How do you feel about altering historical events in media for the sake of representation?

[Veelk]

I do not think however that the issue is having one character representing many, but having a character representing nobody here. Ulana doesn't do things several people did, she does something that didn't happen, in ways that aren't credible, to counter a menace that is portrayed in exaggerated, bombastic terms. It's as if history wasn't good enough. That's what bothers me, really.

Click to shrink...

Again, disagree here. She's hyper competent, but nothing she does is truly unreasonable. She doesn't 'intuite based on no evidence" she makes the reasonable guess as to what a nuclear scientist would first do. Legasov said it himself, boron and sand is the most immediate and obvious solution he could think of. As far as having a pre-emptive code with the lady might be a bit out there, but I think it only feels as unrealistic because we don't live with our lives monitored the way the USSR was. If you're phone is constantly monitored, then it's not unthinkable that people would develop coded language to get their messages across privately.

And can you specify what didn't happen? Because from what your talking about, I can only assume you mean the Steam Explosion risk, which was something that did happen, it was just that it was exaggerated.

 

[Visanideth]

Are you're from Legasov family or something ?

Click to shrink...

Dang, you got me.

 

[Llyrwenne]

Which instance of me saying "this isn't about her gender" you feel focuses the most on her gender?

Because as I said, the issue isn't that she's a woman. The fact that she's a woman is the only reason that doesn't make me say the character is unequivocally bullshit.

The issue is that instead of creating a character that partecipates organically to the story, they created a Tonia Stark superhero who has to pull a Shelock Holmes by guessing that some underground water tanks are being filled by being connected the firefighter's trucks (????) from 400 away. In the process she also does a bit of James Bonding by improvising encrypted communications and infiltrating a military base.
It's thanks to her efforts that some scientifically improbable doesn't go off killing everything from Siberia to Germany. SHE SAVED THE WORLD!


Wouldn't have it been better to create a character that did the things people actually did instead? Create a character that instills doubt in Legosav? Someone who has the idea of doing the things they actually did?

Why change history in such a cartoonish way? It's not about her gender.

Click to shrink...

If it is not about her gender, why did you prominently and fairly insistently frame this as an issue of "representation for the sake of representation"? Why tie general issues you have with the writing of the show to her character in specific? Why do you not seem to be at all receptive to explanations of what the character is actually meant to represent, commentary pointing out other things in the show that are dramatized that you for some reason don't take issue with, and challenges to your characterization of the depiction of Legasov?

 

[CitizenVectron]

OP does not come across well in this thread. If it's not about diversity...then why is that in the thread title? And he only seems to have a problem with the female character being a superhero, when Legasov was equally fictionalized in the show. Just as Ulyana's character was given the credit for what many people did, so was Legasov. In fact, Legasov was given even better treatment. In real life he was an anti-Semite and avowed party-line Communist who did not speak out against the state like it is portrayed in the show.

This whole thread is problematic.

 

[Surfinn]

It's not about her being a woman

It's not about her being a woman

"Tonia Stark"

 

[Veelk]

Dang, you got me.

Click to shrink...

I mean, you seem REALLY invested in making sure that Legasov gets his hero worship due here. Because look, even if I took all the facts that your presenting as given, that Ulana did somehow take credit for one thing away from him that didn't happen in real life, I still wouldn't have an issue with this.

The series already frames Legasov as a massive hero. He STILL defied the USSR, he STILL saved lives, he STILL did the work, and he's basically put in as good a light as humanly possible while still being an actual human. He's still basically a hero.


If Ulana did somehow shave off one aspect of heroism for herself so she could be the one to stop the steam explosion, why does that matter when the rest of the series still frames him as the hero? I'd understand if they changed him to be a truly undermined character, but this isn't that. At best, he lost one hero moment to Ulana, from the way your talking about things, and got to be the hero for the rest of the story. So why does it matter?

 

[Visanideth]

If it is not about her gender, why did you prominently and fairly insistently frame this as an issue of "representation for the sake of representation"? Why tie general issues you have with the writing of the show to her character in specific? Why do you not seem to be at all receptive to explanations of what the character is actually meant to represent, commentary pointing out other things in the show that are dramatized that you for some reason don't take issue with, and challenges to your characterization of the depiction of Legasov?

Click to shrink...

Where did I say "representation for the sake of representation"? I'm saying "changing history is fine when it's done for the sake of representation. Was it fine here? Are there boundaries?".

