of reasons. I may be proven wrong - and I hope I am - for the sake of the show, but it is a fait accompli (accomplished fact). She will wear it and she will be judged for it (whether it's a positive assessment or a negative one) by the viewers. Whether it empowers her or de-powers her, so to speak, is to be determined. These are current social conventional norms and values, but not necessarily mine. Rail against these injustices if you wish, but not against me.

There’s a lot of history with regards to women fighting for the right to wear pants. Since it helps to personalize history I’ll share some. My mother born in 1950 in Brooklyn, NY wasn’t allowed to wear pants to school until middle school. She was one of the girls who fought for that right. The character Supergirl was created when girls like my mom were expected to dress a certain way but even then they were fighting against that. Unfortunately girls are still fighting for the right to wear what they want and be comfortable. My cousin’s 14 year old daughter was dresscoded last school year for wearing a tank top. She was told her top was distracting to her male classmates. She appealed her suspension because she didn’t want it on her record and the schoolboard found the teacher had misinterpreted the school’s dress code. That’s right over 55 years after my mom fought for the right to wear pants to school her great niece is still fighting to wear comfortable cloths. Stories of girls getting sent home from school and being told their cloths are distracting to boys are unfortunately not uncommon. I have yet to find one story of a boy being sent home for a dress code violation. I have no problem with a school having a dress code but the fact is many of them place more restrictions on girls than boys and girls are far more likely to be the targets of enforcement. Melissa wanting to wear pants as Supergirl but wearing pants/skirts/dresses as Kara sends a positive message to girls. That message chose cloths that are comfortable and fit the situation not what others think you should wear.

The bottom line is this: I am not a fan of Melissa's choice for the new suit and think it will be hugely detrimental to the show in the long run for a variety of reasons. I may be proven wrong - and I hope I am - for the sake of the show, but it is a fait accompli (accomplished fact). She will wear it and she will be judged for it (whether it's a positive assessment or a negative one) by the viewers. Whether it empowers her or de-powers her, so to speak, is to be determined. These are current social conventional norms and values, but not necessarily mine. Rail against these injustices if you wish, but not against me.

@ Romulus please be aware when you say things like this it makes you seem at best out of touch. It’s that attitude that’s caused the pushback in this thread. It’s of course your right to have any values you chose. I ask you to think about how those values make you look and if that’s the image you’re proud to project.

On the topic of actresses getting asked about their plans to start a family that’s not something that should be asked in jest it’s just rude. If I asked a stranger, coworker, or acquaintance about their plans to start a family that would be considered incredibly rude. To reporters aren’t the actresses they interview strangers, colleagues, or at best acquaintances. For decades actresses like Melissa put up with this nonsense. When actresses and some actors pushed back the outcome wasn’t reporters asking the actors too it was dropping the question. So it’s fine to say well just ask everyone and that makes it ok but in fact that’s not what happened.

@Brierrose wrote:

"@ Romulus please be aware when you say things like this it makes you seem at best out of touch. It’s that attitude that’s caused the pushback in this thread. It’s of course your right to have any values you chose. I ask you to think about how those values make you look and if that’s the image you’re proud to project. "

*****

Fair point. Well taken, but do not bring pride into it. The type of attitude that has caused the pushback and sharp reactions is the over-reaction of some users to it. Old-fashioned values are not "bad" or "good." Hard work, decency, fairness, and goodwill toward others are old-fashioned and "out of touch." Do you dismiss them as weak or out of place in today's world? Many of the PC and equality debates and current ideology would tend to project that impression. And that is why it doesn't have widespread support across genders.

Many males would love to lend a helping hand (and many do) to right the ship and correct social injustices, so to speak, but they continually get slapped away as misguided, old-fashioned, out of touch or weak by the very people they're trying to help. And, please don't begin to bring in the "toxic male masculinity" or "condescending male" red herring into it because that would disingenuous and a massive fallacy at best. Any single mother with male children will tell you this, female empowered or otherwise.

It was a male, not a female, who made a successful pitch to WB back in 2007 to get this character to the screen with the vast majority of the attributes we see on TV today. Who do you think made the pitch?

