Monday, February 4, 2013

All-Star Batman and Robin #5



I think at this point it's fair to say that Frank Miller has issues with women. And children. And superheroes. And intelligence.



245 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 245 of 245
Lewis Lovhaug said...

@Alex - Alex, the kind words are appreciated and they make me blush, but let's still try to be civil around here and not insult other commenters.

Matt said...

"Given how people around here still seem to have not thought of an obvious Chekhov's Gun, I'll just blurt it out: MOBILE EMITTER."

That had occurred to me as well, but as we've established, the Magic Gun knew enough to withhold her power from Linkara until he reformed. The Emergency Reviewing Hologram never did, and went completely dark. I see no reason why she would lend it her power.

Unknown said...

“Um... you do realize Christians basically rejected their Jewish roots, so they don't follow the mitzvos? Jews don't wear shaatnez or shave with razors. Christians do.” Fair enough, but it’s still part of the Bible, as are a lot of outdated commands and lifestyles. I personally don’t think that people can pick and choose what parts to take literally and what parts to see as symbolism or products of the times. And I don’t know that Christians all rejected their Jewish roots. When I went to Sunday school (Lutheran), I got mostly Old Testament stories and lessons, and then it was kind of “and then Jesus came and made everything better.” Granted, that was fifteen+ years ago, so I’m a little behind.

“And while you may not require a male body to practice law or medicine, you certainly do require one to be a firefighter, and in that way encouraging women to do jobs for which they are physically unsuited can kill people.” Why? Why would I have to be a man to be a firefighter? I know lots of girls who are both physically strong and good in emergencies who would make excellent firefighters or soldiers or EMTs if they chose. Obviously, it’s not for everyone, and I don’t encourage girls to do things that would hurt them, but I do encourage them to do what they want to do and do whatever they need to do in order to do it.

“And when I get married, I will celebrate the unique ability of my body to bear children and carry on the line, and likely have many children. I love kids. I've always wanted them. And yes, I will manage to keep house AND work a part-time job, as most Jewish housewives do.” Good for you. I’m glad you have a long-term goal and love children and want to work. Homebuilding is a very important job, as I’ve mentioned several times. It’s just not for everyone.

“I've known submissive men and authoritative women also. That doesn't mean they aren't a minority. Most women I know wouldn't be happy thought of as second-class citizens, but WOULD be happy as mothers of several children and responsible matriarchs.” I don’t know whether submissive men or authoritative women are a minority. In fact, when I think back on it, I’ve known equal amounts of submissive men and authoritative men, and far more authoritative women. Maybe it’s because I function in social circles that encourage both men and women to be authoritative, but I feel that many women don’t want to be submissive. I’m happy you know so many wonderful women and that we have plenty of mothers and homebuilders. I mostly know women who have goals like being doctors and veterinarians and politicians and journalists. And yes, I do know women who want more stereotypically feminine jobs like being a teacher, but I also know girls who want to be lighting technicians. There are all types of women with all types of goals, and being put into stereotypes and caricatures is detrimental to that.

Anonymous said...

""Heck, you've probably reviewed as much by Rob Lienfield as Frank Miller (if not more) but you don't have special Lienfield segment."

Only because I haven't thought of a catchy name for it yet."

Liefeld Lamentations? (with a black and white artsy intro showing his horrific images?)

Liefeld Lectures? (show some pictures of da vincis anatomy studies :P)

The Liefeld Incidents?

Eye of the Liefeld? (because of youngblood's desease)

Anonymous said...

Sure is Tumblr in here.

Why bother getting into a constructive discourse when I can just FLIP THE FUCK OUT and tell people to eat a bag of nails. The admin will even approve the comment because I used the correct buzzwords!

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"Why bother getting into a constructive discourse when I can just FLIP THE FUCK OUT and tell people to eat a bag of nails. The admin will even approve the comment because I used the correct buzzwords!"

Actually I approved it because I felt like approving it and it IS a reminder that people need to take a step back. If I feel something isn't contributing to the discussion or is just trying to troll, I won't approve it.

Unknown said...

I would rather have a Society Of Light Jacket but yours is cool too Linkara.

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

@ Alex

Really? I don't think there's enough research to justify either side of the argument about why men and women are different. I do not believe men are superior. I believe that trying to make everybody do the same jobs diminishes efficiency, since no one will end up doing what they're best at. Changing the standards doesn't help people. It weakens the system.