OP does not come across well in this thread. If it's not about diversity...then why is that in the thread title? And he only seems to have a problem with the female character being a superhero, when Legasov was equally fictionalized in the show. Just as Ulyana's character was given the credit for what many people did, so was Legasov. In fact, Legasov was given even better treatment. In real life he was an anti-Semite and avowed party-line Communist who did not speak out against the state like it is portrayed in the show.

This whole thread is problematic.

Click to shrink...

The show doesn't touch on those aspects, so it doesn't absolve him from his tendencies. He was also a Communist party official, so we will never know how much of his adesion to the party's more problematic positions was genuine. That's really not the point.

I think the core problem with your analysis is that Legasov is a person that actually existed, while Ulana is... not. And if we become more concerned about the representation of fictional characters than we are of actual people, that's something I kind of feel uneasy about.

 

[Visanideth]

It's not about her being a woman

It's not about her being a woman

"Tonia Stark"

Click to shrink...

Wanted me to say "Riri Williams" or "Shuri"? Neither of those characters, despite being brilliant scientists, fit the way Ulana does. Tony does. Tony is the "I'm going to invent a new element/I just got here and you're wrong about everything" kinda guy.

 

[Surfinn]

Wanted me to say "Riri Williams" or "Shuri"? Neither of those characters, despite being brilliant scientists, fit the way Ulana does. Tony does. Tony is the "I'm going to invent a new element/I just got here and you're wrong about everything" kinda guy.

Click to shrink...

You might as well have said Mary Sue with the way your thread is framed.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Where did I say "representation for the sake of representation"? I'm saying "changing history is fine when it's done for the sake of representation. Was it fine here? Are there boundaries?".




The show doesn't touch on those aspects, so it doesn't absolve him from his tendencies. He was also a Communist party official, so we will never know how much of his adesion to the party's more problematic positions was genuine. That's really not the point.

I think the core problem with your analysis is that Legasov is a person that actually existed, while Ulana is... not. And if we become more concerned about the representation of fictional characters than we are of actual people, that's something I kind of feel uneasy about.

Click to shrink...

But we're not more concerned with the representation of fictionalized characters...only you are.

 

[erd]

I do not think however that the issue is having one character representing many, but having a character representing nobody here. Ulana doesn't do things several people did, she does something that didn't happen, in ways that aren't credible, to counter a menace that is portrayed in exaggerated, bombastic terms. It's as if history wasn't good enough. That's what bothers me, really.

Click to shrink...

It felt like pretty good representation to me. She helps Legasov with scientific issues, interviews people in the hospital, supports his decision to go against the state and contributes massively to reducing the effects of the disaster. These are all presumably the things that the large team of scientists helping with the disaster did. I don't know whether Legasov personally failed to identify the steam explosion risk by himself, but it feels believable to assume he had help from people who were there specifically to help him. She is presented as being extremely, over-the-top heroic, but then so are Legasov and Scherbina. The main point is that if those scientists were not there, things would have likely turned out much worse so they deserve to be honored just as much as Legasov. Considering how Legasov and Scherbina completely steal every scene they are in I can understand why they decided to honor them with a character that is equally heroic.

The biggest divergence is how she is portrayed as a spy who manages to single-handedly get involved in the disaster due to super sharp intuition, but that doesn't feel terribly damaging to me. The show clearly wanted to exaggerate how much she opposed the state. Complaining about this in isolation seems fine but considering that the show also repeatedly does this with Legasov (to an even greater extent) and also exaggerates many other characters (notably Dyatlov, by many accounts) it feels fully in line with the rest of the show. Especially considering several of the scientists apparently did oppose the state, so it makes sense to highlight that. It also means that any complaints about that would also apply to Legasov, even more so.

I also don't think overexerting the effect of the explosion is as terrible as you make it sound. It just makes it go from being really, really bad to being really, really, really bad. Which also means I have no idea why they did it in the first place, but it doesn't seem like a huge problem with the show.

 

[Visanideth]

I mean, you seem REALLY invested in making sure that Legasov gets his hero worship due here.

Click to shrink...

It's not about hero worship, really. The big thing is that the guy killed himself. What actually transpired, his guilt, his actions, to me it's incredibly tragic and I feel the way Ulana is implemented in the story is not very respectful of that. Expecially the implication of him possibly condemning millions people. I feel the story didn't need that. It felt out of place.

