Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny. You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter.
Are you seriously saying female superheroes cannot be physiologically as strong or stronger than normal men?
Should I take it that you fail at reading comprehension? Are you an idiot? Or both? Help me help you. I can hold your hand if you like.
"Women in general are not physiologically strong..... The reality is... "
Assuming you didn't deliberately intend to sound like a misogynist
What is the misogyny?
it pretty clear we're talking superheroes here, so it's hard for me to believe you missed that part.
If you think I missed something you can answer my question. What is the misogyny in es330td comment that was quoted by mark-t?
Women are, in general, not as physiologically strong as men. That is irrelevant to a movie about a comic book superhero but that is still a fact.
you do seriously appear to be arguing that fictional entities given amazing powers cannot possibly be stronger than normal human unmodified men if they possess vaginas.
I am really struggling to not see you as an idiot with defunct reading comprehension. But I am willing to help you cross this bridge. I have experience helping special needs.
Was I whining? Could you please show me. I'm a little slow. I used it as an example. I also mentioned why critics couldn't say anything bad about it (despite it being bad). Uh oh. I said it was bad, does that mean I am whining? It is so terrible it cannot be mentioned in any bad light. lol. Is it going to turn into the Voldemort of movies. That which cannot be named! It will haunt Hollywood until everyone has grown to their senses and realize it is the next Citizen Kane.
It That Shall Not Be Named isn't above criticism. Get over it people don't like It That Shall Not Be Named.
Uh oh. You got me. I poked fun of you actually commenting on my "Agree lest ye be troll". That totally means I am using super advanced caveman tactics. After Og say try this one trick to win a debate, we have concluded that deer blood can create a comfortable environment. A safe space, if you will, for cave debate (cavebate?) to occur. We have named this debate tactic Og Venisonumumumum. The number of suffixed um's tells you how useful it is.
I was saying that critics can have a conflict of interest. Like being employed by the same company that make the money they are critiquing. I thought it was obvious with the link and the AC saying as much. Sorry, your comment didn't seem worth replying to except for the troll party.
Ye be troll. A troll be spotted! A troll be spotted!
Get the you knee corn over so they can duel to thee death. I got my money on the you knee corn impaling the troll. Ay, this troll be a nasty one it is.
Because movies use on emotions it makes sense to determine what kind of movie you will like based on the emotional response people have to it. One may not be a PHD in English literature but if they are honest people will appreciate it. A professional critic has an incentive to be dishonest in some cases. This is why I said I have learned that how people defend a film is enough for me to skip it. If a film/show cannot stand on it's own and it needs insulting and aggressive defenders then it isn't the film for me. I don't want to get caught up in w/e dumpster fire is being paraded on Twitter. I might passively observe just out of curiosity.
How you choose to spend your next buck on what media is irrelevant to me. What you like in media is irrelevant to me. I am actually happy you and others can find what they like. I wish that critics would stop hating on fans for disagreeing on opinionated matters.
> been genuinely willing to move past how I may have sounded I am if you are willing to acknowledge that it was an underhanded insulting claim of sexism.
>you would not have used the claim of such a presumption of ignorance as pretense to refocus upon how the comment has been taken you either sound like a retard (therefore you are a retard) or you should think just like me (you used an underhanded insulting claim of sexism) and I can just dismiss everything you said. Using your logic of course. I am not being insulting or underhanded through dismissive slights. You are just trying to refocus how my comment can been taken as calling you retarded. When clearly I am not saying you are retarded. I am just saying someone could interpret what you said as retarded (therefore making you retarded).
> nor further make a claim that itself assumes that there was still actually any malicious or insulting intent. Of course. Because a retard does not have to have the point addressed in a serious manner. Why would I entertain your opinion when you are a retard and it can be smugly dismissed? We all know that ad hominem is perfectly acceptable when the character I attack is of course a retard.
You know it was just an underhanded insulting claim of sexism, right? I am of course not assuming you intended to sound like a retard.
The implication was that women in general are not as physically strong, [therefore it is implausible that exceptional women could exist].
That can not be an implication (something that was implied), because it was explicitly stated.
Do you normally respond to yourself?