The fact that Melissa chose/chooses to wear pants isn't really the issue. She can wear whatever she pleases, but aesthetically and visually speaking, the changes to SG's costume are totally rotten. As Kara Danvers it works very well and is within character. It projects confidence and ability. Most females can relate to this. As the Supergirl character, it does not mesh. It eliminates her femininity and genericises her at best. Don't shoot me for saying being feminine isn't "good" or "bad", it simply is. Gender exists for a reason (be it by creation or evolution - you choose).

In all honesty, I'd have the same reaction to Arrow if he decided to don a tutu or if the Flash opted for frills (admittedly, it might be fun to see but it would not be within character or really workable). It does not work. Instead of a lead superhero who happens to be female and empowered, we're presented with an androgynous video game version of the character. If that's what she wishes to project, she will, and it may or may not work. The current iteration of Wonder Woman works because she combines femininity and power. Captain Marvel, despite being financially successful, really kinda does the opposite.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the comments and somewhat heated exchanges. Very informative. It has added a new perspective on things.

Here are my final thoughts (fwiw) regarding the changes:

1) The new suit does not / will not work as intended on the TV show version because this character iteration was never supposed to go this far. It was supposed to be a launch point project between the old-fashioned world and the new one. The addition of pants should not be used to fix or patch up an already structurally-inconsistent version of the character and wonky TV show.

2) The pants version of the character will work (if handled properly and with a better overall colour / design scheme) in the proposed film version of the character. That is, if the suit with pants is used from the get-go and not as an add-on or remedy to an already inconsistency-riddled project. If they go with it from the beginning, it will work.

You see, the horse should go before the cart. This is not too hard to figure out.

The type of attitude that has caused the pushback and sharp reactions is the over-reaction of some users to it. Old-fashioned values are not "bad" or "good." Hard work, decency, fairness, and goodwill toward others are old-fashioned and "out of touch." Do you dismiss them as weak or out of place in today's world? Many of the PC and equality debates and current ideology would tend to project that impression. And that is why it doesn't have widespread support across genders.

Many males would love to lend a helping hand (and many do) to right the ship and correct social injustices, so to speak, but they continually get slapped away as misguided, old-fashioned, out of touch or weak by the very people they're trying to help...

The path to gender equality should never be at the expense of another's and it is paramount that all genders be recognized as important components, with equal value, in that pursuit. That said, there are many reasons why social equality doesn't have widespread support across genders and this feeling by some that you mention may be a part of the reason, but in no means would I argue that it is the reason.

We are a society that loves our labels as a go-to for communication across mediums, but the problem that arises out of relying on this as a means of expression is that our intent gets blurred and dismissed in the process. I agree with you that values such as hard work, decency, fairness and goodwill are important and that yes, those values have been a part of many cultures since societies began forming. But, those are human values not values that should be credited to one generation or another and as such should continue as long as humans continue to exist.

As Kara Danvers it works very well and is within character. It projects confidence and ability. Most females can relate to this. As the Supergirl character, it does not mesh. It eliminates her femininity and genericises her at best. Don't shoot me for saying being feminine isn't "good" or "bad", it simply is. Gender exists for a reason (be it by creation or evolution - you choose).

Yes, gender exists for a reason, a biological reason that's necessarily for continuation of population growth and avoidance of human extinction. That has absolutely nothing to do with social norms such as clothing that was assigned to one gender by another based on the assigning gender's preference. In fact, if you examine ancient history, both men and women used to wear the same attire and at one point, no matter if you follow creation or evolution, clothing wasn't even utilized.

On the other side of the conversation, I don't agree with Melissa and/or the producers comment that not wearing a skirt makes one more adult-like. Again, that is a misconception stemmed out of a bias of relying too much on one's inner social group. In my opinion, it's a very superficial belief to think that clothing in any form defines one's attributes and capabilities as a human being. That example is just one in the show's approach that teeters between wanting to be a vehicle for social messaging yet still relying so heavily on surface level, unoriginal, socially defined labels and values in its story-telling that limits them from actually having any real relevance or credibility.

