According to you.
Batman has beaten Superman, he's a human. Yet a Kryptonian woman beating him is just too far fetched for some people.
Spoilers Supergirl - Season 2
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Batman has beaten Superman, he's a human. Yet a Kryptonian woman beating him is just too far fetched for some people.
Yes he has! And this is where the "sexist" rant goes away, because I find that even MORE absurd than Supergirl beating Superman, yet another example of dumbing down Superman to make an opponent look good.
Every argument I made today about Supergirl not being able to beat Superman can be injected with steroids when it comes to Batman. There is absolutely no logical way that Batman, no matter how smart he is, no matter how much time he has to prepare, should ever lay a finger on Superman.
It is even more absurd that Batman could beat Superman than it is Supergirl, who at least has powers. And yes, Supergirl would also wipe the floor with Batman--it wouldn't even last a second. Frank Miller writes a story in an alternate continuity in the 1980s and suddenly Batman can beat anyone.
BvS had to make Superman look like a complete moron for him to lose to Batman. Think about this--Batman plays the kryptonite card and gets some offense in. But Superman recovers. So Superman falls for the same trick twice? How stupid did Superman have to be to not just disarm Batman in about 5 seconds?
But that's another topic.
Your quote above would only make sense if I were arguing that Batman beating Superman was ok, but Supergirl beating Superman was not.
^ The above would help your argument against you being guilty of sexism if any other poster here weren't able to go back through your posts in this thread and quote comments where you flat-out said that women, human or otherwise, arent strong enough, physically, to beat men in a fight, so "Nice try, but no cigar".
It's "biased against males" in the same way that BVTS was, to the extent of assigning them to mostly supporting and tertiary roles - in pretty much the same way that most adventure fiction uses female characters.
The writers no longer really know where Olsen fits into the show. Either they'll assign him a whole new function next season or write him out.
The writers no longer really know where Olsen fits into the show. Either they'll assign him a whole new function next season or write him out.
Photographer/CEO/Vigilante/....Hairdresser? Physicist? What function will they give him and then completely ignore next season?
Yet your entire argument has been strictly based on some variation of men always being stronger than women. How it made Superman "submissive", a "superwimp", how it's just nature that men are stronger than women. You never attempted to justify it with some story reason, just that Supergirl was a woman therefore weaker by default. That's why everyone thinks your posts are sexist. You can't take this back.
Some men can't stand the idea that a man would ever defer to a woman for any reason, even if she had superpowers. Men must always take charge and be in control. If Voyager was made now, I imagine a lot of would have a panic attack about Janeway being captain.
Unless they're bringing Cat back as a regular (guess they're not) the whole CatCo storyline is pointless. Just make James a DEO agent, and pair him off with some problematic character like, oh, Lena (who's gone with boys at least at some point). Then he fits into the soap opera just like everyone else.
The ability to "systematically oppress" or being from a majority/minority has *absolutely* NOTHING to do with ones abilitity to commit sexist and racist acts. Are you KIDDING me????? Reverse / Two Directional bigotry and sexism is *absolutely* real and ignoring that as a part of reality is disingenuous at best.
It is NOT sexist to point out the physical superiority of males in hand to hand combat or athleticism. It is ignorant to ignore that.
I don't think anyone should beat Superman. I had the same issue with Batman when he won.
Regarding Supergirl, having watched the episode, they DID write Superman as submissive to Supergirl. After the fight, they made it a point to have Clark talk about how he was at full strength and how she beat him.
Several times.
Then they had a scene where she got the physical edge on him in training and made him look wimpy.
Then they had him abandon her to go home when she needed him emotionally.
But before he did that, he made it a point to say that he didn't think he could let Lois go the way she let Mon-El go, once again telling the audience that he is weaker than her emotionally as well as physically.
I don't take back any of my posts. They were not sexist. None of them.
It's about strength and power, and when all things are equal, the male will win, except in fiction.
You take the best women basketball players in the world, put them on a team, and have them square off against the best boys high school players, assuming proper preparation for both sides. The women would get crushed. Size and strength alone would be too tough to overcome, even if the women have more basic skills.
This show, especially the last two episodes, has really gone out of its way to display some sort of man-hating attitude, and THAT is the real sexism.
Not at all. Though Supergirl's writers had the exact same sexist attitude in reverse--just re-watch Cat's commentary on Air Force One--a lot of man hating in that dialogue.
As for a woman in charge or a woman hero, I'm all for it. I loved Xena for example. In that show, she could go toe to toe with anyone, but they didn't have her beat Hercules to show how strong she was.
As for Voyager, I hated Janeway, not because she was a woman, but because she was an idiot, and they wrote her as such. I feel that way about the male characters on that show too.
It wasn't limited to her. Archer also wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Star Trek though had some very amazing women characters, including Dax, Uhura, Kira, and Crusher, to name four.
There have been a lot of great female heroic characters that go hand in hand with the men. Renee Walker on 24 was awesome. I'm leery of the upcoming Wonder Woman movie, but only because I don't trust these writers. However, written right, Wonder Woman may be the best female hero ever conceived. My favorite DC cartoon movie is the Wonder Woman one. The best part? Not only did they make Wonder Woman heroic, they didn't have to make Steve Trevor into a wimp. He was equally heroic--just human. When a powered up Wonder Woman saves his life, Trevor doesn't look like a wimp.
Again--I have no problem with Supergirl the hero. She is every bit the hero. The writers didn't need to tear down Superman to show her toughness.
THAT was my issue. Superman should have had a better role than just running around saying he was inferior to Kara. That's not Superman.
How are cis straight white men oppressed?
Well, it did specifically happen, and they specifically specified it was specifically because she was stronger than specifically him.
Deal with it?
Just so everyone knows, saying bad things about men isn't sexism because it doesn't affect their ability to have a career or prosper in life. They hold power and privilege that protects them. It's just saying bad things. You can't even compare the two seriously.
Well, it did specifically happen, and they specifically specified it was specifically because she was stronger than specifically him.
Deal with it?
I'm specifically confused.
A few posters are in denial about an episode of Supergirl. They expected the main character to lose.
I like the age old adage of treat others the way you want to be treated.
I'd say so. How could she not, when she knows who Kara is, and her connection to Clark?
I'd say that her knowing, would also explain her extreme jealousy of Lois, and the rather out of character crush she has on him. She loves trolling him to his face...
Similar threads
