Flaws, Accountability and "Sacrifice".
The Final 4 Chapters of Yelpjunny's supposed exposé of fandom's double standards is just a series of unsubstantiated statements.
Tony explicitly references guilt multiple times. In Iron Man 1, his decision to stop selling weapons stems from guilt over the harm his creations have caused.
It is notable that Tony's "guilt" in Iron Man 1 is linked only to the death of American Soldiers. Tony never expresses guilt or remorse over the death of non-American civilians. This says a a lot about him and his priorities.
Also, although Tony fans are keen to stress that Tony stopped selling weapons, he never stopped makingthem. He just went from making them for the government to making them for himself.
His reluctance to take credit for his contributions (The Avengers ending) and his recurring nightmares (Iron Man 3) are all expressions of this guilt.
Yelpjunny also claims that Tony's nightmares result from PTSD. They cannot be both an expression of guilt and PTSD related at the same time. Which is it? In fact, there is no evidence they are related to guilt as there was nothing to be guilty about in the battle of NY.
By Civil War, he funds the MIT program as penance for the harm caused by his weapons (”This is the cost of doing business,” he says after being confronted by a grieving mother). While the critique claims he doesn’t publicly confess to Ultron’s creation, Tony is visibly weighed down by the fallout.
Tony's funding of the MIT Programme was not related to guilt, but to the unveiling of his BARF tech (which he did not actually create but stole from somebody else...) which was designed to "clear traumatic memories".
In most contexts, the expression of guilt is related to a certain event. To say Tony feels guilt when he does not admit or accept responsibility is disingenous. There is thus no evidence that he is feeling or experiencing guilt in any true sense.
In fact, Tony later co-opts the death of Miriam Sharpe's son to guilt-trip the rest of his team into doing what he wants. This is not an expression of personal guilt: it is projection. He later insinuates that the man reason he is supporting the Accords is not about the people who died in Sokovia at all, but an attempt to get his girlfriend to come back. A thorougly selfish motivation.
Later, when he hears Zemo relate how his family died in graphic detail in the Sokovia disaster, he shows no emotional reaction or any signs of guilt.
Tony experiences intense internal and external pressure. The Battle of New York (The Avengers) leaves him with PTSD
PTSD does not result from pressure, but from exposure to traumatic events. There is, as previously noted, no evidence Tony has PTSD, only a moderate case of anxiety. Nobody pressurized him into involvement in the Avengers or the events surrounding the battle of New York.
, and his fear of inadequacy is a driving force behind the creation of Ultron (“We can bust arms dealers all the live-long day, but that up there... that's the endgame.”). His need to constantly prepare for threats culminates in his over-reliance on tech (Iron Man 3, Age of Ultron, Endgame). Tony shoulders the responsibility for the safety of Earth—a role he took on voluntarily but that undoubtedly brings relentless pressure.
Tony's insistence on "protecting the world" is not so much voluntary, as something nobody wanted or asked Tony do do. His attitude is very much one of "I know what's best for you and I will do it whether you want it or not".
His behaviour is not that of the saviour, but of the megalomaniac who has become so obsessed with his idea that he is "protecting" you that he ends up becoming overbearing, controlling and abusive.
He thinks that no price is too high to pay for his version of "security"- as long as he doesn't have to pay it. Freedom. Human rights. Countless lives. All can be relinquished- without him asking you of course.
Need to Fix the World: Tony’s actions, while sometimes misguided, stem from a desire to protect the world. In Age of Ultron, he states his motivation clearly: “I see a suit of armor around the world.” The critique claims this is selfish, but his fear is rooted in the knowledge of Earth’s vulnerability. Similarly, in Endgame, his creation of the GPS for time travel and willingness to risk his life to help undo the Snap reflect his enduring need to “fix” catastrophic problems.
As above. Fixing something whether or not people want it is is not heroism: it is megalomania.
Tony's beliefs about "fixing the world" are very reminiscent of HYDRA's founding principle: "Mankind cannot be trusted with his own freedom". As HYDRA seek to create the conditions which will persaude humanity to give up their freedom in exchange for HYDRA's "protection" and "security", so Tony seeks to go to any lengths to "fix" the world's problems.
Often problems he created in the first place. At no point does he actually ask if anybody wants him to do this.
Again it is noted that "fixing the world" is also the motive of many MCU villians, including Thanos.
