Double Standards or Consistency? A Response to Yelpjunny

Character Flaw:

" a character flaw or heroic flaw is a bias, limitation, imperfection, problem , vice, phobia, prejudice, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else. "

Definition from Wikipedia

 

According to another Yelpjunne, Tony Stark is subject to double standards on the following basis:

It’s striking how Tony Stark’s critics seem to acknowledge the complexity of every other character’s emotions in the MCU, extending understanding and empathy even to those who’ve made questionable choices—but when it comes to Tony, his feelings are often brushed aside or outright invalidated. Why? Because he’s Tony Stark. His trauma, grief, and struggles are treated as though they’re less significant—or worse, undeserving of recognition—simply because he doesn’t fit the archetype of a "sympathetic" character.

In actual fact, the contrary is true.

Tony Stark's alleged "trauma" is more often than not, used as an excuse for his actions, or as a sort of Get out of Jail Free card. This is especially frustrating for fans who are trauma victims in real life, since Stark does not display any of the symptoms of PTSD or trauma on screen. His symptoms are actually more consistent with anxiety.

Nevertheless, this does not stop Tony fans engaging in the most egregious forms of "trauma trumping": by saying that Tony Stark suffered infinitelymore than any other character, and life has dealt him a worse hand than anybody ever.

One does not have to go far to find example of Tony Fans claiming he suffers from a vast array of conditions: I encountered one the other day saying he had not only PTSD, but also depression and anxiety, along with the usual claim that he "sacrificed more than any other character".

The person in question then had the gall to say that they did not mean to "invalidate anybody else's problems", not realizing that their words were the ultimate invalidation. To write off the canonical and displayed trauma of other characters as simple "problems" that pale in comparison to Tony's is disgusting and vile. It is, in a word, the worst form of gaslighting.

Why? Not only is this due to the fact that Tony displays zero symptoms of any condition save a moderate case of anxiety, but a simple comparison with the life experiences of other characters reveals the dismissive and narcissistic nature of such claims.

Take Natasha Romanoff.

Natasha was a victim of child trafficking when she was sold to the Red Room at the age of only 12, and transported to Russia in the most inhumane conditions with dozens of other young girls in a cattle truck.
She was then, at the end of her "training" forced to undergo sterilization, and endured horrific forms of torture and brainwashing for the better part of a decade.

Or Bucky Barnes, who was captured, mutilated, experimented on, held agaisnt his will, and repeatedly tortured as part of the mind control regimen that HYDRA used to keep him in line.

He was in fact subjected to forms of torture and experimentation so severe that it left him with permanent brain damage. Alongside this, both Natasha and Bucky have PTSD, and Bucky in particular displays a lot of symptoms of severe depression, including s*icudal ideation.

To dismiss their past sufferings and ongoing struggles as simply "problems" which are not as bad as Tony's is outright evil.

 His wealth, intelligence, and outward confidence are often wielded as weapons against him, as though these attributes somehow shield him from pain, absolve others of their treatment of him, or negate the consequences of his sacrifices.

Nobody treats Tony badly: but Tony more often than not uses his position as an excuse to mistreat others, especiallly his team-mates. Subjecting them to cruel jokes, verbal and and occasionally physical abuse: e.g shocking Bruce Banner in the helicarrier in Avengers 1 to try and make him Hulk out.

Tony's arrogance is not an outward display, it is an innate trait, and it causes endless harm as Tony's unshakeable belief that he knows that is best for everybody causes disaster after disaster. The Iron Legion, the events of Iron Man III in which he nearly gets Pepper and Happy killed, Ulron, The Sokovia Accords, the list goes on.

His arrogance also results in Tony never taking responsibility for his actions: he constantly blames others instead. In Civil War he blames all his team memebrs of the destruction caused by Ultron. In Endgame, he blames Steve Rogers for the Snap and Thanos victory, a claim that is often beleived uncritically and repeated by fans, despite the fact that Tony had the means of communicating with Rogers at his disposal for 2 years before Thanos invasion.

Despite the fact that he was repeatedly urged to call Rogers by Bruce Banner and Nick Fury and despite the fact that when the call was made, Steve assembled almost all the other Avengers and arrived promptly in New York. Tony was simply too stubborn to swallow his pride and make the call earlier.