The OP described this type of exception as being "implausible"
No, he gave an observation that could explain why people don't like some movies. His last sentence highlights his entire point; "The SJW culture is trying to tell us that men and women are equal and Hollywood is trying to confirm through film. Our brains are telling us "Something just isn't right here..."". He observed something in reality and uses that to explain why some movies just miss the mark. He didn't make any implication about an exception to a generality implicitly or explicitly. He is using reality to explain why modern movies seem more like propaganda (pushing an agenda at an expense). Agree, or disagree. W/e When talking about movies (you know that thing that is mostly visual) it has logic to conclude that deviations for realistic visual representations can be seen as "something just isn't right here". You can explain it away with plot but is that enough? Maybe it is something that filmmakers need to recognize for films to be more successful. Dismissing that whole line of logic as "look misogynist" is as retarded as a flat earther dismissing a solar eclipse.
So if Micheal Bay decided to make a non-explosion action flick (as many directors, may try to expand their scope) and finds that he is wonderful at say Victorian drama.
Pigs could fly too. I won't believe it till I see it.
Shouldn't the movie be based on its self not the names attached to it
Sure. But you know what you are getting with Micheal Bay, barring some Pig Flying miracle.
>No, the point of my comment was to address the fact that any perception of reality has no bearing on a work about superheros. You should have said that instead of: "you sound sexist. It's a movie you know, right? ".
>chance of appearing to be discriminatory in as much that it appears offensive to flat earthers to say the earth is round in as much that it appears offensive to creationist to say the earth is billions of years old in as much that it appears offensive to antivaxxers to say vaccines don't cause autism.
are you getting the pattern?
>while I could easily assume it was accidental, Did you read and understand dudes comment or just knee jerk "omg it looks sooo sexist.... like did you like see how he like said that like men and women like are like different like? you know it's like a movie, right?" Personally, I think he brings up an interesting point for cinema (that thing that is mostly visual stimuli) and perhaps why some movies just seem off when they do things (stick man beats mountain of muscle because plot).
Are you upset? Did you like the movie? Were you upset no one else liked it? It's okay kiddo. You don't have to validate your opinion and existence based on others' opinion of what you like. You just like whatever you like and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. You can cry together if that will make you feel better.:,(
I trust critic ratings/reviews less than I would trust a used car salesmen. They make money from clicks and live in a world that any claim of "sexism or racism" will end their career. Considering anyone was a racist sexist for disliking Ghostbusters 2016 I think it's understandable why it was universally loved by critics. Using online trolls is a tired excuse to shill reviews for bad shows/movies.
If you find what you like with or without critic reviews then power to you. I like user reviews because there is nothing to gain for an average person making a review.
As far as Star Trek Discovery? I stopped paying attention when I found I didn't like it. Don't care what people say or what happens to it (isn't there a lawsuit against STD and CBS?) it's not for me. I find reboots mostly miss and found a new IP to tickle my sci fi twitches (Expanse).
Critics at least try to look at the movie for what it is
LOL. No they don't. They are the most obvious shills on the internet and the old business model of independent critics is coming to an end. Critics now have to compete with regular viewers which is apparently a problem. Can't have people disagree with critics/narrative or else they be racist sexist trolls!
Online trolls do not explain why box office numbers are down . It doesn't explain Oscar viewership at the 2nd lowest record. And it certainly doesn't explain the garbage that is being produced and hailed as the 2nd coming of sliced bread. Do not disagree lest ye be troll!
I don't honestly know what the OP's intent was... and I frankly couldn't care less.
Pushing the underhanded sexist mantra was the point of your insulting comment and not having a dialogue? Color me shocked. I would have never guessed you were trying to act like a complete boob. -.-
Drop the sexist mantra. Read his comment again. And maybe you won't sound like a complete boob.
You can find evidence of anything you look for on social media. So what? Does that mean it is acceptable to attack fans when a bad film fails? Does that mean the reason why bad movies fail is because you can find anything you look for on social media? Does that mean every fan is responsible for anything bad on social media? Does that mean we should read this article as truth that people "not interested" in this movie are stalking the digital allleys waiting for a poor millionaire to attack and abuse their poor delicate psyche?
A millionaire was being insulted? Oh the humanity!!! What ever will they do with their millions of dollars.
"brave" Oh wow I made a South Park reference. Not everything has to be so serious. I thought the "meatbag" was enough to convey I was heartily having fun but it seems that you have your unisex panties in a wad.
Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny.You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter.
Sure, women are generally smaller and weaker than men. That's completely not relevant to a superhero movie
Wow you agree with me.
we all go to see the Marvel superhero movies for the realism. Right.
And we all read the/. comments to ignore what was said.
The implication was that women in general are not as physically strong, [therefore it is implausible that exceptional women could exist].
What? Women, in general, are not as physically strong. There is nothing implied about the plausibility of the exception. I don't understand why you would make that kind of leap in logic. Why would you ever describe an individual based on group averages? Are you forbidden from making general statements of a group because an individual may not be described by that generality?
Which is apparently fine as long as the rules of exceptional men and women perfectly correlate to how the average man and average woman compare.
That is retarded.
I'm not even saying it's misogynist to wonder why a superhero with more apparent muscle mass is not stronger than one with less, but it's pretty weird to be so fixated on that in regards to men and women, to the exclusion of everything else.
I think you missed the point of my comment. If mark-t had said something akin to, "it's dumb to apply visualistic realism in a superhero movie because any deviation of reality and our unconscious expectations are understood by the audience through the plot and characters", I would have no problem. But he went for "that sounds sexist... You know its a movie, right?". That is an insulting statement that shits on reality and shits on the possible conversation. There is no conversation. There is only insult to facts and audiences.
I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about "mental disconnect between the visual of a woman physically dominating men". I don't know why it is there but I have rolled my eyes a number of times watching something where it becomes overly obvious. Barbie fighting Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't something I find visually appealing. It's can be too jarring when the extremes are juxtaposed together. The plot can explain it but I will still roll my eyes. Why? I don't know. But thinking that it could be because of a generality in reality is not misogynistic.
For example, I enjoyed that in the Expanse Roberta Bobbie W. Draper a Martian Marine Gunnery Sergeant had some meat on her bones and she wasn't a stick with tits. It could have been explained by technology or some other plot device, like any comic book movie, but I was still pleasantly surprised and found my self enjoying her character more when her figure wasn't so contradictory to the situation. I would have still enjoyed the show had she been shown as a stick but a lot of small things make a good movie great.
Literally, no one but you said that. If you want to interpret that basic physiological difference as "superiority" then that is on you buddy. Men and women are different. Stating those differences isn't talking about "inferiority" nor does it "sound" misogynistic except to religious nut bag modern feminists.
but neither should one go around saying that one is inferior to the other in even that single respect, regardless of any scientific data they might have to support it,
but neither should one go around saying.. any scientific data they might have..., without realizing that it's... coming across as sexist,
Don't say scientific facts because someone will call you a sexist. My Good Gravy on Tuesday, if that doesn't explain so much wrong with our society right now I don't know what does. This is why I think feminism today is like a bad religion. "Deny science. I have agenda's to push!"
You are the one that created this "misogynist" conversation by shitting on a uncontroversial fact and smearing it with "well it sounds misogynistic. You are the one that conflated a fact to superiority/inferiority and capability. Instead of addressing the actual argument made we go off on a tirade of what "sounds" what and intent on uncontroversial things. It's a waste of time.
Did you stop reading after that? Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? Or do you have the attention span of a gold fish?
Let me help you with appropriate emphasis.
Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny. You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter. Would have been great. I would have agreed. No issue.
Get the good gravy son and put them taters on the low ground because we are haven'em smashed to night.
which says that women are less capable than men in some aspect can *SOUND* misogynistic
You only quoted "Women in general are not physiologically strong" on what "sounded misogynistic". I am sorry if reality "sounds" misogynistic to you.
It sounds like you are backpedaling and also changing the wording. Never was it mentioned that "women are less capable". The only claim was that women, in general, are not as physiologically as strong as men. There was some visual opinion suffixed to that fact. Neither of those things are misogynistic in any way. I kind of agree, a Barbie figure woman fighting hand to hand against an Arnold Schwarzenegger figure and winning is... not visually appealing to me. Everything sounds misogynistic to feminists, who cares what they think? Do you care what a creationist thinks in science class? You sound like you want to weasel in the talking point of misogyny and ascribe it to the idea " Women in general are not physiologically strong". Meanwhile, in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
so much for the poor eh?
Cheap energy benefits the poor the most.
Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny. You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter.
Are you seriously saying female superheroes cannot be physiologically as strong or stronger than normal men?
Should I take it that you fail at reading comprehension? Are you an idiot? Or both? Help me help you. I can hold your hand if you like.
"Women in general are not physiologically strong. .... The reality is ... "
Assuming you didn't deliberately intend to sound like a misogynist
What is the misogyny?
it pretty clear we're talking superheroes here, so it's hard for me to believe you missed that part.
If you think I missed something you can answer my question. What is the misogyny in es330td comment that was quoted by mark-t?
