Ok, we've heard about how Whedon sort of had a rape joke when he referenced a semi-mythical archaic law, and made BW vulnerable and tormented, and had her captured by the bad guy...

(Never mind that her male counterpart was captured and literally enslaved in the first movie while she kicked ass... And now he finally gets interesting as we see him struggle to balance work/home life and be a cornerstone to the traumatized team.)

I wonder why none of these RadFems have noticed the thing that... You know... Actually does make BW a monster (by their logic anyway): intimate partner violence.

You know how, when her love interest and friend, recently seriously traumatized by being forced to participate in a violent act... Forces him to participate in a violent act by shoving him off a cliff. Sure, he's survive- but only because it would force him to turn... This re-traumatizing him.

He was deeply violated twice in one movie, both times by women who knew what they were doing... And the second time by one who claimed to love him, but apparently not enough to mind doing it to him again while the wounds of the first time were still fresh and bleeding.

That kind of violation, dehumanization, sounds a lot like abuse, maybe even rape (at least, by SJW/RadFem standards).

When he ran away at the end of the movie... I didn't feel bad for her.

I felt glad for him, that he could get away from that.

Food for thought.

EDIT: No, it's not satire... But neither is it a "delicate flower" complaint. When people start talking about how we supposedly have a "culture of violence against women," we counter it with a rational look at the media, crime and military- show them male disposability right out there. When's the last time anyone here saw a movie with a higher female body count than male? By that same token- a serious look at Avengers shows that it's treatment of male disposability far outstrips any supposed misogyny. Complaints that BW was captured are easily overcome by pointing to Hawkeye in the first movie (not only captured but enslaved). Complaints about a fictional man making a sort-of rape joke or BW being undermined with the sad backstory and fears of being a monster are easily countered by pointing out that she actually violated someone else's autonomy in a traumatic way and literally made them a monster- she doesn't get to throw any fictional stones in this story.

I'm not saying anyone should feel triggered, or hate the movie... I am saying that, yet again, we see hollywood's double standards- if we should be paying attention to this movie in a sociopolitical context at all (and maybe we shouldn't), that scene bears mention as much or more than any other, yet has been completely ignored.