The strongest women and the weakest men may indeed be physical equals. But the fact is that the strength standards were lowered so women could become fire-fighters. Being a soldier is completely different. That requires stamina, not strength, ever since the invention of guns.

Calling someone a despicable person because their religious values contradict yours diminishes how seriously you can be taken. Just because a system lends itself to corruption does not make the system itself corrupt. Yes, many evil rules have been made under Christian, Muslim, and Jewish law. That does not make the systems evil or unjust. It makes those who apply it that way evil or unjust (or just plain stupid). It is the application of the principles in question that leads to injustice, rather than the principles themselves.

I have nothing against the feminist movement in its original incarnations, for the most part. Voting is an important right, as is protection against abusive men. I have nothing but respect for those women (and men). I have problems with some of the extremes the modern feminist movement is being taken to today. I also have problems with people adopting a black-and-white outlook on morality in law and politics, which I believe has fueled much of the issues involved.

You seem to think that because I believe people who want to raise their children closely should not be in positions where that will not be possible, I am a misogynistic fool. If you had taken the time to look at my arguments, you would have seen that they apply equally to men. But in my experience, the mother has a closer connection to the children because of the physical pain she endures, so it is more likely for a woman to find herself in that position. This may not be inherent, but it is caused by inherent factors, AS I ARGUED ABOVE.

And quite frankly, what makes you think I'm smiling? This whole conversation makes me sick. I dislike being misunderstood and misjudged, and I dislike discussing things when I am unsure anyone will bother paying attention to what I am actually saying. I have an aunt like you. She's a kind, sweet, good person, but she never bothers to LISTEN and point out the real problems with my arguments. Yes, they are based on personal experience. Yes, they have faults. Find them. Don't tell me I'm a horrible person as though that justified everything you said.

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

Okay, a few more replies:

Thanks, Anonymous, whoever you are. If you're female, virtual hug. If you're male, virtual thankful smile (though I'm not sure n'giya applies when it's virtual. It doesn't apply in person. Ah, well, best to be careful. I am in swimming lessons).

And, of course, a reply to Ms. Paulson:

You're probably right on the Christianity thing. My understanding is based on my father's knowledge of Catholic doctrine, so naturally I wouldn't know much. Sorry about that. I should be more careful.

Yeah, there are all kinds of women, and they should be where they're happiest and where they're doing the most good (though yeah, I'd probably favor the second). Is teaching really stereotypically a feminine job? Personally, in private school virtually all of my teachers were male. I think that's a cultural thing, though.

I apologize to the entire Internet for being so stupid, and I hope those who were offended by my unfortunate phrasing will forgive it as the ramblings of a very tired and foolish teenager trying to understand the insanity of a world she's just barely been introduced to.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

There's nothing you really need to apologize for, Future Rebbetzin. I'm curious what your religion is or at least your country of origin - it seems to me that a lot of what you're talking about is coming from a different culture than American and I believe you've stated that you're not Christian.

While the goals of Feminism are for all humankind, it IS sometimes forgotten that several nations and religons have differing views and culturual backgrounds than the USA, which has had a strong history of predominantly Christian values and civil rights discourse over the last 150 years that have shaped our views of the world and how it should operate, which sometimes leads to us forgetting that there are people out there who don't have the same culture, upbringing, and history that other nations do and it's not always a 1 to 1 transplantation of things.

For example, I PERSONALLY find the idea of a religion that REQUIRES you to wear specific clothing based on the assumption that one gender or the other is responsible for the actions of the other to be morally abhorrent... but that's coming from a background in the USA where freedom of expression is often integral to our youth and one way to embrace that expression is deciding how we dress for ourselves and not letting others tell us how to dress.

But that doesn't mean that another person is WRONG for choosing what they decide to wear and whatnot - it's that they have different values than mine and people need to respect that while also offering the opportunity to learn more if they wish.

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

Dear Mr. Lovhaug,

I am a Jewish American, but I've been very sheltered for most of my life. My father is a (brilliant) Modern Orthodox rabbi and on the beis din in our state, and he taught me, so I know a lot about Jewish law, far beyond most my age. He has had the greatest influence on me, so it's really too bad I can't tell you who he is. America has no real one culture, and I've been raised to appreciate the diversity and the opportunities that grants me.

