If this is your attitude toward life, why does this particular issue concern you at all?
Men Are The Expendable Gender
- Thread starter Hermiod
- Start date
If this is your attitude toward life, why does this particular issue concern you at all?
Ok, now I know that I didn't mistake you with someone else. 
Or maybe that you have an excuse to be uncouth and feel good about it. Just for the record, again: I understand Nasat's concerns. It's your "me lonely, me bitter" attitude that make it easy for people to dismiss his concerns.
Oh cut that crap, will ya?
Empathy for others? His life may be pointless in his regard but maybe he wants what he would see as "better" for the boys growing up now?
I don't know of course. But as someone who also has little concern for his own life either way, I know I'm motivated by care for others (rightly or wrongly).
Or maybe he's just ridiculously bitter. Who knows?
Because I don't want boys growing up today to be anything like as miserable as I am when they get to my age.
Ok, now I know that I didn't mistake you with someone else.
Or maybe that you have an excuse to be uncouth and feel good about it.
Oh cut that crap, will ya?
Say something useful or say nothing at all from now on. Go start your own threads about things you find interesting. You don't want to discuss this subject, there are plenty of other threads available.
This subject and this thread are very interesting. And it gave me much food for thoughts, coming from lots people. It's your attitude that diminish it.
Go back and read the last few pages of this thread properly. It wasn't until Deckerd started applying labels to everyone that it took a turn for the worse.
Not that I'm "taking sides" here, but Iquana discussed the overall issue with me at some length, and very pleasantly. His participation gave me much to consider. It's just that you two rub each other up the wrong way. Again, I'm not taking sides here.
I think we've all been a little out of line. I mean, I called Kegg a "deluded fool". That was hardly acceptable behaviour on my part.
Gender is a BIG topic- it's going to get heated. That's inevitable I think.
Maybe so, but that's no real excuse for his initial entry in to this thread. He saw it was me who started it, he saw what it was about and decided to make comments about me instead of either A) moving on to the next thread or B) saying something that contributes to the thread.
It was only when he was called on it that he participated like an adult.
Because I don't want boys growing up today to be anything like as miserable as I am when they get to my age.
No offense, but I seriously doubt it's society's treatment of men and boys that has turned you into the miserable person you say you are today. It sounds more like scapegoating to me.
I never said it was. I have my own reasons.
That doesn't change my reaction when I see, bringing this back to the actual topic of the thread, a female soldier dying being front page news while her male colleagues - who make up 96% of Coalition casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan - are buried on page 10.
Yet, my initial comment was clearly vindicated by your posts on the subject. Maybe it was brash, but surely it was right.
No, there was nothing right about disrupting the thread with personal comments. Participate properly or don't participate at all.
If you don't want to talk about a subject, why enter a thread about it ?
If you disagree with points I've made, disagree with them and make your case. Don't just come in here with "Oh look, Hermiod's at it again". What do you achieve by doing that ?
I don't have to airbrush you any way you please, you dug your own grave. I'm saying you compared posters to Nazis because you did compare posters to Nazis - and yet, you still want to sound like you're the aggrieved party.
And I did ask for quotes and such. I don't see any examples of people misconstruing your argument, or even fundamentally disagreeing with it - nobody seems to have seriously suggested the notion that slaughtering people in war is a good idea or even that it is a particularly defensible one.
Ah, there is clearly where we differ. I'm mostly content, a bubbling cherubic fat man with a big stupid grin, a few sodas, and some spaceships on the TV. The man-child life is a very appealing one for me.
But I did participate properly. Just not with you.
I talked about it. Just not with you.
Now, if you feel that you have been wronger, notify the mods. I will bow to their decision if they feel my comment stepped over the line. Otherwise, stop pissing at me.
I dunno, maybe letting people know that this is not the first time you pulled this stunt and it's mostly pointless to discuss it with you, since you just take any dissenting opinion as confirmation of the fact that you are the lone hero of this crusade while all others have been brainwashed by the mighty vagina? That sounds like a good reason to speak.
What ?
I've lost track of DC since the whole infamous Amazons murdering little boys incident.
Amazons Attack, right? I've never read or given much credence to that one, though IIRC it's still technically in continuity.
I've traditionally been a Marvel guy myself. Then I discovered the JSA, and oh god I love the JSA.
So my interest in DC has been expanding. Anyway, the latest big ongoing event is "Blackest Night," and, to derail the thread a bit further. You know about Geoff Johns' massive retooling and expansion of the Green Lantern mythos, which the Green Lantern Corps being just one of seven Lantern Corps? Each of the colors is tied to a particular emotion (though "Willpower" isn't technically an emotion), and a Lantern Corps (of varying sizes) has sprung up around each.
So fast forward to the Blackest Night event, which is basically the armies of death killing everything in the DCU, but mostly Earth, by using reanimated corpses with "Black Lantern" rings, then killing heroes and turning them into Black Lanterns - the first Earth victims were Hawkman and Hawkgirl. Well, at some point its revealed that the villain behind the whole thing was responsible for many of the resurrections since the mid-90s, including Superman, Green Arrow, Barry Allan, Hal Jordan, Impulse, and Wonder Woman, among others, and therefore they get turned into Black Lanterns (save Barry and Hal, who escape).