Ultron’s Creation: While the critique frames this as arrogance, it is more accurately fear-driven. Tony’s vision from Scarlet Witch (Age of Ultron) was not direct mind control, but it amplified his existing trauma. His choice to act without consulting the team wasn't maybe the best idea, but his intention was to prevent future catastrophes, not cause harm.
This relates to the previous paragraph. The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind here. Tony's actions did cause harm: regardless of his good motives. People can and often do commit horrific and henious acts with good intentions or motives.
HYDRA claimed to be protecting the world and bringing freedom.
Thanos claimed to be solving the problem of over-population and competition for resources, believing that he was preventing the next mass-extinction event.
So Tony's claim to be protecting the world- at any cost- cannot be taken as evidence of benevolent heroism.
Civil War: Tony’s reaction to learning of his parents’ deaths is harshly judged in the critique. While his actions were undeniably violent, expecting calm deliberation immediately after seeing his mother murdered is unrealistic.
The reason for the "harsh judgement" is that Tony's "reaction" was to attempt to deliberately and brutally murder a man. This has been stated many times.
Nobody believes or says that Tony should have been calm or should not have had any kind of emotional response in the situation. Nobody judges him for his emotions. The problem is how he chose to act on those emotions.
Claiming that violent and homicidal rage is the only possible reaction to loss and grief is disingenious and utterly false, but it is a claim commonly made by Tony Stans.
As another user said, millions of families of murder victims have to deal with the pain of loss of loved ones, but the vast majority do not go out and revenge-kill the perpetrator. Revenge-killing is actually rare, which is not consistent with Tony fan's claim that trying to avenge one's loved ones is a "normal human reaction".
Tony’s Flaws vs. Growth: Tony’s arrogance and mistakes are integral to his arc.
It would be, if Tony's arc was properly handled, but it is not. Rather than his flaws negatively impacting him and learning from his mistakes- both of which are essential to character growth- the MCU movies tend to twist the narrative to favour Tony. This results in the narrative pretending that Tony is right even when he is manifestly wrong.
Take Ultron: fans tend to interpret the fact that Thanos did, indeed, invade from Space as evidence Tony was correct to build Ultron. However, Thanos might and power would likely have made it impossible to stop his invasion anyway. He had decimated planets with far more advanced tech then anything available on earth.
Furthermore, Thanos had 4 out of the 6 Infinity Stones at his disposal before he even came to earth, and could use any of them to deal with Tony's "suit of armour around the world".
By Endgame, he shows growth by prioritizing the greater good over his own fears and desires. His sacrifice isn’t “forced” by Doctor Strange—Tony chooses to wield the Infinity Stones, knowing the cost.
Let's put it this way.
If when Thanos came the second time, he had only been threatened to Snap away the same who he snapped away the first time, Tony would probably not have bothered to stop him. He didn't especially care about Wanda Maximoff, Bucky Barnes, T'Challa, Sam Wilson, Yelena's sister or Clint's kids. He didn't care if they lived or died, so would not have used the Stones against Thanos on that basis.
Tony only did what he did because Thanos was threatening to kill *everyone* including Pepper and Morgan (people he cared about). He was going to die if Thanos won, and he was going to die if he used the Stones to defeat Thanos. He had nothing to lose by using them, but had a lot to lose by notusing them.
What he did was a sacrifice, but it was not as altrustic as Tony fans like to claim. Tony simply had more to lose by not doing what he did: his loved ones dying.
Bruce Banner: Bruce aids Tony in creating Ultron, yet the blame falls squarely on Tony’s shoulders. Bruce’s actions are rarely criticized with the same intensity, despite being equally culpable.
Bruce's actions are not criticized for 2 reasons:
1) Tony led him to believe that he was doing something useful and beneficial by working on Ultron. He essentially manipulated Bruce by appealing to his sense of morality.
2) Bruce immediately expressed shame and remorse for his part in creating Ultron. Tony did the opposite. In Age of Ultron, Bruce was horrified by what they had done when Ultron came alive, but Tony laughed and mocked his horror.
Bruce always felt and expressed guilt, but Tony was making excuses and dodging the blame even 3 years after the events of AoU. He was even still justifying his acions in Endgame, showing he had learned nothing from all the death and destruction and the fallout.
Wanda Maximoff: Wanda enslaves an entire town in WandaVision and creates Ultron alongside Tony in Age of Ultron. Yet, her trauma is often used to contextualize her actions in ways that the critique denies Tony.