It's a lot more complicated than that, actually, as most things are. Men are forbidden to waste sperm, so they are commanded to stay out of situations that would cause them to. Women have no such prohibition, so they are allowed far more lax standards (for instance, they are permitted to masturbate, and they are permitted to stare at men). Men are in turn responsible for keeping women safe and protected from other with less scrupulous morals. Women's dress is for their own sake as much as for that of the men; they will be safer and healthier and taken more seriously. Men actually have stricter dress standards in some areas due to prayer requirements (they must wear a belt and some sort of pants, as well as something that covers their chest).

I've really come to love your show because of how educational it is, and because I appreciate that you use less profanity (also I like your voice). I really do feel honored that you reply to my comments. I did feel that I owed an apology, though; one of my major flaws is arrogance, and I feel that I have sounded far too objective in my analysis to allow anyone to take me seriously. I have had limited opportunity for research and should have spoken accordingly. Alex's comment led me to realize how stupid I had appeared and that it was my fault.

I do know that the United States has been influenced by Christian beliefs and morals, which irks me because I believe that in rejecting the Pharisees (whom I have been raised to honor, so naturally this is biased) the rebels lost the ability to understand the "gray matter" of the law kin any constructive fashion, since they were uneducated (note they spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew). This is why I tend politically to side with the Democratic party, since I believe the US will otherwise become yet another Christian theocracy. Certainly I have as many biases religiously as any other person; this does not mean I allow them to affect my political opinion. I am, for instance, very much in favor of gay civil marriage. Would I encourage the same thing in Israel, with religious marriage? Probably not. My parents had to refuse to kiss during their civil marriage because they were not yet married under Jewish law. This story has instilled in me a sense of the disparity between the systems, which is a distance I think should remain in place. Naturally there are some places where a line must be drawn, such as with abortion, but conflicting religious values make discussion of the topic nearly impossible. Thus I am "pro-choice", and were I ever asked the question I would encourage people to follow the advice of their particular religious leader.

Yours sincerely,

a future rebbetzin (and yes, that means I intend to marry a rabbi)

Unknown said...

A final reply to our young citizen.

I, like the good Mr. Lovhaug, am an American, where most of my teachers are female, and my mother is a teacher. Of course, I was always in the public school system.

As said before, I fully support your decision to become a homebuilder, and I apologize for our sister Alex's comment. Please do not think that all feminists are like that.

I am glad we have this talk. I admit that I am not too much older than you are and understand that the world is confusing. You are going to find many different people in it and learn about a lot of different viewpoints. This is just a good place to start. Good luck in all of your future pursuits.

Mr. Lovhaug, thank you for allowing us to have this discussion, since I'm sure it's getting a bit tedious for you to have to read all of our comments on it. And thank you for being such a good man and feminist. I wish there were more like you in the world.

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

Dear Ms. Paulson,

While my own mother is a teacher, as is her older sister, and a few of my teachers WERE women, most of them we men. I never thought of teaching as a "feminine" job; I thought of it as largely masculine and somewhat gender-neutral.

I know all feminists aren't like that. After all, I've read your comments and Mr. Lovhaug's. My parents identify as feminists. Most of my teachers were feminists. I think modern feminism is often destructive and stupid. That doesn't mean I think those who believe in it are (unless they swallow all of the arguments without question).

I'm also glad I got a chance to talk to you. I love talking as as I am homeschooling this year I do get hungry for conversation. I don't have many friends and I'm not very good at socializing. Writing comments and letters is how I learn to communicate properly.

I echo your thanks to Mr. Lovhaug. I do love getting to argue with someone who takes the time to be logical, even when it is 4:30 AM for him (sorry about that, by the way; I'm not awake at any consistent time). I also thank you for allowing me the pleasure of a civil discussion.

I'm afraid far too many of Alex's comments were right. I am arrogant. Maybe I am a misogynist. All I know is that I love the world, I love progress, I love intelligence, I love people, I love arguments, I love beauty in every form, and I try to see things from every possible perspective.

Yours sincerely (with love and respect),

your future rebbetzin

Anonymous said...

I hate to interrupt these discussions/arguments on feminism, religion, and whatever other opinions you all have, but I'm going to anyway.

So after seeing The Dark Knight Rises, I wondered, could this mean Crazy Steve beat "Robin" to Wayne manor? Could the Nolan-verse lead into the Miller-verse which inspired the Nolan-verse? Are we getting into the "snake eating its own tail" territory?