 

[Visanideth]

It felt like pretty good representation to me. She helps Legasov with scientific issues, interviews people in the hospital, supports his decision to go against the state and contributes massively to reducing the effects of the disaster. These are all presumably the things that the large team of scientists helping with the disaster did. I don't know whether Legasov personally failed to identify the steam explosion risk by himself, but it feels believable to assume he had help from people who were there specifically to help him. She is presented as being extremely, over-the-top heroic, but then so are Legasov and Scherbina. The main point is that if those scientists were not there, things would have likely turned out much worse so they deserve to be honored just as much as Legasov. Considering how Legasov and Scherbina completely steal every scene they are in I can understand why they decided to honor them with a character that is equally heroic.

The biggest divergence is how she is portrayed as a spy who manages to single-handedly get involved in the disaster due to super sharp intuition, but that doesn't feel terribly damaging to me. The show clearly wanted to exaggerate how much she opposed the state. Complaining about this in isolation seems fine but considering that the show also repeatedly does this with Legasov (to an even greater extent) and also exaggerates many other characters (notably Dyatlov, by many accounts) it feels fully in line with the rest of the show. Especially considering several of the scientists apparently did oppose the state, so it makes sense to highlight that. It also means that any complaints about that would also apply to Legasov, even more so.

I also don't think overexerting the effect of the explosion is as terrible as you make it sound. It just makes it go from being really, really bad to being really, really, really bad. Which also means I have no idea why they did it in the first place, but it doesn't seem like a huge problem with the show.

Click to shrink...

Thanks for this answer because (aside from the general quality of the argument) it allows me to specify that the issues with Ulana's character are pretty much limited to ep. 2 or how she "gets into the story". Once she's in she becomes that character she's probably meant to be - a stand in for all the people who did contribute to solving the crisis.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

Ah, so thread is about how much you can dramatize the story based on real events and not about the representation? OP could've fooled me.

In regards of Chernobyl, you can't tell a story of that magnitude without making sacrifices, composite characters being one of them. There were hundreds if not thousands scientists across the entire Soviet Union who contributed to the liquidation of Chernobyl incident, it's simply impossible to show them all on screen. Same with the effects of radiation, you have to show the stakes early on the alternative is to make a convoluted narrative constantly jumping forward and backward.

 

[beins]

When I watched the show I didn't think Legasov was undermined at all by Ulana. They were colleagues working towards the same goal. As an engineer when you are proven wrong you accept it and move on. He'd rather get it right in the end then hold a grudge and be pig headed.

That he took on that criticism and accepted it just increases his stature in my mind.

 

[Veelk]

It's not about hero worship, really. The big thing is that the guy killed himself. What actually transpired, his guilt, his actions, to me it's incredibly tragic and I feel the way Ulana is implemented in the story is not very respectful of that. Expecially the implication of him possibly condemning millions people. I feel the story didn't need that. It felt out of place.

Click to shrink...

If it's not about hero worship, I legitimately cannot make sense of the posts you have made thus far. Everything you have said has been centered around how this "undermines" legasov somehow, because Ulana got to solve an event that, according to you, didn't happen (which I still stress that you haven't specified here, because the only thing I can think your talking about is the steam explosion, which WAS a thing that happened, it was just exaggerated for the show), and....

I just don't see where your going with this. Ulana smart and solved problem that not happen in real life = therefore Legasov undermined how???????? And if it's not Legasov's heroism being undermined, then what?

 

[Visanideth]

You might as well have said Mary Sue with the way your thread is framed.

Click to shrink...

Except the Mary Sue concept is 100% bullshit and I've been fighting its use applied pretty much everywhere (including to Rey, if you remember). All the examples of exaggerated, hypercompetent geniouses I've accosted to her are male.

 

[Phamit]

The problem with Emily Watson's character has more to do with fact that she represents the whole scientific team behind Legasov and probably shoved the work of a whole team into her character which resulted in a bit more unrealistic character for this show. They showed a picture of the team in the credits, I don't know if women were part of Legasov team or in the picte, but splitting the character into two or three side character maybe would have been a better choice.

 

[Volimar]

Forgive me if it was explained in some behind the scenes bit or interview but the OP continuously claims that this character is created for the sake of representation. Is it stated anywhere that that's why this character was created (letting alone that she plays the part of several scientists put together) and why it was a woman?

 

[Surfinn]

Except the Mary Sue concept is 100% bullshit and I've been fighting its use applied pretty much everywhere (including to Rey, if you remember). All the examples of exaggerated, hypercompetent geniouses I've accosted to her are male.

Click to shrink...

What you're describing is the framework for the Mary Sue concept, you all but used the term in the OP.

Would you have created this thread at all if we were talking about a man? Despite your other misgivings, I'd bet money that you wouldn't have.

 

[Deleted member 37303]

Depends on the situation. The US Army was segregated during WW2. If you're making something like Overlord, then sure cast whoever. If you're doing something like Band of Brothers and telling stories belonging to actual people, then no.

 

[skipgo]

Make everything with a female centric cast and i'm 10 times more likely to be interested.

 

[Visanideth]

If it's not about hero worship, I legitimately cannot make sense of the posts you have made thus far. Everything you have said has been centered around how this "undermines" legasov somehow, because Ulana got to solve an event that, according to you, didn't happen (which I still stress that you haven't specified here, because the only thing I can think your talking about is the steam explosion, which WAS a thing that happened, it was just exaggerated for the show), and....

I just don't see where your going with this. Ulana smart and solved problem that not happen in real life = therefore Legasov undermined how???????? And if it's not Legasov's heroism being undermined, then what?

Click to shrink...

He's a person who existed. Who probably did worse mistakes than we know. He took his own life. Inventing an additional blunder that would cost millions of lives in order to prop another character feels unrespectful to me. Maybe I'm weird, I don't know. It doesn't feel fine.

 

[Visanideth]

What you're describing is the framework for the Mary Sue concept, you all but used the term in the OP.

Would you have created this thread at all if we were talking about a man? Despite your other misgivings, I'd bet money that you wouldn't have.

Click to shrink...

Yeah there's probably some nefarious intent in this thread, thanks for taking once again the demonization angle. Like clockwork.

As for the thread existing if this guy was a man, as I said it would exist in an unapologetically "Ulano is a completely bullshit character and the authors should feel ashamed" way. Representation is the only thing that potentially makes this fine. I just don't feel we needed the entire James Bond/Sherlock Holmes subplot, because it's tonally inconsistent and (in my honest opinion) unrespectful of the actual events that real men and women partecipated in.

My big problem is when fiction attempts at making history more interesting than it is. Fuck that. History is interesting enough. Using Ulana to represent people who actually existed and doing things that actually were done by them would have been fine.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

He's a person who existed. Who probably did worse mistakes than we know. He took his own life. Inventing an additional blunder that would cost millions of lives in order to prop another character feels unrespectful to me. Maybe I'm weird, I don't know. It doesn't feel fine.

Click to shrink...

I mean, Legasov made the ultimate sacrifice by the end of the series, he is the one who stood up to the system and exposed its lies, not Khomyuk. He is treated like a hero.

 

[spam musubi]

I think we're in agreement about the point of the matter (ie, the quality of the writing is all). The bolded is probably... right, and as I said, if Ulana wasn't a fictional character created for the sake of representation I would have zero hesitation calling the character bullshit.

My hesitation stems from the fact that it's possible that sometimes it's fine to change an historical report to allow better diversity. Someone pointed out the reports we have and the way history was written was hardly unbiased. I think it's a solid argument, honestly. It's just that in this particular case I feel it goes too far - and it's something a fair number of people seem to disagree with, looking at the thread, for different reasons.

So I wouldn't say the discussion is useless. It's undeniable that the mainstream historical reports are very biased, and it's in my opinion deniable that correcting this (even by injecting other inaccuracies when needed) is a desireable outcome. However, I wonder if there's boundaries to this, and this show in particular made
me feel uneasy about the implications.


I do not think however that the issue is having one character representing many, but having a character representing nobody here. Ulana doesn't do things several people did, she does something that didn't happen, in ways that aren't credible, to counter a menace that is portrayed in exaggerated, bombastic terms. It's as if history wasn't good enough. That's what bothers me, really.

Click to shrink...

Despite claiming in every post you've made that this isn't because the character is a woman, you sure do seem particularly focused on the idea of changing events for minority representation. There were many things changed in the show from reality to allow for better and more concise dramatization, but you're only upset about the one event that empowers a woman. It's not like they were even trying to pull a fast one on you. The ending of the show states that she was based on a large team or scientists. No other dramatical license taken by the show is explicitly called out as such in the show. Ulana is the only change the show makes that is specifically mentioned as being for dramatic purposes, but that's the only one you take issue with? Legasov is a very different person in the show for example. This isn't even called out anywhere. It's not disrespectful to the other scientists to make his character more heroic, but it's disrespectful to Legasov to make a heroic woman character?