Also consider that it was Stark's descision to try and take on Thanos on Titan himself, instead of returning to earth as Doctor Strange suggested. The result was Strange exchanging the Time Stone for Tony's life: an act which arguably made Thanos victory unavoidable.

If this had happened with any other character: if anyone had been forced to give up and Infinity Stone in return for Thanos sparing the life of Steve Rogers or Clint Barton, or Wanda Maximoff the character in question would be condemned for thier selfishness. For killing half the universe to save one person- but because Tony was the beneficiary of the exhange, this is hand-waved, or even presented as a noble act.

What about Tony's wealth? Again, this is not weaponized against him. Rather is is pointed out that the MCU contains no examples of Tony using his wealth for the benfit of good causes: more often then not, he seems to just use it to buy his way out of trouble, or fritters it away on pet projects.

Take the BARF tech: Tony could have used the billions he spent on the VR Program on relief and aid for Sokovia- but he didn't. The critiicsm of Tony's use of his weath is analoguous to the very legitimate criticism of wealthy elites in real life, and their influence on society.

When Steve Rogers fights to protect Bucky, driven by their lifelong bond and shared history, audiences cheer...Steve is lauded for standing by Bucky, but Tony is vilified for reacting with raw, unfiltered grief to discovering that his parents were brutally murdered. The footage wasn’t just a revelation—it was a wound ripped open in real-time. Critics argue that Tony should have acted rationally, as if witnessing such a personal, horrifying moment could ever allow for calm deliberation....

Once again, YJs claims are contradicted by actual observable facts. There are very, very few who applaud Steve for protecting Bucky. A fact that is disturbing in itself, since Tony straight up wanted to murder Barnes. More often than not, people side with the would-be-murderer, Tony, condoning or justifying his attempt to take another human life.

So called "critics" do not, in fact, argue that Tony should have "acted rationally" at the revelation that his parents were in fact murdered. All they argue is that Tony should have refrained from trying to commit a deliberate murder himself. He was entitled to his feelings, but he was not entitled to act on thise feelings by TRYING TO KILL SOMEBODY. And he did so in an intentionally sadistic and cruel manner.  Showing his moral quality, or the lack of it.

One does not even have to go far to find Tony fans who justify revenge-killing, or act as though Tony's attempt to murder Bucky was an acceptable response to Steve keeping the full truth from him.The stances of Tony fans are often shocking, but seldom as blatantly amoral as to outright condone murder.

For Tony fans to act as though revenge-killing is the only possible reaction to grief or extreme stress, and to hear them proclaim that "anybody would do the same..." when we outright see other characters behaving very differently in the same circumstances on screen- reveals the utter immorality of their stance.

They have to tell themsselves that murder is normal and acceptable behaviour. As though revenge-killing is not a rarity even in real life: and when people do engage in such acts, they are likely to suffer the same penalty as murderers.

To then discover that their deaths weren’t an accident at all but a calculated murder carried out by the Winter Soldier is an unimaginable betrayal, compounded by the fact that Steve Rogers—a man Tony considered a friend—had known the truth and kept it from him.

This is the most bizarre statement of YJs. They seem to be suggesting that The Winter Soldier's killing of the Starks was deliberately calculated to hurt Tony, as though he sadistically planned the whole thing with this in mind.

In canonical terms, this is utter nonsense. As the Winter Soldier Bucky Barnes had no autotomy or agency. Even his mind was not his own. He was merely a puppet in the hands of others. None of his assassinations were planned by him: it was instead his handlers and various High ups in HYDRA who did the planning. He was simply the instrument they used to carry out the act.

Furthermore, it is established that Barnes did not even remember his own name, so he would certainly not have remembered who Howard Stark was. He had never met Maria, and so did not know her. They were total strangers to him.

He didn't even know Tony Stark existed in 1991 so how could his actions represent a deliberate betrayal?

Steve Rogers certainly wasn't in on it, as he was frozen, believed dead, in the arctic until 2012, and did not become aware that HYDRA had been behind the act until 2014, two years before the events of Civil War.

