Understanding that the entries on this page are based on opinion, and that there are more opinions out there than just my own... I'm not particularly fond of the way it discusses the forced hysterectomies Black Widows have to undergo.
Specifically, under Author's Saving Throw, it's noted that the movie focuses more on the horror of the procedure itself rather than Nat's negative feelings about her inability to have children. As if to imply it would be wrong for her to feel bad about being infertile? I know that's not exactly what it's saying, but why does a line needs to be drawn between "horrors of the procedure" and "angst over being infertile"? One is a key part of the other.
Personally speaking, I appreciate how both this movie and Age of Ultron touched on the subject, and I don't think one should be hailed above the other like this. Especially when Black Widow doesn't really dwell on the horrors of it, nor does it retroactively affect what Nat said before. It's Yelena who describes the procedure in some detail and only for a short time at one point in the movie.
I also don't understand what the first and last lines are there for. The first implies that fans are wrong for getting the impression that Nat thought her infertility made her a monster, and as if to correct this, the last line "clarifies" that she thinks of herself as a monster due to all the things she did before joining S.H.I.E.L.D., as though that's new information that this movie shed light upon, but hasn't that been a significant part of her character since The Avengers, at least? If that's what corrects the misconception, I don't know why it's tracing back to here.
Going back and having another look at the page, the second entry under Author's Saving Throw seems a bit...odd. Overly wordy, I guess. It's as though it's trying to create a nonexistent problem just to say that this movie solved it; I've heard a lot about Natasha, but I've never heard anyone complain about any implications raised by her "lack of blood family or the capacity to birth biological offspring, which both movies implied made her incapable of forming close bonds with others or living a fulfilling life." She had a close friendship with Hawkeye, didn't she? And was practically a member of his own family... And didn't she kind of have a romance with Bruce Banner? The entire team seemed to be like her unofficial family, come to think of it. So where is this cited notion that she's been some kind of outlier all this time coming from?
Understanding that the entries on this page are based on opinion, and that there are more opinions out there than just my own... I'm not particularly fond of the way it discusses the forced hysterectomies Black Widows have to undergo.
Specifically, under Author's Saving Throw, it's noted that the movie focuses more on the horror of the procedure itself rather than Nat's negative feelings about her inability to have children. As if to imply it would be wrong for her to feel bad about being infertile? I know that's not exactly what it's saying, but why does a line needs to be drawn between "horrors of the procedure" and "angst over being infertile"? One is a key part of the other.
Personally speaking, I appreciate how both this movie and Age of Ultron touched on the subject, and I don't think one should be hailed above the other like this. Especially when Black Widow doesn't really dwell on the horrors of it, nor does it retroactively affect what Nat said before. It's Yelena who describes the procedure in some detail and only for a short time at one point in the movie.
I also don't understand what the first and last lines are there for. The first implies that fans are wrong for getting the impression that Nat thought her infertility made her a monster, and as if to correct this, the last line "clarifies" that she thinks of herself as a monster due to all the things she did before joining S.H.I.E.L.D., as though that's new information that this movie shed light upon, but hasn't that been a significant part of her character since The Avengers, at least? If that's what corrects the misconception, I don't know why it's tracing back to here.
Going back and having another look at the page, the second entry under Author's Saving Throw seems a bit...odd. Overly wordy, I guess. It's as though it's trying to create a nonexistent problem just to say that this movie solved it; I've heard a lot about Natasha, but I've never heard anyone complain about any implications raised by her "lack of blood family or the capacity to birth biological offspring, which both movies implied made her incapable of forming close bonds with others or living a fulfilling life." She had a close friendship with Hawkeye, didn't she? And was practically a member of his own family... And didn't she kind of have a romance with Bruce Banner? The entire team seemed to be like her unofficial family, come to think of it. So where is this cited notion that she's been some kind of outlier all this time coming from?