You're reacting negatively to other posters calling you out on this. You've spent so much energy trying to defend yourself or walk back your statement, yet you keep painting yourself into a corner. Maybe you should try to introspect a little bit more. Almost every post you made is some sort of "I don't mind that she's a woman BUT". I'm sure you're not sexist or anything but we all have unconscious biases that we should try to be more cognizant of.

 

[Veelk]

He's a person who existed. Who probably did worse mistakes than we know. He took his own life. Inventing an additional blunder that would cost millions of lives in order to prop another character feels unrespectful to me. Maybe I'm weird, I don't know. It doesn't feel fine.

Click to shrink...

You're definitely weird, but it's not for the reason your saying here. You keep talking about (seemingly) the steam explosion not being a thing when it actually, truly was a thing. I won't say I know the specifics of what happened and I know the show's explanation of it being the equivalent of a nuke is way off base, but everything I looked up says that it was a definitive risk that they did send 3 men inside to shut down. You keep ignoring this point as if we are in agreement that the steam explosion risk was an invention by the show and it's getting really annoying how you talk past it, so I'M PUTTING THIS IN ALL CAPS BOLDED AND UNDERLINED HERE SO YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY IGNORE THAT I AM SAYING THE STEAM EXPLOSION WAS A REAL THING AND YOU SHOULDN'T KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT AS IF IT WAS ENTIRELY FICTIONAL, SO IF YOU MEAN SOMETHING ELSE BY THE FICTIONAL EVENT THAT ULANA SAVED THE DAY IN, I'D LIKE YOU TO SPECIFY WHAT IT IS.

You're also weird in how you keep framing this as a 'blunder that would mean legasov condemns millions'. Like, the guy wasn't negligent or incompetent. He probably wasn't even the one to realize this in real life! It was probably some random scientist that brought it up to him in the same way that Ulana did. "Hey, i found these blueprints, we got water here, we better fix this." That random scientist just got absorbed into the collective character of Ulana. So yeah, I say again, she only seems superhumanly smart because is the product of dozens of scientific minds, but you can't argue she is undermining Legasov's story unless you also argue the real life scientists undermine the real life legasov by taking credit for the things they did.

You say this isn't about hero worship, but what your essentially describing as 'rubbing you the wrong way' is your seeming belief that Legasov would not have possibly missed this detail and framing him as fallible to this is offensive. Which is ridiculous and the closest definition I have to hero worship and I honestly don't get it.

 

[Visanideth]

Ah, so thread is about how much you can dramatize the story based on real events and not about the representation? OP could've fooled me.

In regards of Chernobyl, you can't tell a story of that magnitude without making sacrifices, composite characters being one of them. There were hundreds if not thousands scientists across the entire Soviet Union who contributed to the liquidation of Chernobyl incident, it's simply impossible to show them all on screen. Same with the effects of radiation, you have to show the stakes early on the alternative is to make a convoluted narrative constantly jumping forward and backward.

Click to shrink...

Not entirely.

It goes like this:

1. representation is good, even when it comes to historical fiction. Altering/introducing new characters to allow for representation is a good thing.
2. when we do this, we need to somehow affect the way we tell how events transpired, and potentially the events themselves. Is there any boundary to this?

The problem isn't representation, but it arises because of represenation, because representation often asks us to alter the way we recount history.

If this wasn't about representation, my answer would be "don't dramatize shit, you idiot, history is fine as it is".

 

[Surfinn]

Yeah there's probably some nefarious intent in this thread, thanks for taking once again the demonization angle. Like clockwork.

As for the thread existing if this guy was a man, as I said it would exist in an unapologetically "Ulano is a completely bullshit character and the authors should feel ashamed" way. Representation is the only thing that potentially makes this fine. I just don't feel we needed the entire James Bond/Sherlock Holmes subplot, because it's tonally inconsistent and (in my honest opinion) unrespectful of the actual events that real men and women partecipated in.

My big problem is when fiction attempts at making history more interesting than it is. Fuck that. History is interesting enough. Using Ulana to represent people who actually existed and doing things that actually were done by them would have been fine.

Click to shrink...

