I think you might be using your own personal definition of the hero archetype, rather then the literary or psychological one.
I am using the word 'hero' in its conversational sense. That's not my own personal definition, but it's also surely not any particular literary or psychological definition.
This is a brief post on an Internet discussion board, not an academic paper.
The hero gets the girl, because those who are willing to sacrifice petty wants for the greater good are more valued, and hence are rewarded. The girl loves the hero because he was willing to sacrifice his own desires for the safety and protection of others - and he is genuinely willing to do so, it isn't a ruse. Incels aren't sacrificing their petty wants, they're venerating their petty wants.
Absolutely. But they don't understand that, largely because they are fucking morons.
Also, "Action Heroes" are frequently more akin to Warrior or Adventurer archetypes than the classical Hero archetype. Being willing to fight for what is right is a common theme, and definitely is part of the Hero archetype... but mythological heroes are just as likely to overcome challenges through the application of intelligence or cleverness than by violence. Superman is a good synthesis of the two - he is willing to fight when it's necessary to do so in order to protect others and uphold the common good... but not as a first resort.
Again, this is all well and good, but far too complex for most people to bother with.
The question was why don't people understand the need for compromise; And the answer is that they are too dumb to grasp the subtleties in popular culture, and oversimplify the narrative to 'compromise is bad'.
Superman will do anything - even resort to violence - to avoid compromising his commitment to truth, justice, and the American way. His reward is Lois Lane.
Some sad basement dweller tries to emulate this by never ever compromising his commitment to me, me, and me; And is livid that Lois isn't throwing herself at him.
He's an idiot. He doesn't grasp the difference between the two situations. He just sees any compromise of his 'principles' as unacceptable.
Political compromise is essential to any non-totalitarian state. But it is unacceptable to idiots, brought up to believe that there is a sharp line between good and evil, and that you should never under any circumstances allow the bad guys to win.
Indeed, you can spot a shallow thinker a mile off, by his characterisation of people as either 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. Real people are always a mixture of both, but that's far too complex a concept for many people.
I'm just a bit fascinated by mythology and archetypes, and their role in storytelling, and the passing on of less obvious social mores than "don't kill people". They're almost always a vehicle for the teaching of complex ethics, and frequently introduce a conflict of competing but valid values within the same story. Aesop and the Bible parables teach some pretty basic lessons in morality and ethics... mythology and fable teach more complex lessons.