You must really like the Obelisk Blue coat, third time for that transition...admit it, that's your clubbing attire.

I don't know much about Plastic Man, but does he always just randomly shape shift between panels? Wait...was Plastic Man trying to bite Superman in one panel? I'm confused here.

It's the Miller-verse Linkara, the antimatter needs to monologue too, that's why its taking so long, the wave is taking time to talk about how inferior the other planets its destroying are to its point of origin.

Anyway, great review Linkara, especially the cliffhanger. Can't wait for the conclusion.

Sabre said...

Oh dear.

I watched the episode, and some elements made me raise an eyebrow, particularly the feminism and WW is written as a prostitute stuff. Your politics, even when I disagree, were never a large part of the review until now.

Then I read the comments and things turned even stranger, and as soon as "nice guy" turned up, I was concerned that my comment would be meaningless, or swept away as sexist or some such.

For context, I was the guy who defended the outfit in the Catwoman is Batman review I forget the name of.

I generally disagree with feminists for the very reason I decided to leave a comment. Much of the analysis is incredibly over reaching, and seeks out sexist elements where there are none, or blow things out of proportion.

WW does act stupid, and maybe the things you mentioned are more clear if I were to read the comic myself, but I found that alot of the sexism, such as the "cleavage shot" were overblow (though that arse shot was stupid and rightly picked appart)

The real kicker was the prostitute rant. I'm not the kind of person who has a problem with sex work if that is what the person wants to do, but even if I was, it didn't seem like you basing that on the comic, but rather after-the-fact knowledge of the creator.

In gaming, the classic game Earth Worm Jim is hated by some because it was revealed that one of the creators is/was homophobic. If you don't want to support the work of a man based on politics and beliefs, fine. But nothing in the game itself in homophobic (to my knowledge).

Oh, and on the nice guy thing. For me it's more a case of hypocrisy. Women will claim to want a nice guy and don't care about looks or wealth, only to be seen a month later going out with arse-hole McAbs who just so happens to be well off. I don't think this would be as much of a problem if they said up front they only want rich, well built men.

It's painful to see people you care about condemn themselves to a life of getting beaten and possibly raped by some scumbag under some false belief that they are in love.

Feminism is a word that has been largely taken over by extremists, and the term nice guy has been twisted by those extremists to refer to the worst men around. Kind of funny when you think about it.

Unknown said...

Dear future rebbetzin,

I would love to continue this discussion, but I feel that we should stop cluttering this blog, so I'll make it quick.

Whatever your faults are, and however correct the criticism may be, no one has the right to tell you you are wrong and should "swallow a bag of nails." We all have our faults,but we need to own them and not apologize for who we are and what we believe. That, more than anything else, will be of value to your community and your future children.

That is all I'm going to say. Again, Mr. Lovhaug, sorry for taking up so much comment space.

Sincerely,
Julie Paulson.

Anonymous said...

" Women will claim to want a nice guy and don't care about looks or wealth, only to be seen a month later going out with arse-hole McAbs who just so happens to be well off. I don't think this would be as much of a problem if they said up front they only want rich, well built men."

[Citation needed]

Maybe you should stop and consider what you're saying here. So, what, should a woman date a guy for no other reason than because he's nice to her? Even if she's not attracted to him? Because that's kind of a factor when you're dating someone, you know?

Maybe she's dating Asshole McAbs because - shock! GASP! - she ACTUALLY LIKES HIM! Even if she's just dating him because he's cute or well-off, who cares? You gonna try to tell me men don't do the same thing? And whether Asshole McAbs is actually an asshole or not, you're not much better if you're sitting there judging her and making wild assumptions about how ALL women are stupid and shallow.

And this is why people - not just "extreme feminists" - hate "Nice Guys." Because they're NOT nice. When I say I want a nice guy, it means I want a man who will respect my decisions and still be nice to me even if I say "I think we should just be friends."

Melissia said...

I don't know about any of the rest of the argument-- or rather, I don't necessarily want to get in to it-- but any person, man or woman, who says "you're a woman so you're more caring and motherly and you should have babies" to me just fills me with the desire to stab them in the face.

I have the knives and swords collection to do it, too...

Everyone's body is different in some way. If you want to talk about chemical differences, a good number of women have more testosterone than the average man does. Both men and women use testosterone and estrogen, and women arguably need testosterone more than men to have healthy, functional lives. We're more sensitive to its presence, and hit harder by lacking it, which is why women in menopause often take testosterone supplements.

There HAS been research on the subject-- but the media doesn't care about research unless it can sensationalize it. You'd be surprised just how much research is actually done, just in the US alone, on subjects such as this. We don't claim to know everything, but that's because science by its very nature knows its own ignorance, and merely wishes to correct it.

We know, for example, that women soldiers having more minor injuries is actually more to blame on faulty equipment designed for men rather than the female biology-- studies have shown that properly fitting equipment for women soldiers reduces the level of minor injury drastically. And the US army, for all of its many, many faults, is working on making said adjustments available to all of its female soldiers. It is also doing research, along with the IDF, about its boot camp and how to better train prospective female soldiers, as well.

To quote a certain comedy routine, if scientists knew everything, we'd stop.

Tzipporah Machlah Klapper said...

@ Melissia (and this is the last comment, I promise, I just forgot one important point)

'any person, man or woman, who says "you're a woman so you're more caring and motherly and you should have babies" to me just fills me with the desire to stab them in the face.'

Actually, in Jewish law, it's men who have to have babies. They actually are pretty much considered "sperm banks" from a certain halachic perspective. Women are NOT obligated to have children. That's why a woman having children is a choice to fulfill a man's obligation, and her choice to care for said children (for whom she has no obligations if she is not married to the father) is an indication of her better nature (and NO, I am not speaking of abortion).

'I have the knives and swords collection to do it, too...'

Please don't. I have a lot more to learn.

'Everyone's body is different in some way.'

Absolutely! When did I ever deny that? I spoke of general demographics. I guess that's why my apology was necessary; my opinions were far too unclear. Again, I apologize.

'If you want to talk about chemical differences, a good number of women have more testosterone than the average man does. Both men and women use testosterone and estrogen, and women arguably need testosterone more than men to have healthy, functional lives. We're more sensitive to its presence, and hit harder by lacking it, which is why women in menopause often take testosterone supplements.'

Oh, interesting and cool. See? I just learned something new!

'There HAS been research on the subject-- but the media doesn't care about research unless it can sensationalize it.'

I know.

'We know, for example, that women soldiers having more minor injuries is actually more to blame on faulty equipment designed for men rather than the female biology-- studies have shown that properly fitting equipment for women soldiers reduces the level of minor injury drastically.'

Another new thing I've learned! And one I didn't talk about.

'And the US army, for all of its many, many faults, is working on making said adjustments available to all of its female soldiers.'

I'm fairly certain the Israeli one is too. One of my role models (she's too perfect for me to be a friend) is going into the army there next year.

'It is also doing research, along with the IDF,'

Hah! Called it!

'about its boot camp and how to better train prospective female soldiers, as well.'

Which is terrific! As long as they actually bother implementing the changes suggested by their research and experimentation.

'To quote a certain comedy routine, if scientists knew everything, we'd stop.'

Which comedy routine? Because that's a decent line.

@ Sabre

1. Unless you are a woman (which I take it you are not) you cannot decide which outfits and pictures are offensive to my sex. Thank you and goodbye.

2. I'm going to marry the kindest, most learned person I know. I couldn't care less about his looks. You want proof? My first crush was half an inch shorter than I am (and I'm short; well, he's married now, and his wife is taller than he is too), my second had a giant lump on his nose (which actually looked sort of okay) and a very weirdly-shaped head (with wonderful hair), and my third was so thin he looked like he would faint any moment (and he still hasn't, to my shock; ah, well, that's why I love him). Any of those would easily have been a marriage prospect had I been a few years older. So unless you yourself are a woman, and have done extensive research, don't you DARE make absolute statements, because you WILL be called out on them.

3. If a woman believes she's in love, who are you to say she isn't? Maybe she chose to be miserable because SHE ACTUALLY LOVES HIM. And maybe that's unfortunate, but until I see your proof of guardianship, her choices aren't your responsibility.

Alex Stritar said...

I have to say, as a former 'nice guy', I'm surprised this thinking continues beyond high school. I mean, trying to get with a girl by just being nice to the for months only to be disappointed when it turns out they just didn't like you, that's stupid teenager thinking. It was something I did and eventually grew out of when I realized the pattern.