At risk of repeating myself, the reason Tony is judged so harshly for his actions in Age of Ultron is because he was exercizing free will, agency and choice the whole time.
Contrast this with characters like Bucky Barnes, Killgrave's victims in the Jessica Jones series, or even Black Widows like Yelena Belova who all had thier agency stripped from them and their free will supressed or removed from them entirely, often by violent or drastic means.
They could not make a choice even if they wanted to. They had the very capacity for making a choice taken from them. Tony did not.
I addressed the thing about Wandavision in my last chapter, but suffice it to say Wanda had a complete mental and nervous breakdown. Tony just has moderate anxiety. Anxiety does not have the same catastrophic impact on a person's mind and body as a nervous breakdown.
Tony's "Sacrifices"
The term "sacrifice" has a specific meaning and application which involves giving up or relinquishing something that is of great value or dear to you.
Nothing Tony did in Iron Man I was not a sacrifice.
Iron Man 1: Tony risks his life escaping captivity, confronting Obadiah Stane, and shutting down the weapons he created. These actions mark a turning point in his character.
Escaping captivity is a normal human reaction. Nobody in their right mind would want to be held captive and harmed. Anybody would try to escape, even if it endangered them. Trying to present Tony simply escaping as a "sacrifice" is incredibly disingenous.
Also, what happened with Stane was not a sacrifice, since Tony did not have to give up anything. Stane was going to kill Tony anyway. It was a choice between "kill or be killed". Let Stane kill him, or die on his own terms and take Stane with him. As stated previously, all Tony did in IM1 was glorified suicide.
Also, Tony never stopped creating weapons, so not really a turning point.
Tony sacrifices the idyllic life he built with Pepper and Morgan to return to the fight. His final act of using the Infinity Stones is the culmination of his journey from self-centered genius to selfless hero.
I address most of this above, but Yelphunny fails to menton one crucial point.
When Bruce Banner reversed the Snap and bought everyone who had been snapped back, Tony Stark demanded that he bring them back to "now, today" and did not change anything from the last 5 years.
This was for purely selfish motives: Tony wanted to preserve his idyllic life, and his request had major negative ramifications for America and the world overall.
The people who had been snapped returned to a post-apocalyptic world, in which there were still major economic and social problems. In The Falcon and the Winter Soldier show for example. we learn that there were millions of people who had been displaced and left homeless by the reversal of the Snap. They became increasingly discontented with the failure to help them and some turned to crime and violence, even terrorism.
Or in the Hawkeye series, we see that there was a massive upsurge in crime during the Snap, espciallly organized crime and this did not end when the Snap was reversed. In some places, it may even have gotten worse with crime lords allowed a free reign.
Those to returned had to deal with this fallout. Tony did not. A consistent pattern it seems.
His relationship with Peter Parker shows his desire to mentor and protect the next generation. While the critique labels Peter as a “child soldier,” Tony’s intention was to guide Peter responsibly, as seen in Spider-Man: Homecoming when he takes the suit away after Peter’s reckless behavior.
Tony Stark's treatment of Peter Parker in Civil War is nothing other than manipulative and exploitative. He blackmails and bribes the boy, threatening to expose his true identity if he does not do what Tony wants and join in the airport fight.
It goes beyond this though.
T'Challa came very close to killing Bucky Barnes during the airport fight. Had it not been for the timely intervention of Wanda, he would have ripped Barnes throat out with his Vibranium claws when he was pinned against a wall.
Peter Parker had already lost a family member violently (his Uncle was murdered): even though Bucky was stranger, seeing a man be killed in such a bloody and brutal way would undoubtedly have had a terrible negative impact on him.
It is well known that being exposed to violence from a young age has a bad effect on the mental health and psychological development of children, and Peter was only 14 when the airport fight occured.It he had to witness such an event, it would have left him deeply upset and traumatized.
It is also worth noting that in the 2 movies following Homecoming, after rejecting Tony's offer of an internship, Peter begins to move away from the influence of Tony Stark and becomes his own person, with other, more healthy and positive role models.
It is, in fact possible to suggest that Tony Stark's "mentorship" had no lasting benefit for Peter Parker after Far From Home. Apart from using a couple bits of his tech in the next movie, he derives little to no benefit from his previous association with Stark.