Meanwhile (essentially meanwhile) the Lantern Corps' have temporarily ceasefired to deal with the horde of death and decide to draft certain Earth heroes as temporary help. The Star Sapphires, colored violet and aligned with love, select Wonder Woman. Now what's interesting here is that the Violet Ring essentially destroys and replaces the Black Ring, and its implied that the love Diana has is stronger even than death, and I think it's implied that part of that is an unrequited love for Bruce Wayne (whose own recent maybe-it's-his-corpse was being used as a trap for many of the resurrected heroes).
Sorry, that was perhaps longer than you cared about.
We also have such classics as Zoey shouldn't call Mal "sir" (even though he was her superior during the war and that's what she's used to calling him) and how Saffron was Mal's victim.You know, I think I've read that article from that person... it was...
Haha, yeah... and wasn't there something about how white men can never love black women but are always victimizing them?
Hmmm... Chuck Austen, was he the guy before Grant Morrison's run? Either way, what a crazy retcon. Was this "impersonation" thing part of some big plan, or just a way of saying "oh, we don't like what the character did her, so... alternate universe close!" And IIRC, wasn't it Cassie Lang and the Vision who signed the Act? If I'm right, that doesn't seem entirely bizarre. After all, Cassie signed right after seeing Bill Foster get a hole blown through his chest by Clone Thor - and considering her power set is the same, I would imagine it gave her pause; certainly it makes more sense than, say, Kate Bishop. And the Vision, well he's in love with Cassie IIRC, so sure, why not have the robot follow her?
Shulkie serves as such a great counterpoint to Emma Frost - who also loves her sexuality, but uses it as a weapon, or Jean Grey, who's been depicted recently as almost a force of nature, including her sexuality. Need all three, IMO.
I was joking in the sense that I don't really think a WNBA superstar (and formed Lady Volunteer, hence why I know her) is going to get drunk and rape Mini-Me. I wasn't joking with my point that there are some women who have a physical power imbalance over some men, so how can you say that women can never be a threat to a man?
Ok, it gets tricky. You're right that male soldiers deaths shouldn't be buried on page 10, but then again male soldiers, any soldiers, shouldn't be dying in the first place. It may look like cultural misandry, but it's far far more complicated like that.
For example, why put the female soldier on page 1? Is it because women are "special?" Well... sort of. A woman soldier dying, as you've noted, is more shocking - but it's not because women are being put up on a pedestal, it's because at the root of it all, they're still being treated as incapable. Why is a female soldier dying a shock? Well, because there's a cultural predilection for taking care of females, keeping them safe from harm.
Ok, so why this predilection? At the core of it, the unconscious assumption is that women must be preserved because they can't take care of themselves. They're too delicate, they're too fragile, they're helpless when you get right down to it. So at the core of it, why is a woman soldier dying more tragic, more front-page news? Because it's not just a sad thing when somebody dies, but it's a failure on the part of the military or of her "protectors."
Why do male soldiers get buried on page 10? Because their deaths, while tragic, are not the cause of moral outrage, because they're manly men who knew what they were signing up for and there's a lingering sense of "Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori."
I didn't pull any stunt, so you're right - you don't know. Read the first line of the thread:
Sounds like I already acknowledged previous problems with such discussions. Your attempt to "save" the board from my thread was redundant.
Don't try the "notify the mods" crap with me, either. You know as well as I do that the mods aren't going to do anything even if I did think it was worth reporting.
Call if a friendly reminder after a few pages of thread, then. Just in case someone forgot.
That's because you are a poor persecuted victim, right? All alone in your heroic yet ill-fated crusade against the system. Puh-leeze.
Amazons Attack, right? I've never read or given much credence to that one, though IIRC it's still technically in continuity.
Yes. Another thing that fits the original purpose of this thread. The history of DC's Amazons is steeped in misandry. Such a thing never should have slipped past DC's editors.
Sorry, that was perhaps longer than you cared about.
Thanks for the update. I've found DC's recent continuity overbearing and difficult to follow, though I've generally stopped reading comics full stop.
Haha, yeah... and wasn't there something about how white men can never love black women but are always victimizing them?
Yeah, I feel sooooo sorry for Zoe being trapped with this completely harmless, funny, good looking man who loves and respects her for who she is.
Cassie and Vision did but then one of the side story books, I forget which, depicted Asgardian and one of the others (I forget who, sorry) as having joined as well.
She-Hulk's own book basically established that a whole bunch of seemingly continuity breaking, out of character decisions were actually made by people's alternate universe counterparts. It was all a bit of fun, really, but it did lead to Jennifer getting a blood transfusion from her counterpart that counteracted the effects of the SPIN Tech Stark had used on her and gave her her powers back.
Yes, in general Marvel does a better job of this in my opinion.
Why is this still the case in 2010 ? This illustrates my point - she's not special because she's a woman. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true.
Well, yes, I'd agree with that. As I've said, this isn't some organised conspiracy to promote the needs of women. This is something men did too, we created a society where women are treated as special, fragile things that need to be protected, when they really aren't. They can look after themselves.
I would guess that a woman entering the armed forces is equally aware of what she's signing up for.