So at first, I was surprised by the uprising agienst it suddenly happening, til I learned that many people continued this past high school. As I said, this whole thing is stupid teenager logic and should stay in high school. Heck, I'd actually argue that stupid teenage me actually had more sense then some of these guys. I mean, I never blamed the girls themselves cause I knew they just weren't intrested in me and that if anyone was to blame it was me. At the time, I thought doing the friend thing was important because I needed to know if it could actually work out. For the most part, I actually did stay friends with them throughout high school and even still have good relations with many of them. And honestly, I always assumed that this was a two sided thing, that this very thing happened to girls to (seems not to be the case from what I've found recently, but as I said, teenager).

I'm not defending my actions and wouldn't blame any of you for attacking me for this, and maybe I'm not as different from those scumbags as I like to think, but at the end of the day, I still did at least learn why this train of thought is idiotic at best and demeaning at worst. I'm honestly sorry for my past actions, female gender, I never meant any harm and hope that I can do what it takes to make things right.

Also, from what I have seen from this phonominon, what do fedoras have to do with this mindset? I'm kinda curious about that aspect.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"Also, from what I have seen from this phonominon, what do fedoras have to do with this mindset? I'm kinda curious about that aspect."

From what I understand, for people who post their pictures on dating websites and fit the "nice guy" persona, there seem to be an inordinant amount of them who wear fedoras.

Comics, Old Time Radio and Other Cool Stuff said...

Regarding women soldiers:

I don't doubt that there are brave, capable women willing to serve in combat & fight for their country. I have several concerns.

One concern would be that the military maintains the same physical requirements for soldiers regardless of sex. In many cases in the military for non-combat roles, the physical requirements for women is less than men. This is simply because women usually don't have the same upper body strength as men. On average, men are simply physically stronger than women.

For combat roles, you can't fudge. For a woman to serve in combat, she needs to have comparable physical strength and endurance with the guys. Otherwise, it's all too likely people will get killed. This isn't a criticism of anyone's willingness to serve or personal bravery. It's just a fact and needs to be considered before any woman is assigned to a combat unit. Keeping physical requirements equal between genders may mean less women would qualify for combat units, but I don't see how this can be helped. I would be very concerned that the physical requirements might be lowered for reasons of political correctness.

Second concern: Women captured by many of the enemies we are likely to fight will be subject to possible rape and other abuses that male soldiers won't have to face. Should this be a consideration before sending them into combat? I think it should, but it's something that needs to be intelligently debated first.

Third concern: Men and women in combat situations will often develop physical relationships. This is human nature and can't be helped. In most situations, this would be a personal decision and no one else's business. In a close-knit combat unit, it is by default everyone's business, because it can wreck havoc with the command structure and cause people to make the wrong decisions in combat. You can order people in the same squad to remain platonic, but that's simply not going to happen. This is something that has to be considered as well. Let's say the woman I've fallen in love with (or even in lust with) is giving me cover fire while I'm supposed to run forward and blow up a machine gun nest. If I'm more concerned about her than doing my job and run to protect her RATHER than doing my job, I could get other soldiers killed.

Fourth Concern: This is related to #3. Men are taught by our culture to protect women. (Think about it, guys. If you and your wife/girlfriend are confronted by a mugger--you'd step in front of her to protect her, wouldn't you?) I think (my opinion) that men are to a degree hard-wired to do this. Often, even a trained, experienced soldier would have a hard time overcoming this instinct. Would the guys in a squad start concentrating on protecting the women in the squad more than doing their jobs? Once again, this is something that has to be rationally debated.

Related to this point, if soldiers are captured together, could the guys be forced to give up information when the girls are threatened with rape and torture. Many of the enemies the U.S. army would face would not hesitate to use these tactics. Is it fair (or simply good tactics) to either men or women soldiers to potentially place them in these situations?

I don't think any of these concerns have anything to do with men or women being equal. But we obviously are different from each other--including in how we act towards each other. Now it's possible the Defense Department has considered and addressed many of these concerns before recommending women be allowed to serve in combat units. I hope they have. But I think all this HAS to be considered. It's not something we can decide based on political correctness or because we simply want women to have the same opportunities as men. It's something that if done wrong will get people killed.

Sabre said...

Sigh.