Don't cry about being called out for a highly questionable at best thread premise. What you're arguing in the OP should be demonized because its got misogynistic undertones, whether you intended for that or not.

The fact that there's even a discussion about representation here says a lot and I seriously doubt we'd even be here if the character were a man instead.

Also you keep saying the problem arises from representation. How?

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Depends on what the content is and how historically accurate it wants to be.

 

[Visanideth]

You're definitely weird, but it's not for the reason your saying here. You keep talking about (seemingly) the steam explosion not being a thing when it actually, truly was a thing. I won't say I know the specifics of what happened and I know the show's explanation of it being the equivalent of a nuke is way off base, but everything I looked up says that it was a definitive risk that they did send 3 men inside to shut down. You keep ignoring this point as if we are in agreement that the steam explosion risk was an invention by the show and it's getting really annoying how you talk past this point, so I'M PUTTING THIS IN ALL CAPS BOLDED AND UNDERLINED HERE SO YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY IGNORE THAT I AM SAYING THE STEAM EXPLOSION WAS A REAL THING AND YOU SHOULDN'T KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT AS IF IT WAS ENTIRELY FICTIONAL, SO IF YOU MEAN SOMETHING ELSE BY THE FICTIONAL EVENT THAT ULANA SAVED THE DAY IN, I'D LIKE YOU TO SPECIFY WHAT IT IS

You're also weird in how you keep framing this as a 'blunder that would mean legasov condemns millions'. Like, the guy wasn't negligent or incompetent. He probably wasn't even the one to realize this in real life! It was probably some random scientist that brought it up to him in the same way that Ulana did. "Hey, i found these blueprints, we got water here, we better fix this." That random scientist just got absorbed into the collective character of Ulana. So yeah, I say again, she only seems superhumanly smart because is the product of dozens of scientific minds

You say this isn't about hero worship, but what your essentially describing as 'rubbing you the wrong way' is your seeming belief that Legasov would not have possibly missed this detail and framing him as fallible to this is offensive. Which is ridiculous and the closest definition I have to hero worship and I honestly don't get it.

Click to shrink...

The steam explosion was a risk but it was solved on site and it was foreseen when the borum and sand solution was devised. Turning it into something nobody thought about instead of a calculated risk to prop up the non-historical character is my problem. The entire butterfly effect shows how it's problematic. First, we create a character that notices something that several people on Legasov's team (not necessarily him, this wouldn't be a problem if it was shown how it's someone else who points it out to him) probably pointed out immediately. Then we need to strongly exaggerate this because this character's intervention must be super important (the way things actually happened wasn't cool enough? The actual people there weren't heroic enough?).

It feels like an Hollywood trope and it doesn't fit the show, in my opinion.

 

[Visanideth]

Don't cry about being called out for a highly questionable at best thread premise. What you're arguing in the OP should be demonized because its got misogynistic undertones, whether you intended for that or not.

The fact that there's even a discussion about representation here says a lot and I seriously doubt we'd even be here if the character were a man instead.

Click to shrink...

I just don't get the "misogynistic undertones" in an argument that says "I don't like this, I would downright hate this if the character was male, the fact that she's a woman makes me question if representation is more important than my pet peeve about accuracy/not misrepresenting actual people and events, what do you guys think?".
I think you're looking for the devil in the wrong place. I would be RAILING againt this if it wasn't for the fact that at the very least the intent (representation) was good.

 

[Deleted member 1726]

Forgive me if it was explained in some behind the scenes bit or interview but the OP continuously claims that this character is created for the sake of representation. Is it stated anywhere that that's why this character was created (letting alone that she plays the part of several scientists put together) and why it was a woman?

Click to shrink...

It's in the companion podcasts as to why she was created along with being at the end, nowhere have I heard it claimed it's for female representation.

This OP is like staring into the exposed reactor core.

 

[Surfinn]

I just don't get the "misogynistic undertones" in an argument that says "I don't like this, I would downright hate this if the character was male, the fact that she's a woman makes me question if representation is more important than my pet peeve about accuracy/not misrepresenting actual people and events, what do you guys think?".
I think you're looking for the devil in the wrong place. I would be RAILING againt this if it wasn't for the fact that at the very least the intent (representation) was good.

Click to shrink...

No, the misogyny arises from the fact that we're talking about gender being a contributing factor at all.

There is literally no reason for it in this context.

You've yet to explain the correlation. Still waiting.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

We don't believe this thread was created in good faith, so this topic is closed.