cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/70086414

Given Lemmy’s leftward sociopolitical skew, the appreciation for Star Trek makes perfect sense, but what do we think of “MacGyver”? I specifically refer to the 85-92 Richard Dean Anderson show; I know there’s a reboot but I haven’t seen it yet.

Let’s see…

-Leftward Socio-political Commentary, including environmental activism and anti-authoritarianism

-Male protagonist with actual outward sensitivity & feelings

-“Open-source”; makes his own tools/gadgets from whatever’s available instead of relying on a corporate supply chain.

Sounds right up this platform’s alley.

I’m halfway through season 2 and it’s pretty damn good; it’s basically James Bond as an overgrown Boy Scout and that’s actually rather endearing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

I mostly know him as an interest of Patty & Selma Bouvier, but have extremely vague memories of watching the show.

How would the similarly tech-positioned A-Team fare in your analysis?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 7 hours ago (1 child)

    I’d have to find it & watch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 child)

    The premise is they're a team of crack commandos convicted of a crime they did not commit. They are constantly harrassed by the military and they take on missions that amount to public service; in most episodes, there's a montage where they build a bunch of shit out junk.

    It also has Dirk Benedict, who is dreamy.

    They also have a "crazy" person on the team, which is good for representation but a little questionable otherwise.

    It's also got Mr. T who became famous for... being Mr. T.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

    Mr. T was charismatic, had a colorful look kids wanted to imitate, talked in a way that got people’s attention, but most importantly, he was a fundamentally good person who did a lot of charity and public service work and who just happened to have a “tough guy” image. He made it cool be both strong and kind.

    We need more Mr. T’s and fewer Andrew Tates these days.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

    I agree Mr. T is better than Andrew Tate, but they both share the same problem of needing to perform masculinity. The whole gender binary is a trap and it makes me sad that we have to sell kindness as a brand of manliness to make people take it seriously. I wish we could throw the whole thing in the trash and just value traits independently of hormonal associations, but likely that is an impossible utopian vision.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    Masculinity isn't an inherently bad thing by itself. If anything, I think we need more positive role models who can show a wholesome side of masculinity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

    Associating traits with gender is an inherently bad thing.

    Edit:

    If men are strong, women are weak, etc. It's nakedly a bad idea.

    The problem is children identify with their gender naturally (?), so the best PRACTICAL work around is making masculinity less toxic and femininity less passive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm good with Mr T's cartoonishly unrealistic version of masculinity that was used to promote the positive aspects while clearly being a character.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    Yeah, me too, but, like I said, it's a stop-gap; it still relies on people identifying with masculinity.

    It's kind of like using the bible to push kindness, you still end up supporting Christianity which is, on the whole, pretty toxic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments