every time i think about the so called 'feminists' writing think pieces about how that line was misogynistic, back in the day, i lose a couple braincells..... same with complaining about lois supposedly being 'sexualised' bc she was naked when taking a bath lmao. or that she + https://twitter.com/snotgjrl/status/1380231229040177152

was just a 'damsel in distress' throughout the whole movie. jfc i swear these ppl have actually no understanding of what any of these things mean, it's so incredibly enfuriating, bc you try to contradict them & they immediately brand YOU as a mysogynist lmao. +

like, lois is not sexualised bc there are actually no shots focusing on her body, there's no disrespect of her agency by having ppl still looking at her when she doesn't want it (see iron man 2, see star trek into darkness). she is with the man she loves, she's comfortable in +

his presence, she's voicing her concerns & they are BEING LISTENED TO, what she's saying matter, not her body. nudity is not inherently sexual, in this case lois' nakedness was meant to show her vulnerability & doubts. + there's also the fact that lois & amy as an older woman in+

hollywood being an object of desire to who is basically the world's most perfect man is in & on itself progressive in an industry that sidelines women as love interests as they reach a certain age. amy being older than henry is huge & a lovely thing to see. +

lois is also 'in distress' bc she is an active character in the narrative & that puts her in tough situations, which she needs help with bc she's only human in a world of gods. the reason why this is not an issue is bc she has agency, she's important to the story line, she's +

strong in different ways. she puts herself in danger in pursuit of the truth & to protect those she loves. she's an investigative journalist, it's her fucking job. it doesn't make her any lesser that she's saved by supes sometimes, bc she also saves HIM multiple times.