@Sully,

Very good points. Note taken. But, given that we're all living within artificial socially defined parameters that have been created over centuries, you have to work with what you've got. If you intend to blow up / dismantle something, at least have a solid idea that is actually workable, palatable, and able to be implemented without resorting to soft reboots every year. (I.e. end this iteration / interpretation / show tinkering now and then produce a proper movie in 2021-2022 with said changes - with a different, fresh cast and iteration / interpretation from the get-go).

And, I agree with your point about the suit being adult bit. Again, it's a Hollywood interpretation and a particular agenda at play and they're not always exceptionally astute or on-point in this regard. In many respects, they're "old-fashioned" and "out of touch" with many issues. They try to be on-point, true, but sometimes (in this case, more often than not) the message gets lost in translation / interpretation and implementation.

There is going to be times where it looks like that for gender equality it is at the expense of the other, simply because the other for centuries has had the upper hand. In this country it has only been 100 years of Women having the right to vote, and we are "just now" getting solid representation in our government. So please, do not talk to me about........oooooh, I call foul because you say you want equality, and it is at my expense as a man. Um, nooooo......just having to push back because it has been a full on battle to even get to where we are now, and still FAAAAAAAAAAAAR from being equal in many areas of society. So, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy where that is concerned. We are not going to gain equality without men losing something, sorry......it is just how it is. That loss is not something that degrades men, that is not what is happening. That loss is simply women gaining the power to speak for themselves, to make decisions for themselves, to be given the right to change things because they see and feel the need to do so. The equality comes with allowing change, it isn't about taking something away...it is about giving something back that wasn't yours to begin with.

There is going to be times where it looks like that for gender equality it is at the expense of the other, simply because the other for centuries has had the upper hand. In this country it has only been 100 years of Women having the right to vote, and we are "just now" getting solid representation in our government. So please, do not talk to me about........oooooh, I call foul because you say you want equality, and it is at my expense as a man. Um, nooooo......just having to push back because it has been a full on battle to even get to where we are now, and still FAAAAAAAAAAAAR from being equal in many areas of society. So, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy where that is concerned. We are not going to gain equality without men losing something, sorry......it is just how it is.

I agree but think the last bit needs clarification. What men need to “lose” is the belief they are entitled to something because of their gender. I think most would agree that belief was false in the first place. Women are demanding men let go of that perception. 100 years ago when women in the US were enfranchised many men and yes some women thought it would be the country’s downfall, clearly it wasn’t. Every fight for equal rights requires the privileged to see enough value in equality and the non-privileged as humans to give up their perceived superiority for the greater good. That’s a necessary but difficult thing to do. Change, particularly if we weren’t the one who initiated it, is something humans in general are resistant to especially if we perceive we’re losing something. Nostalgia for the way things were when we grew up is a real and powerful feeling. It might help if men could flip the script and realize they are also gaining something, a more free society.

Haha, I think I was editing as you were typing....

Just remember to be respectful everyone! Tough topics require care and thoughtful responses

There is going to be times where it looks like that for gender equality it is at the expense of the other, simply because the other for centuries has had the upper hand. In this country it has only been 100 years of Women having the right to vote, and we are "just now" getting solid representation in our government. So please, do not talk to me about........oooooh, I call foul because you say you want equality, and it is at my expense as a man. Um, nooooo......just having to push back because it has been a full on battle to even get to where we are now, and still FAAAAAAAAAAAAR from being equal in many areas of society. So, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy where that is concerned. We are not going to gain equality without men losing something, sorry......it is just how it is. That loss is not something that degrades men, that is not what is happening. That loss is simply women gaining the power to speak for themselves, to make decisions for themselves, to be given the right to change things because they see and feel the need to do so. The equality comes with allowing change, it isn't about taking something away...it is about giving something back that wasn't yours to begin with.

I'm not sure if you're directing this at me or not, but I'm a woman and have felt the brunt of inequality and been in the thick of fighting for it longer than most of those on this show have even been born. So, I'm fully aware of what that looks like and well versed in the history of women's rights in the United States.