Uness the "betrayal" is supposed to be that Steve did not tell Tony earlier? If this is the case, then well- I call bs. Steve knew Tony had a history of volatile and violent behaviour. He knew of his spiteful and cruel nature. He knew that Tony would respond to the news in not just a negative way, but might well try and do something like hunting down Bucky and having him killed.

Steve was not required to endanger the life of his brother in order to placate Tony Stark. Should he have told him earlier? Perhaps, but it would have to be in strict and controlled conditions where Tony could not lash out and do violence to anybody.

Tony Stark, who grapples with overwhelming guilt, relentless pressure, and an unshakable need to fix the world, is somehow held to a different standard. When he acts out of fear or pain—whether it’s developing Ultron out of a desperate attempt to protect the planet... or taking extreme measures to protect the people he loves—he’s labeled selfish, irresponsible, or morally corrupt.

Consider his actions in Avengers: Age of Ultron. Tony’s decision to create Ultron was born not of hubris, but of fear—a deeply human fear of not being enough to stop the next catastrophe. Was it a mistake? Yes. But to paint it as selfish ignores the context: a man suffering from PTSD after the Battle of New York, haunted by the knowledge that Earth might not survive another invasion.

 

This is the most dangerous aspect of Tony fans hand-waving of his actions. Tony's creation of Ultron was absolutely a result of hubris. With the events of Avengers 1 Tony went from believing he had a duty to create weapons to "protect" the United States (usually by means of complete devestaton of their "enemies") to becoming obsessed with the notion of creating a weapons system  that could protect the word form alien invasion.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of protecting those you love, per se, but Tony's actions crossed the line into paranoia and megalomania. He became, in simple terms, a control-freak with authoritarian tendencies. He created Ultron because he believed he knew what was best for everybody, ignoring their wishes and warnings to not meddle with a dangerous supernatural artefact.

He WOULD protect the world, no matter whether people wanted it or not and regardless of the cost to them. His attitude and actions are akin to those of an abuser, who couches their actions in terms of "helping" or "keeping thier victim safe".

It’s also crucial to note that Tony, like the rest of the team, was under Scarlet Witch’s mind control during the events of Age of Ultron.

Tony was not under any form of mind control. Mind control involves alteration of the function of the brain by a third party. Even if we generously count what Maximoff did as pyschological manipulatation, that still wasn't mind control.

Besides of which, Tony already wanted to create a global AI before he even met The Maximoff Twins, so it is doubtful the extent to which he was really manipulated. He was already planning it, he just found the means by which to bring his plans to fruition.

Her manipulations preyed on his deepest fears, showing him a vision of the future where he failed to save everyone. That vision didn’t just spark his anxiety—it magnified it, feeding into his decision to build Ultron. The influence of the Mind Stone on both Scarlet Witch’s abilities and the Avengers’ actions also cannot be overlooked. It can even be argued that Tony’s judgment may have been affected by the residual influence of the Mind Stone itself, as it played a significant role in shaping the events of the movie.

The key word here is "decsision". Tony was exercizing free will the whole time. Unlike say, Bucky or Killgrave's victims. There is also zero evidence of any "residual influence" of the Mind Stone or Maximoff on Tony after his vision. When a person is under the control of the Mind Stone, their eyes glow blue (as per Dr Cho), this did not happen with Tony. When under Maximoff's spell, a red mist appears. This had cleared before Tony took the sceptre.

Everything he did after the vision was 100% of his own free will and choice. The fact Tony even lied to Thor about what he wanted to do with the Sceptre underscores this. He told Thor he only wanted to study it, not use it to create an AI system. Not meddle with the Stone. A person being wholly controlled with no free will or agency would not think to lie or hide information. Lying and concealing information requires forethought and independent will.

That is why people judge Tony for things like creating Ultron.

It also provides us with another example of the kind of double standards they apply. They try to co-opt mind control, and the horrific things that were done to characters like Bucky Barnes and Yelena Belova in order to exonerate Tony of all responsibility for his actions.

Yet at the same time, they will self-righteously proclaim that Bucky's mind control "doesn't count" and he was still totally responsible for things like the Stark's murder. Even on the incredibly tenuous basis that "his body did it" therefore he is guilty. Even though the same reasoning can be applied ot Tony with Ultron.