Women are, in general, not as physiologically strong as men. That is irrelevant to a movie about a comic book superhero but that is still a fact.
you do seriously appear to be arguing that fictional entities given amazing powers cannot possibly be stronger than normal human unmodified men if they possess vaginas.
I am really struggling to not see you as an idiot with defunct reading comprehension. But I am willing to help you cross this bridge. I have experience helping special needs.
Was I whining? Could you please show me. I'm a little slow. I used it as an example. I also mentioned why critics couldn't say anything bad about it (despite it being bad). Uh oh. I said it was bad, does that mean I am whining? It is so terrible it cannot be mentioned in any bad light. lol. Is it going to turn into the Voldemort of movies. That which cannot be named! It will haunt Hollywood until everyone has grown to their senses and realize it is the next Citizen Kane.
It That Shall Not Be Named isn't above criticism. Get over it people don't like It That Shall Not Be Named.
Uh oh. You got me. I poked fun of you actually commenting on my "Agree lest ye be troll". That totally means I am using super advanced caveman tactics. After Og say try this one trick to win a debate, we have concluded that deer blood can create a comfortable environment. A safe space, if you will, for cave debate (cavebate?) to occur. We have named this debate tactic Og Venisonumumumum. The number of suffixed um's tells you how useful it is.
I was saying that critics can have a conflict of interest. Like being employed by the same company that make the money they are critiquing. I thought it was obvious with the link and the AC saying as much. Sorry, your comment didn't seem worth replying to except for the troll party.
>I am willing to acknowledge that is apparently how it came across, and have already apologized for that, but I genuinely did not mean it to be.
fair enough.
Ye be troll. A troll be spotted! A troll be spotted!
Get the you knee corn over so they can duel to thee death. I got my money on the you knee corn impaling the troll. Ay, this troll be a nasty one it is.
0.0
Because movies use on emotions it makes sense to determine what kind of movie you will like based on the emotional response people have to it. One may not be a PHD in English literature but if they are honest people will appreciate it. A professional critic has an incentive to be dishonest in some cases. This is why I said I have learned that how people defend a film is enough for me to skip it. If a film/show cannot stand on it's own and it needs insulting and aggressive defenders then it isn't the film for me. I don't want to get caught up in w/e dumpster fire is being paraded on Twitter. I might passively observe just out of curiosity.
How you choose to spend your next buck on what media is irrelevant to me. What you like in media is irrelevant to me. I am actually happy you and others can find what they like. I wish that critics would stop hating on fans for disagreeing on opinionated matters.
> been genuinely willing to move past how I may have sounded
I am if you are willing to acknowledge that it was an underhanded insulting claim of sexism.
>you would not have used the claim of such a presumption of ignorance as pretense to refocus upon how the comment has been taken
you either sound like a retard (therefore you are a retard) or you should think just like me (you used an underhanded insulting claim of sexism) and I can just dismiss everything you said. Using your logic of course. I am not being insulting or underhanded through dismissive slights. You are just trying to refocus how my comment can been taken as calling you retarded. When clearly I am not saying you are retarded. I am just saying someone could interpret what you said as retarded (therefore making you retarded).
> nor further make a claim that itself assumes that there was still actually any malicious or insulting intent.
Of course. Because a retard does not have to have the point addressed in a serious manner. Why would I entertain your opinion when you are a retard and it can be smugly dismissed? We all know that ad hominem is perfectly acceptable when the character I attack is of course a retard.
You know it was just an underhanded insulting claim of sexism, right? I am of course not assuming you intended to sound like a retard.
The implication was that women in general are not as physically strong, [therefore it is implausible that exceptional women could exist].
That can not be an implication (something that was implied), because it was explicitly stated.
Do you normally respond to yourself?
The OP described this type of exception as being "implausible"
No, he gave an observation that could explain why people don't like some movies. His last sentence highlights his entire point; "The SJW culture is trying to tell us that men and women are equal and Hollywood is trying to confirm through film. Our brains are telling us "Something just isn't right here..."". He observed something in reality and uses that to explain why some movies just miss the mark. He didn't make any implication about an exception to a generality implicitly or explicitly. He is using reality to explain why modern movies seem more like propaganda (pushing an agenda at an expense). Agree, or disagree. W/e When talking about movies (you know that thing that is mostly visual) it has logic to conclude that deviations for realistic visual representations can be seen as "something just isn't right here". You can explain it away with plot but is that enough? Maybe it is something that filmmakers need to recognize for films to be more successful. Dismissing that whole line of logic as "look misogynist" is as retarded as a flat earther dismissing a solar eclipse.
Assuming you didn't deliberately intend to sound like a retard, perhaps you should not make underhanded insulting claims of sexism.
So if Micheal Bay decided to make a non-explosion action flick (as many directors, may try to expand their scope) and finds that he is wonderful at say Victorian drama.
Pigs could fly too. I won't believe it till I see it.
Shouldn't the movie be based on its self not the names attached to it
Sure. But you know what you are getting with Micheal Bay, barring some Pig Flying miracle.
You have a taste of an old army boot
Old leather has the taste with age and refinement for the sophisticated gentlemen. I would expect most children have no patience for such a delicacy.
Ooo a toe. Marvelous.
>No, the point of my comment was to address the fact that any perception of reality has no bearing on a work about superheros.
You should have said that instead of: "you sound sexist. It's a movie you know, right? ".
>chance of appearing to be discriminatory
in as much that it appears offensive to flat earthers to say the earth is round
in as much that it appears offensive to creationist to say the earth is billions of years old
in as much that it appears offensive to antivaxxers to say vaccines don't cause autism.
are you getting the pattern?
>while I could easily assume it was accidental,
Did you read and understand dudes comment or just knee jerk "omg it looks sooo sexist.... like did you like see how he like said that like men and women like are like different like? you know it's like a movie, right?" Personally, I think he brings up an interesting point for cinema (that thing that is mostly visual stimuli) and perhaps why some movies just seem off when they do things (stick man beats mountain of muscle because plot).
Are you upset? Did you like the movie? Were you upset no one else liked it? It's okay kiddo. You don't have to validate your opinion and existence based on others' opinion of what you like. You just like whatever you like and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. You can cry together if that will make you feel better. :,(
We got ourselves an ole'fashion you knee corn.
I trust critic ratings/reviews less than I would trust a used car salesmen. They make money from clicks and live in a world that any claim of "sexism or racism" will end their career. Considering anyone was a racist sexist for disliking Ghostbusters 2016 I think it's understandable why it was universally loved by critics. Using online trolls is a tired excuse to shill reviews for bad shows/movies.
If you find what you like with or without critic reviews then power to you. I like user reviews because there is nothing to gain for an average person making a review.
As far as Star Trek Discovery? I stopped paying attention when I found I didn't like it. Don't care what people say or what happens to it (isn't there a lawsuit against STD and CBS?) it's not for me. I find reboots mostly miss and found a new IP to tickle my sci fi twitches (Expanse).
The problem with user review is that people give their opinion? Well damn serves me right for ever listening to word-of-mouth on the internet.
do not like the director
I have two words for you. Micheal Bay.
Critics at least try to look at the movie for what it is
LOL. No they don't. They are the most obvious shills on the internet and the old business model of independent critics is coming to an end. Critics now have to compete with regular viewers which is apparently a problem. Can't have people disagree with critics/narrative or else they be racist sexist trolls!
The Orville Season 1 hated by critics. What changed in season 2? How can you go from creatively, morally, and ethically bankrupt to it's all characters stories in the space adventure return and that's a good thing. When it's the same show/formula nothing major different? I am all for people changing their mind but there are plenty of these kind of examples and that kind of 180 is a little ridiculous. Media producers are buying up critic sites so in many cases there is a conflict of interest to say something bad.
Online trolls do not explain why box office numbers are down . It doesn't explain Oscar viewership at the 2nd lowest record. And it certainly doesn't explain the garbage that is being produced and hailed as the 2nd coming of sliced bread. Do not disagree lest ye be troll!
I don't honestly know what the OP's intent was... and I frankly couldn't care less.
Pushing the underhanded sexist mantra was the point of your insulting comment and not having a dialogue? Color me shocked. I would have never guessed you were trying to act like a complete boob. -.-
Drop the sexist mantra. Read his comment again. And maybe you won't sound like a complete boob.
You can find evidence of anything you look for on social media. So what? Does that mean it is acceptable to attack fans when a bad film fails? Does that mean the reason why bad movies fail is because you can find anything you look for on social media? Does that mean every fan is responsible for anything bad on social media? Does that mean we should read this article as truth that people "not interested" in this movie are stalking the digital allleys waiting for a poor millionaire to attack and abuse their poor delicate psyche?
A millionaire was being insulted? Oh the humanity!!! What ever will they do with their millions of dollars.
"brave"
Oh wow I made a South Park reference. Not everything has to be so serious. I thought the "meatbag" was enough to convey I was heartily having fun but it seems that you have your unisex panties in a wad.
An under handed insulting claim of sexism is still an insulting claim of sexism.
Drop the sexist mantra and make an actual point.
Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny.You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter.
Sure, women are generally smaller and weaker than men. That's completely not relevant to a superhero movie
Wow you agree with me.
we all go to see the Marvel superhero movies for the realism. Right.
And we all read the /. comments to ignore what was said.
There was also an implication.
The implication?
The implication was that women in general are not as physically strong, [therefore it is implausible that exceptional women could exist].
What? Women, in general, are not as physically strong. There is nothing implied about the plausibility of the exception. I don't understand why you would make that kind of leap in logic. Why would you ever describe an individual based on group averages? Are you forbidden from making general statements of a group because an individual may not be described by that generality?
Which is apparently fine as long as the rules of exceptional men and women perfectly correlate to how the average man and average woman compare.
That is retarded.
I'm not even saying it's misogynist to wonder why a superhero with more apparent muscle mass is not stronger than one with less, but it's pretty weird to be so fixated on that in regards to men and women, to the exclusion of everything else.
I think you missed the point of my comment. If mark-t had said something akin to, "it's dumb to apply visualistic realism in a superhero movie because any deviation of reality and our unconscious expectations are understood by the audience through the plot and characters", I would have no problem. But he went for "that sounds sexist... You know its a movie, right?". That is an insulting statement that shits on reality and shits on the possible conversation. There is no conversation. There is only insult to facts and audiences.
I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about "mental disconnect between the visual of a woman physically dominating men". I don't know why it is there but I have rolled my eyes a number of times watching something where it becomes overly obvious. Barbie fighting Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't something I find visually appealing. It's can be too jarring when the extremes are juxtaposed together. The plot can explain it but I will still roll my eyes. Why? I don't know. But thinking that it could be because of a generality in reality is not misogynistic.
For example, I enjoyed that in the Expanse Roberta Bobbie W. Draper a Martian Marine Gunnery Sergeant had some meat on her bones and she wasn't a stick with tits. It could have been explained by technology or some other plot device, like any comic book movie, but I was still pleasantly surprised and found my self enjoying her character more when her figure wasn't so contradictory to the situation. I would have still enjoyed the show had she been shown as a stick but a lot of small things make a good movie great.
go around saying that one is inferior
Literally, no one but you said that. If you want to interpret that basic physiological difference as "superiority" then that is on you buddy. Men and women are different. Stating those differences isn't talking about "inferiority" nor does it "sound" misogynistic except to religious nut bag modern feminists.
but neither should one go around saying that one is inferior to the other in even that single respect, regardless of any scientific data they might have to
support it,
but neither should one go around saying .. any scientific data they might have ..., without realizing that it's ... coming across as sexist,
Don't say scientific facts because someone will call you a sexist. My Good Gravy on Tuesday, if that doesn't explain so much wrong with our society right now I don't know what does. This is why I think feminism today is like a bad religion. "Deny science. I have agenda's to push!"
You are the one that created this "misogynist" conversation by shitting on a uncontroversial fact and smearing it with "well it sounds misogynistic. You are the one that conflated a fact to superiority/inferiority and capability. Instead of addressing the actual argument made we go off on a tirade of what "sounds" what and intent on uncontroversial things. It's a waste of time.
Did you stop reading after that? Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? Or do you have the attention span of a gold fish?
Let me help you with appropriate emphasis.
Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny. You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter. Would have been great. I would have agreed. No issue.
Get the good gravy son and put them taters on the low ground because we are haven'em smashed to night.
which says that women are less capable than men in some aspect can *SOUND* misogynistic
You only quoted "Women in general are not physiologically strong" on what "sounded misogynistic". I am sorry if reality "sounds" misogynistic to you.
It sounds like you are backpedaling and also changing the wording. Never was it mentioned that "women are less capable". The only claim was that women, in general, are not as physiologically as strong as men. There was some visual opinion suffixed to that fact. Neither of those things are misogynistic in any way. I kind of agree, a Barbie figure woman fighting hand to hand against an Arnold Schwarzenegger figure and winning is... not visually appealing to me. Everything sounds misogynistic to feminists, who cares what they think? Do you care what a creationist thinks in science class? You sound like you want to weasel in the talking point of misogyny and ascribe it to the idea " Women in general are not physiologically strong". Meanwhile, in reality.