Rhea scribbles

But I think there's more than that, there's more to this argument, and men and fans endlessly complaining about how favorite villain Darth Vader was emasculated is a good starting point.

Star Wars isn't, by any means, the most progressive piece you can encounter, but I think it's dismissive to not consider the subversive elements, even from the get go, with Luke, we follow a more unusual hero, whose arc tackles subjects such as forgiveness, yearning (for his father's love), and controlling his anger, which is in conflict with his love for his father.

On the subject with feminity, anger and such, in the prequels is where it gets grayer. What's usually presented and associated with "angry man is on the house", might be closer to what we're used to see from Vader, warlord, big man in power, always working, stoic and definitely unaffected by feelings other than anger.

Riiiiiiiight?

Vader becomes subversive the moment he wants Luke by his side, that's it, by the very second movie. When it comes to the prequels, everything is thrown out of curse. Anakin's anger is more often than not accompanied by emotional dysregulation, usually due to extreme sadness and fear as well, instead of pride. In simple words, in the prequels his violence isnt because his position of power (as a man) has been challenged, it's because he was born without any power at all, and this will dominate his entire life, the feeling that he lacks any control over his life, or that he can't stop his loved ones from dying.

Narratively, this lack of control (or perceived as lack of control) when put in the face of injustice or cruelty, reminds me to the "angry woman" trope, because is often that the hysterical angry wife, gf, mother, etc, reacts in anger because the lack of control they have on their lives, as an attempt at pushing back against the system, and they usually lose, and therefore they're mocked. This is not to say women that do awful, evil stuff in literature are poor victims or that they're blameless. Nor is Anakin blameless, of course. It's just that the way his character was mocked by men as being whiny and disrespectful, and a crybaby, and "not cool enough", it's telling, he IS a murderer en masse, he IS powerful, and very good at killing, he IS ruthless, and yet, his emotionality it's enough to be perceived as not masculine enough.

Makes me wonder if the reason of why Matthew Stover added that implication of "Padmé is cheating on you With Obi-Wan" subplot, is to make Anakin's reaction to be seem as more masculine and standard. But. Who Knows.

The gender dynamics of our society will always seep into any piece of media, even if in universe, these gender roles are supposed to be different. We still see less interiority and less screentime from female characters, we still see Leia forced into a bikini, we still have Oola violently killed without much of a thought, Padmé was dead before she had a name because heros must be orphaned.

But! Despite this, we still see in the universe, the difference with dynamics and gender roles. Everyone shut up while Leia is explaining and giving orders to a room full of men. Alderaan is a Matriarchy. Naboo is one as well. And this is how we land on Padmé.

Padmé is seem as very femenine, very "womanly wife" role, despite the fact she's anything but such. You could argue this view if you only base your reads around ROTS and divorce it from the rest of the enterity of SW, where she's more melancholic, is given less to do, and she's much more of an Ophelia-type because we're mixing Shakespeare with Greek tragedy here.

Padmé is a politician, and if you know what entails being a politician, it means is a very demanding, cutthroat position. Queen Amidala, even as a young girl dealing with a planetary crisis as this serious, cold and stoic figure. In AOTC she survives a fight that many Jedi did not. She knows how to use a blaster, she's the one telling Anakin what to do. She's a leader, and she's stoic.

Not to say she's cruel, but she's serious and a workaholic. This is a callback to Leia, who's also a politician, also stoic, who also wears a facade of no feelings allowed when there's people in need of Freedom.

And this, this! This is the type of stoicism and controlled behavior which is usually associated with masculinity. With Padmé people really lose sight of it because of her dresses. And because in ROTS. In ROTJ Leia also lets her hair down and loose, like Padmé, and yet Leia isn't seem as femenine or "weak" as Padmé.

Leia (and Padmé, when people "fix" her) are The "Angry woman" by design of the fandom, because as I said, people think is empowering for a female character to be angry.

And oh boy, isn't it ironic, when the enterity of the movies is about Hate and Anger Bad.

This isn't to say they're perfect flawless angels, I love that both Leia and Padmé are messy, and have flaws. They do have a privileged position in their respective relationships, which even to the year of our lord 2026, feels fresh, and that's insane to me. SW is by no means the most subversive piece of media ever, is by no means feminist, but Padmé and Leia, aside from very few scenes, have a more classical "masculine" role, and that's intriguing to me, and yet people erase all of this to me Padmé just a stupid wife, and Leia just an Angry "Woman with Pants". Had AOTC come out today, people would say is woke for having Padmé using a gun, had the OT come out today, people would say is woke because of Leia, or because Lando exists.