My position is that we, as a society, should have the belief that we want to strive toward putting all individuals, from all walks of life - be that gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc. - to the same high level of equality. There is an argument that some individuals are already at that level, and if so, fair enough. But, most (including both men and women) are not in all areas of life. And to state that men should be expected to lose something because they had something that they shouldn't have had in the first place, is a slap in the face to those who actually haven't had it and struggle in life every day, just as women do. All we're doing when we make statements such as that is alienating folks who work hard to try and and achieve a minimum level in standard of living. Additionally, it creates a further division in our society, one that we don't need to widen, but rather, bring together.

This approach doesn't take anything away from women gaining equality because IF we have the belief that we are working at putting all individuals on that same equal level, women's rise to it will naturally occur. Yes, we have more women represented in the House than we ever have had before. The reason for this is not because these women went into their districts and talked about taking back something that women had lost. Instead, it's because these women had the fortitude to get involved, were encouraged by others to believe that they could do it and then went in and talked to their constituents about how their district could gain by having them represent them. It's all about having conversations with other citizens that don't swing from one extreme to another.

No...

My position is that we, as a society, should have the belief that we want to strive toward putting all individuals, from all walks of life - be that gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc. - to the same high level of equality.

Cannot agree strongly enough.

The smallest minority is one. When justice is ensured for each individual, I believe that what people call social justice follows.

My position is that we, as a society, should have the belief that we want to strive toward putting all individuals, from all walks of life - be that gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc. - to the same high level of equality. There is an argument that some individuals are already at that level, and if so, fair enough. But, most (including both men and women) are not in all areas of life. And to state that men should be expected to lose something because they had something that they shouldn't have had in the first place, is a slap in the face to those who actually haven't had it and struggle in life every day, just as women do. All we're doing when we make statements such as that is alienating folks who work hard to try and and achieve a minimum level in standard of living. Additionally, it creates a further division in our society, one that we don't need to widen, but rather, bring together.

This approach doesn't take anything away from women gaining equality because IF we have the belief that we are working at putting all individuals on that same equal level, women's rise to it will naturally occur. Yes, we have more women represented in the House than we ever have had before. The reason for this is not because these women went into their districts and talked about taking back something that women had lost. Instead, it's because these women had the fortitude to get involved, were encouraged by others to believe that they could do it and then went in and talked to their constituents about how their district could gain by having them represent them. It's all about having conversations with other citizens that don't swing from one extreme to another.

It seems to like we keep butting heads, Sully! Oh well! The perils of being here. Anyways, I am quoting you because I really am directing this at you as well as everyone else.

I cannot really speak for Kelly or Brierrose but when a lot of people say men have to lose something, they mean what they had that originally belonged to women (or other races etc.) if equitably distributed. And, that is neither wrong nor a slap in the face.

There may be poor men (as there are poor women). Even so, they have had the luxury of seeing more representatives in the government across the globe, have they not? They have had the luxury of having way more media representation in a varied and diverse framework than women; and if they are straight and cis, way more than queer, trans and intersex. And that is just two things.

Let me give you a more basic example.

A few months back, a well known female actor from Kerala (my parental state; where I come from and spent at least a decade of my life) gave a TED video where she talked about how she finally feels free to have that second piece (or first, I don't remember the count) of fish fry in the home and it feels like feminism and freedom to her. She got a whole lot of negative feedback from men in Kerala.

What she was referring to was the practice in a lot of Indian (and possibly other Asian homes) of reserving the best food for men and boys in the household (no matter the economic status). So, this actor, while she was growing up was always asked to not take any from the fish fry (or meat or any delicacy) until the men and boys (her father and brothers or cousins) had their fill. And, if nothing was left after it, well... too bad.

And this is not something that used to happen decades ago. My cousin, recently told me how she struggled in her marital home because they had this practice (still there, so have) of the men eating first; and then men never checking to see if the women had enough left for them to eat. And, it is not bad planning on the behalf of women by the way. A lot of things like finances come into account. And of course, at times, men overeating or eating more of the special thing because they like it.

