Supergirl - Season Four
- Thread starter Kai "the spy"
- Start date
As a boy, I rather think the opposite is true.
Oh gosh, Supergirl is not in the same league as Doctor Who!Since both Supergirl and Doctor Who are airing Sundays this Fall, seems we're getting a nice Girl Power Day out of it!
It sounded to me as if you were reacting to what the writers of the show actually did. A single idle comment by some fan on the Internet is hardly the same thing.
Because she's the title character of the show and he's the guest star, obviously. It's not rocket science.
So what? Superman has been the title character of the show too, but that doesn't mean he went around beating up Supergirl. Also, being the title character of a show does not mean that character is the most powerful.
If there is a Jimmy Olsen spin off, or a Winn spin off, and they beat Supergirl in a fair fight, that's ridiculous and bad writing.
What that episode of Supergirl showed was that the writers were so insecure that they had to write a story where Supergirl would beat Superman. The irony is that the result was the exact opposite of what they intended. They made Supergirl look weak because they had to dumb down Superman to attempt to make her look strong.
It wasn't as dumb as Batman beating Superman, but it was up there.
The writers on this show are the ones with the chip on their shoulder.
Compare this to Wonder Woman, who didn't have to beat a man to establish her strength. Wonder Woman can lose to Superman and it wouldn't make her look weak. It just would show a limit. Wonder Woman's movie didn't have to weaken the male gender to make Wonder Woman a strong hero. Quite the opposite. Steve Trevor was a hero in his own right. No one doubted Wonder Woman could easily beat Steve Trevor in a fight, but they didn't have to weaken him to show that.
And in Justice League, in their brief fight, Superman looked like he would have got the better of Wonder Woman. It didn't matter. It didn't take one ounce of her strength away.
But in Supergirl? The whole purpose of that fight was to try to make Supergirl look strong by dumbing down Superman. It was just bad writing all around. The only thing it accomplished was to give those with a chip on their shoulder the chance to get on a soapbox and be outraged when the writers are properly called out, just like they get fake outraged when racist/misogynist writers are called out for changing the race or gender of a popular character.
That fight with Superman had the opposite effect of what they were going for, and they likely still don't see it.
She didn't exactly "go around beating him up", she was in a desperate fight for her life and got the upper hand, it could easily have gone either way.
Except they didn't "dumb him down", she's been established as stronger than him for some time in the comics, long before Supergirl ever aired.
Which has frequently happened.
That's because he's well established as being more than a match for her, whereas that isn't the case with Kara, precisely the opposite in fact.
Could The Doctor beat Superman?
Clearly, she's defeated entire empires of uber aliens on dozens of occasions, moved planets and locked a whole species in the BBC's equivalent of The Phantom Zone. She could go back in time and prevent the Kryptonian species ever evolving.
Unless Supes got the first punch in....
I don't think we are seeing an increase in the number of negative attitudes though, rather the opposite. What we are seeing is that technology now allows people with minority opinions to find each other and discover that they are not alone in the world.
In the case of places like this message board, it allowed people with certain interests to discuss "geeky" things.
In cases of the more nefarious websites or groups it becomes something more dangerous. It also allows people to organize or encourage others to make more public statements and gives them a louder voice.
But I don't think this equates to a greater percentage of the population if that helps in any way.
This is the crux of everything that is incorrect with this line of reasoning. It is not arguing that because Superman should be the most powerful character in the DC universe (a straw man that fans on this board are erecting) even though the comics themselves state otherwise--you are stating quite explicitly that a woman beating up a man "weakens the male gender". How many men would last a round with Ronda Rousey? Or any female boxer, martial artist, or wrestler? Now many.
Are you all so strong and work out so much every day that you are proud that no woman could take you? I know that when I am lifting weights in the gym most women could take me down. Does that make my gender look weak as well?
It seems that this straw man argument --Superman is the strongest, which is contradicted by the actual comic books -- has been set up to push another political agenda --men need to be stronger than women in order to retain their masculinity. Something that I highly doubt is true for many of the people making this argument.
Are we seriously still stuck on the obviously invalid assumption that the only way to win a fight is by superior strength? For the umpteenth time -- skill should matter more than raw strength. Look at all the dainty or slender mortal women in the Arrowverse who have no trouble outfighting big musclemen on a regular basis -- Laurel and Sara Lance, Thea Queen, Dinah Drake, Alex Danvers, etc. You don't have to be stronger than your opponent to win a fight. You just have to be better at fighting. Supergirl has DEO combat training; Superman is self-taught. Therefore Supergirl has the advantage, even if Superman has greater raw strength.
I'd love to agree with you, but outside of internet forums and social media, in the big wide world, the evidence seems to suggest a massive swing towards the intolerance of the past. We have homophobia, misogyny and racism being normalised in the US, we have Brexit tearing the EU apart, we have a visible swing towards the far right across Europe.
The world may march slowly to the beat of progress but there are setbacks along the way and this definitely seems like on. More likely (in my view) is these things cyclical and for a few decades we have enjoyed the modern equivalent to the roaring twenties, before Nazism WW2 and the Cold War.
Sorry to be depressing but I think we live in interesting times and any efforts made by the media to counter the attitudes which are increasingly commonplace in society are to be celebrated.
Exactly. In the US, several states are trying to get a Supreme Court case that will allow legal discrimination of transgender people and the executive branch is pushing for religious “liberty” laws which will allow anyone to discriminate against anyone they claim to object to morally, targeting LGBTQ citizens in particular. It is an extremely scary time right now, with no hope in sight.
The remarkable thing to me is how fundamentally anti-Christian so many alleged Christians are. They focus on anything that gives them an excuse to hate and discriminate, while ignoring Jesus' central messages of love and acceptance. What part of "Let he who is without sin" is unclear?
The Jesus of the Gospels would be horrified at the things they do in his name. He would tell these so-called "Christians" to mind the business of their own souls, and just bake the fucking cake.
yeah well he had a teaching on that too (the widow & the lamp iirc) but it's also one that goes over their heads.
