okay i really want to know what y'all mean when you say "corrective bias?" I'd never heard of this bias before, and when i tried to search about it, all i found were discussions of bias reduction that didn't really match with the context clues i'm seeing here. sorry to ask, i just genuinely can't find a solid definition of this phrase.
anyway, also wanted to hop in on the women villains thing, because it is such a complicated thing for me to unpack my feelings on. on one hand, i love dr. denman as a villain. i find the mad scientist trope so interesting, and roslynn d. haynes has this book called "from madman to crime fighter," and in it is an entire chapter about how women appear in the scientist role, and it's really interesting. however, it's also frustrating that women villains, or at least ones that are somewhat fleshed out characters, are often only utilized in narratives about women protagonists. this is such an unrelated example, but i think it is just such a clear one, in the cw's arrowverse shows, for the most part, shows with men as the protagonist featured "big bads" who were also men. supergirl and batwoman, however, largely had women "big bads." it sorta feels like women villains (again, beyond the number of very stereotypical, flat appearances of witches, stepmothers, and vixens) are often relegated to "girly" media. it can also be frustrating to see women characters be the big bad for traits we often see in men characters who are allowed redemption.
charlotte is especially interesting, because, were she in another kind of show, i think she'd be very well received. in a show for an older audience (something like yellowjackets), or even still geared towards tweens or teens, (like vampire diaries-esque), i think there would be an expectation that the audience would sympathize with the character, and the show wouldn't have to go out of its way to tell you to do so. in h2o, because it's a kids' show, they do a lot to spell out good and bad behavior for the audience. when charlotte acts carelessly or even maliciously, we get emotional montages of cleo crying, or other scenes that are meant to make us upset, because we're already attached to the characters upset by charlotte. when those characters upset charlotte, however, the show doesn't sit as long in her feelings/the aftermath. when cleo steals charlotte's diary, we see charlotte become frustrated or irritated, but more focus is put on how cleo's feelings led her to this behavior. when the show does focus on charlotte's pain, such as after her breakup with lewis, her feelings are placed at odds with the audience's, as we have been set up to root for a clewis reunion. so, while charlotte is a complicated character, these complexities aren't often a reflection of the writers' efforts to create a layered character, but their neglect to illustrate the her emotional experience to the young audience. yknow??? i think that's why charlotte defense tends to be so passionate, even seemingly excusing objectively wrong actions, because women's emotions, instead of being explored, are often dismissed as crazy.
in terms of the fandom's tendency to be toxic towards men characters, i can see where that's coming from. certainly, characters like ash and will do receive a lot of hate for characters who are very young (i, myself, have been known to indulge in such hate). i think that just like the strength of charlotte defense has a lot to do with responding to such aggressive hate towards her online and the show's framing of her downfall being necessary for the protagonists' happy ending, the hate for these men characters has a lot to do with them being sold to the (mostly quite young) audience as romantic heroes. poking fun at or hating these love interests, to me, is kind of an outlet for frustration at the kinds of love interests young girls are kinda instructed to want/seek out. in real life, behaviors like we see from these characters could sometimes be understandable and expected from teenagers. however, it feels irresponsible to put them in a show for kids without more explicitly spelling out why these behaviors are harmful. in s3, zane essentially attempts to blackmail rikki into being in a relationship with him, by using very personal information he knows about her. this is something that the audience may grow up to experience something akin to, but the show doesn't treat it, i think, with as much weight as it does zane being kissed by sophie, which was seemingly without zane's consent, and not really a betrayal, certainly not to the degree his blackmail attempt is. zane is even given a more redemptive and hopeful ending than charlotte, who didn't engage in behavior as harmful, imo. depending on what y'all can tell me corrective bias is, maybe i'm doing that exactly that. however, i think the fandom reception of these characters has significantly less power to enact harm than the show's depiction of these love interests.
at the end of you s1, there's this monologue where beck basically lays out how cultural narratives of romance and love set her up to be the prey of a dangerous man who sees himself as a romantic hero. i think that monologue is a good example of what i'm trying to say in the above paragraph. maybe fan hate of these characters who are teenaged boys is an overcorrection, but i don't think it's actually occupying more of fandom conversations than hate for charlotte or other women characters in the series. i also feel hate for them is kinda an understandable reaction given that the depictions of these men as romantic interests and/or good partners without really acknowledging the harm of their behavior directly influences how young viewers will construct their expectations for future partners and relationships.