When people are talking about men losing something, they are talking about men in the same financial condition as them. They are talking about men specifically in their lives (though not always). In a specified socio-economic strata, straight upper caste (in case of US, white) men absolutely have more than what they in an equal society would have. At times, even men of the upper caste from lower economic conditions would have more because I don't think it is a general practice to deny things to cis straight men that are routinely denied to women (or other genders or other minorities).

At all levels, women and girls suffer from malnutrition in India than men (by a whole lot). So, you have programs that are oriented towards xx (which are underfunded because hey, men are there saying how terrible it is that women are treated specially and have special programs for them; and how men don't get equal treatment. And how general funds are specially used for women and how that is wrong. Do you see where I am going with this? And it harms those same underprivileged men as well because apparently they are these days born from XX's bodies and thus cis-female malnutrition affects them too.)

I can give you other examples, but elsewhere.

The point being: It is still painful to lose your status as the top person in the pyramid.
It generates fear. And it leads to reaction. But asking people who have suffered through centuries to keep not pointing out the fact that they have something missing and there are these inequalities that need to be corrected, because people who are there at the top of not economically but then demographically, would feel hurt...

That is like saying to the boy who got angry that his sister is asking for a second fish piece when he had only three that only his pain matters. And to the girl who asked for it that she shouldn't point at her brother or father as having more. Because think of all the poor people on the street who have none.

But at any sort of economic level, you have all genders and categories represented. And as such, at that level, it'd be women, WOC, POC, and other discriminated or underprivileged categories who suffer more than the men who have as you say nothing.

And by thinking only of the poor men and their feelings, you are also discounting the rest of them. At least, that is how it appears to me.

A rising tide lifts everyone. However, it will only do so when you focus on the bottom most rung; instead if you focus on the top most run, then only those top most rung will keep getting lifted and the bottom rung will slide further and further into ruin. Get left behind. If you (the generic you) think after they had their fill, the top most rung will share the left over, that is not how a lot of human nature works. That is why it is better to start with the bottom.

In Chemistry, from what I remember, the speed of a chain reaction is determined by the slowest. Likewise, the people on the lowest rungs are going to need more help and resources to bring them up to equality. That would feel like taking away for many men (of all walks of life). Saying that is not a slap in the face for anyone.

Not speaking is not an answer to any problem. See where that has led Kara and Lena. (I mean, Lena could speak to Kara and solve issues; instead, looks like she is going for resentment and wallowing in injury and would cause a whole season worth of problems; like always.)

Though of course they would need some support and such to deal with their lose of status. Whether the different world governments and communities have resources for that or not is up to them. However, sacrificing the rest for 'men who have nothing' is not the answer.

That part is in quotes to use it as a whole noun not because I mean it sarcastically.

Note: I am not speaking in US-specific terms because this is more of a global conversation and you have international visitors here. Some of those points, such as female malnutrition may not be the same in the US (or anywhere in the west). But, I'd say that the crux of the argument prevails.

When I say poor men; it is not snark. I mean economically disadvantaged men (just too many letters there to type every time I mean them). The only snark here is the Lena bit and the bit about who gives birth.

@SSAV and @Sully,

Re: Recent posts.

Excellent points and excellent analogies! Very well thought out. Please continue with these lines of thinking. This is what we should be looking at and focusing on.

Thank you, SSAV, yes that is exactly what I meant, I thought I explained it better in my edit....but sometimes I can miss the mark....lol. And as far as my comments, I'm not mad or upset with anyone here, it's really not about that....I am just one that likes everything out on the table, so really it was just to say "this is my truth" I don't mean it to say anyone else's truth for them is wrong. So if it came off as I'm right, your wrong....and I'm going to say it till you agree with me, then I apologize. I may not agree with people on this or that, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is a no-brainer for me. I will however, strongly disagree when I see the need to.....and I will call it as I see it. And once again I apologize for not explaining it better, but I was trying to get my point across in as few words as possible. SSAV your explanation is straight out of one of my gender equality lectures.....loved your explanation, and I LOOOOOVE Ted Talks, I can spend hours watching them on YouTube. Ok done....

Carry on.....?