The Guardian `journalist` hasn't seen the Matrix

Disclaimer: The contents of this blog are entirely the opinion of the author and are in no way be interpreted as a statements of fact nor as professional or personal advice of any kind. If in doubt, research it yourself.

I was watching a video by Sargon Of Akkad where he brought up this article from the Guardian, titled "Will Matrix film-makers coming out as women turn off men's rights activists?".

I wouldn't normally give a crap about The Guardian, but I thought this article perfectly highlights the kind of nonsense, fact-free journalism that you can find from the regressive left.

Directly under the title are the words "It’s ironic that a film popular with men fearing a world controlled by women turns out to have been made by transgender siblings". It then goes on to describe the film The Matrix (1999) as being "built on the ideas that dreams happen to everyone, all at once. They’re mass produced – which means that your most private thoughts are put there by someone else.". It's almost like the person writing the article has never actually seen the film they're writing about. Let's break down what the article says about The Matrix so far.

"men fearing a world controlled by women"

Is it? I don't think anybody thinks that women run the world. It is true however that women are given certain advantages over men that feminists typically refuse to acknowledge.

"built on the ideas that dreams happen to everyone, all at once."

No. The film is built on the idea that almost everybody is trapped inside the same simulation under the belief that it is real. 

"They’re mass produced – which means that your most private thoughts are put there by someone else."

No. Even inside The Matrix, your thoughts are your own. Everything else however is part of the simulation.

Now some more of what the article says.

" As Parker Molloy points out at Flavorwire, there’s a “delicious irony” in the fact that the directors of The Matrix are trans women."

I'll get to the "delicious irony" part later, as this one is a little bit sticky. At the time The Matrix was filmed, both Wachowski's were publicly identifying as male. As I understand it the older sibling Lana (formerly Larry) came out as transgender in 2002, although she says she had been unsure about her gender since being at school. Lilly (formerly Andy) came out as transgender in 2016. This brings about what I find an interesting question. At what point does a person become transgender? At the time The Matrix was released they were Andy and Larry, The Wachowski Brothers. Clearly they were identifying, at least publicly, as male. Does their apparent later decision the transition retcon their previous identities, or are they to be considered male up until a certain point? And when would that point be? Would it be at the point of them being unsure in terms of gender, at the point they decide to make a change, at the point they start taking hormones, at the point they start wearing what is typically considered female clothing, or some other time? If the decision to transition retcons previous gender identity then does that mean that for years they were using the `wrong` bathrooms and changing rooms? What would this mean for people like Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner who won 2 gold medals in men's decathlon?

" That’s because The Matrix is one of the most celebrated cultural touchstones of the men’s rights movement – and MRAs hate transgender women."

Citation needed. I don't know much of the MRA movement, except that to know that feminists see it as a bad thing so it's probably ok, but I've never actually seen or heard of someone identifying as a MRA hating on transgender people.

What's also worth nothing is that the linked article(I didn't add this, it was in the original) is about a feminist film maker who suffered feminist backlash when she made a balanced film about the Mens Rights movement after her investigation led to her beliefs changing. She mentions not being able to secure funding as there was no grant application category for a men's film but several for women and minorities, not being able to find an executive director who wanted to make a balanced film and not a feminist one, and was accused of making propaganda by David Futrelle of the We Hunted The Mammoth website (pot, kettle) for not making a films that didn't show MRA's in a bad light. Futrelle's open letter can be read here. The comments section is just a flood of self-righteous indignation and ad hominem attacks, so pretty standard feminist fare.

Back to the original article, that describes the red pill/blue pill scene, then says " MRAs refer to “taking the red pill” as the moment they realize that women control the world, and men are the oppressed underclass."

This would seem to indicate that the author is saying that women do rule the world and that men are the oppressed underclass, and that the red pill is the moment that MRA's come to realize that. I'm not sure I buy that, I'm also not sure MRA's think that way either. Feminists and SJW's on the other hand do believe that men rule the world as some secret oppressive patriarchy and that women are an oppressed underclass. It almost seems like the author is projecting.

" This is of course not at all what happens in the film; Neo discovers his world (or our world) is a mental construct created by malevolent computers, not by women."

It seems like half way through writing this the author decided to actually watch the film. Incidentally, " mental construct created by malevolent computers" makes me think of `social construct created by patriarchy`, which is how intersectional feminists see gender.

The author then whines about how Trinity is better trained and more committed than Neo but that Neo is literally the most important person in the world so he gets to be the star, the subtext being that it's because he's a man. He then whines about how in the Harry Potter books "Hermione is the studious, bright, dedicated, competent one, but despite that (or because of it?), some guy gets to be the title character and savior. And you can see nebbishy guys become empowered badasses in any number of superhero films directed by men. The world is made of entertainment designed for the approval of MRAs."

This is typical oppression narrative from feminists. Harry Potter gets to be the main character because firstly the plot is that his parents were killed by the series' antagonist, and secondly there is a tradition of the smartest or most knowledgeable character (or at least the character whose presence is absolutely essential at least once) not being the lead and it's not exclusive in superhero fiction. Examples include:

Hermione in the Harry Potter series,

Yoda in Star Wars,

Spock in Star Trek,

Whistler in the Blade series,

Egon in Ghostbusters,

Simon in The Chipmunks,

Lex in Jurassic Park,

Donatello in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,

Panthro in Thundercats

Gandalf in Lord Of The Rings,

Ramirez in Highlander,

Tao in The Mysterious Cities Of Gold,

etc.

The author also seems to forget that the Harry Potter author, JK Rowling, is actually a woman. I don't think she, or anyone else for that matter, thinks when they are about to create some work of fiction `I had better make this pleasing to Mens Rights Activists 'cos they've got the big bucks`. You might call this the argument from incredulity, but I call it the author not providing any evidence to back up their assertions.

In answer to the articles headline question(Will Matrix film-makers coming out as women turn off men's rights activists?) I would have to say no, probably not.

It's worth noting at the bottom of the article is a note about the article being edited on 10 March 2016, partly to correct the spelling of Laurence Fishburne, and partly because the author was so knowledgeable of the source material that they thought the antagonists name was Agent Johnson and not Agent Smith.