Then there's this:

But to paint it as selfish ignores the context: a man suffering from PTSD after the Battle of New York, haunted by the knowledge that Earth might not survive another invasion.

Tony creation of Ultron was selfish. Good or seemingly good motives to not justify bad actions, or actions as destructive as Tony's building of Ultron was.

Remember most of the villians in the MCU jusify their actions in very similar terms to how Tony fans justify his. Be it "Protecting the world" or "bringing peace and security".That was literally HYDRA's justification for Project Insight and their planned takeover of the USA.

What is really the difference between them and Tony?

Finally, using PTSD as an excuse for Tony's misdeeds is the worst shade of morally bankrupt and disgusting. As somebody once said "authoritarianism is bad even if you have a sicknote".

It goes beyond that though. Using mental illness as an excuse for Tony's bad behaviour and misdeed, which Tony fans routinelydo,  reinforces negative stereotypes about mental health and people with conditions like PTSD in real life.

It is already commonly (and errouneously)  believed that mental illness is an excuse for bad behaviour, used to justify the actions of criminals and killers. That people with certain conditions are inherently dangerous and bad, but also don't want to he held accountable for thier actions.

People with conditions like PTSD have historically been subject to all kinds of discrimination and mistreatment on this basis. Hand-waving Tony's actions in these terms is feeding into such attitudes and is potentially doing harm to real human beings.

People remember his ultimate sacrifice but conveniently forget the years of pain and self-doubt that led up to it. Tony’s journey wasn’t about redemption because he never needed redeeming—it was about growth. His willingness to lay down his life didn’t erase his flaws, but it underscored the depth of his humanity.

 

What pain? What self-doubt. Tony never shows any signs of self-doubt: unless you count the fear of losing control as self-doubt. Tony went through no more pain and suffering then anybody else- and less then most other characters. Thor lost his father, his eye, his planet, and then had to watch his brother and best friend were murdered in front of him in the space of a week.

Tony can never know that kind of loss and suffering. He will never know what it is like to be starving, so poor you cannot afford basic necessities. The utter and complete loss of autonomy that characters like Nat and Bucky experienced. The physical and emotional pain of having thier mind ravaged, the guilt of being used against thier will to do terrible things. Of having no control over thier very bodies.

Tony retained his money, wealth, privelege, freedom, autonomy, family and comfortable lifestyle throughout the movies. He does not have to give up anything signifigant. He does not lose anyone, except maybe Spiderman. and even then he's lucky Aunt May was snapped or she would have killed him.

Tony's "ultimate sacrifice" had to be forced on him by Strange. He had ot be basically trickedinto it because he was too selfish to put his life on the line to save the universe otherwise. He didn't want to give up his little perfect life with his wife and kid on his nice comfortable farm-sheltered from the chaos and suffering in the rest of the post=Snap world.

And his sacrifice means nothing in terms of character growth because Tony does not grow. He is as selfish, arrogant and obnoxious in Endgame as he was in Iron Man II. He is not allowed to have flaws or be wrong, and so he is not allowed to learn from them. He does not suffer consequences and so he does not realize the error of his ways and try to change.

Also, even his supposed "sacrifice" came shortly after he demanded (for wholly selfish reasons) that Bruce Banner bring everyone snapped back to a post-apocalyptic world. A decision which caused major economic and social problems for years afterwards.

His struggles deserve the same compassion extended to others in the MCU because at the end of the day, pain is universal. To deny him that compassion isn’t just unfair—it’s a failure to understand the complexity of his character.

 

HE DOESN'T STRUGGLE. That's the point. Tony does not struggle. He never struggles. He never had to struggle in his life. He doesn't deserve compassion for his mistakes because he never admits them and never learns from them. He just goes on and on hurting others.

Co-opting trauma and real life conditions which are horrible and impact people in awful ways as an attempt to illicit sympathy for Tony is not gross, dishonest and hugely disrespecful to the people who really have those conditions. It is a form of emotional blackmail.

That's why a lot of people cannot stand Tony Stark, or his fans.