So I posted that video about what made Broadcast news real and did a write up about it on the true film reddit sub. At first it went okay. But then this chick comes in and says this..

"Friendzoned? Hypergamy? Come on, dude.

Also, I recognized your tone from your Scott Pilgrim review, so i checked out your acct. to see if it was the same guy, and I couldn't help but notice that you xposted this to MGTOW, which is bizarre, but telling. I don't even know what point you're trying to make about this film, so I can't really refute the major points, other than it says a lot that you describe Hunters' character as 'so cute... with her voice and overall looks' and pretty much nothing else.

FWIW I think that Broadcast News is a phenomenal film, but your language here is kind of gross. Same goes for your Scott Pilgrim review, tbh."

She gets upvoted like crazy. Guys start attacking me in everyway. Man, I knew there were a lot of white knights. But this is fucking bad. Even a mod on there was white knighting real hard. People were saying that the friend zone doesn't exists, hypergamy doesn't exists, that I was looking at the film at a misogynist len, that I was talking down about the Holly Hunter character (which I did not, I said she was interesting), that the post shouldn't have been upvoted, etc, et,c etc.

I couldn't believe it. And people started down voting the post like crazy. Now normally I don't give a fuck about the internet. But this has me kinda mad. It's probably because it shows how bad most men are that they will white knight and say things like the friend zone and hypergamy don't exists. And if you think they exist, you are a misogynist. I am not going back to that sub much anymore.

I mean look at what the mod replied to me.

How is my language gross?

Because Holly Hunter's character doesn't want to date Albert Brooks it's called "friend zoning" rather than just her asserting her desires. The "friend zone" only exists if you see women as solely something to be had or ignored. She and Aaron become good friends and to reduce that friendship to her denying him seems to ignore the genuine bond they have. He's adult enough to realise that they're just not to be and that being friends is good enough, so you should be too.

But her hypergamy kicks in and she can't help but be physically attracted her.

Also implying the reason she likes Tom because of "hypergamy" is in itself pretty grotesque. Why can't a woman just be attracted to someone? Why does it need to be a class thing?

You say it is realistic in that it's "particularly good with women" when in reality it seems you've projected your own thoughts on women on to this character, stuff that's not really present in the film. She's a human being who due to her sex has to hold herself as stronger, smarter, and more forthright, than most of her male colleagues. Something that informs the moments she does let that barrier break, to finally allow herself to feel something fully. Again something you reduce to "Yes she would cry randomly here and there, but most women do this".

I had to think twice about deleting this post as it is basically a plot summary through a misogynist lens, but maybe it's worth staying up so people can try educate you on why what you're saying is troubling.

Don't feel attacked or that I'm saying you're a sexist monster, but so much of what you're saying is barely present in the film and seems to come from a place that looks at women as one entity you seem condescending and near disdainful towards. Since you seem to not see what people have an issue with I want to try help you see. For having the gall to make her own decisions and do as she wants rather than what others want her to do you have said she's put someone in the "friend zone" and is "hypergamous". You're essentially chastising someone for living their life as they want because she's a woman, and that is what people will not like about this post; it's absolutely not because you're saying it how it is or whatever you're implying with "extremely telling".

We want Truefilm to be a good place for discussing all sides of film without the nastiness other sides of the internet are infected with, so this kind of misogyny is not at all what we want. This is not "in-depth discussions on film" but a series of unpleasant observations of things not even present in the film in question.

What is the deal with today's men?