After a USA Today writer complained the movie Dunkirk wasn’t diverse, now we have a writer from Marie Claire magazine basically calling the movie sexist because it’s about war and “celebrates maleness.”

Mehera Bonner's main issue with the movie was that it was “so clearly designed for men to man-out over.” Though she did understand the war was pretty much dominated by male soldiers. Duh. In her article, “I Think Dunkirk Was Mediocre at Best, and It's Not Because I'm Some Naive Woman Who Doesn't Get It,” she complained that nothing really happened in the movie, other than “scenes of men burning in oil-covered water, ships sinking, and bodies drowning.” In other words, “war” happened, but that’s too “basic” for Mehera’s liking.

But my main issue with Dunkirk is that it's so clearly designed for men to man-out over. And look, it's not like I need every movie to have "strong female leads." Wonder Woman can probably tide me over for at least a year, and I understand that this war was dominated by brave male soldiers. I get that. But the packaging of the film, the general vibe, and the tenor of the people applauding it just screams "men-only"—and specifically seems to cater to a certain type of very pretentious man who would love nothing more than to explain to me why I'm wrong about not liking it.

Bonner accused the movie of being plotless: "if your interests include riding a visual roller coaster called war, you will love it. But if you're a fan of films with plots, Dunkirk doesn't play that game." She openly mocked director Christopher Nolan’s premise for the movie -- a story of survival about the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force on the beaches of Dunkirk, France during World War, writing, “It's as if Christopher Nolan (sorry, "Nolan") plucked out the war scene from a script, and was like "let's just make this part extra long and call it a movie, lol."

She sarcastically congratulated director Nolan for “managing to unite high-brow male critics and very annoying people on Twitter under a common bromance,” but lamented the all-out celebration of “maleness,” leading her to ask -- wait for it --

Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness—which apparently they don't get to do enough. Fine, great, go forth, but if Nolan's entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mold and doing something different—why not make a movie about women in World War II? Or—because I know that will illicit [sic] cries of ‘ugh, not everything has to be about feminism, ugh!’ —how about any other marginalized group? These stories shouldn't be relegated to indie films and Oscar season. It's up to giant powerhouse directors like Nolan to tell them, which is why Dunkirk feels so basic.… If you're like me, a random man will come up to you after and explain why you're wrong for disliking it. But this war movie isn't special. At the end of the day, it's like all the rest of them.

This lady seems to worry about random men jumping out at her at the megaplex to denounce her feminist tastes...and they are the "pretentious" ones? Once again, social justice warriors find issue with a critically acclaimed movie that tells a true story, just not the one they want to see.