As I expected, my comment was twisted, cherry picked and removed from context until it doesn't make sense, just to paint me as some kind of misogynist. Unfortunate, but that's the reality of radical feminism these days.

I wasn't going to post again because, let's be honest, nothing I say matters at this point. However, one thing confused me.

"And this is why people - not just "extreme feminists" - hate "Nice Guys." Because they're NOT nice. When I say I want a nice guy, it means I want a man who will respect my decisions and still be nice to me even if I say "I think we should just be friends." "

Lets replace it with colours to show why.
Red = nice
Blue = scumbag

And this is why people - not just "extreme feminists" - hate red Because they're NOT red. When I say I want a red, it means I want a man who be red and still be red even if I say "I think we should just be friends."

In this case, you seem to arguing that red isn't red, but blue. So why do you keep calling it red?

Shouldn't it be
"And this is why people - not just "extreme feminists" - hate blue Because they're NOT red. When I say I want a red, it means I want red and still be red even if I say "I think we should just be friends.""

The term nice guy has been twisted to the point where it covers nice people and bad people all under one term. I get that bad people pretend to be bad in order to manipulate, but that's why they are bad. Why called them "Nice guys" with quotes? It makes it seem like it's a catch all term so you/feminists can lash out at anyone they want.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"The term nice guy has been twisted to the point where it covers nice people and bad people all under one term. I get that bad people pretend to be bad in order to manipulate, but that's why they are bad. Why called them "Nice guys" with quotes? It makes it seem like it's a catch all term so you/feminists can lash out at anyone they want."

Because that's what THEY call themselves. They self-describe themselves as "nice guys" even when they are demonstratably not.

Here's the thing: if you're genuinely nice, YOU DON'T HAVE TO POINT IT OUT.

Sabre said...

"Here's the thing: if you're genuinely nice, YOU DON'T HAVE TO POINT IT OUT."

This is true, but we don't call robbers "innocents", although they always claim to be.

It leads to a situation where people can throw around the accusation and the accused has no means to defend themselves, as well as makes things confusing.

Ben Pounds said...

I think the version of Alfred in this comic is Frank Miller responding to his critics, i.e. "Look, if I show a male character in his fanservice underwear talking in innuendo like I showed Viki Vale, that makes me not a sexist." Normally, I might aggree, but because this is Frank Miller, I don't. Bear with me, because my argument here is complicated and bound to offend several on all sides: 1. I disaggree with you Linkara on your issue 1 review. Millerverse Viki Vale isn't a sexist portrayal. IMHO ass shots aren't sexist in and of themselves, any more than Namor's portrayal is sexist for having him only wear a Spedo. As sexualized as Millerverse Viki Vale is, she still stands up to the cops and has a clear sense of right and wrong underneath it all. If anything her slutty intro makes her one moment of heroism greater because it was unexpected. 2. What is sexist: Bonkers Betty. After seeing her, any defense of Miller's writing of women fades. I can accept Viki Vale as a gossip journalist who makes sexy jabs at the police ("It wouldn't be ladylike to say finest at what"). But Wonder Woman in this continuity is still supposed to be a superheroine, given that she hangs out with superman and plastic man. And yet we see don't see her having even a hint of a heroic impulse or even superhuman actions here. It would be like if we had a story where Batman just walked around moping about how terrible women are and then making out with one. You can't derail a character this far and get away with it.

MadDogBV said...

Ass shots aren't sexist in and of themselves, it's true, but when you watch the first episode of this review and use the script for accompaniment, you can tell that Frank didn't push for the inclusion of them merely for - ah - artistic purposes. Given Frank Miller's track record up to this point with Sin City and DKSA, it's rather difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.

13th Doctor said...

"This is true, but we don't call robbers "innocents", although they always claim to be.

It leads to a situation where people can throw around the accusation and the accused has no means to defend themselves, as well as makes things confusing."

Yeah, I am going to have to agree with Sabre on this particular point even though I have been doing my best to avoid this discussion because of all the religious and political connotations which I am just not qualified to contribute to. However, it seems like the term "nice guy" really touched a nerve in you, Lewis. You are right in that nice guy should not have to identify themselves as such. External feedback is always more flattering in the end. But I am just a little perplexed at how this one person just talking about how women supposedly hate nice guys because they are boring somehow triggered this response from you. It seems like you have an extra special hatred for the term "nice guy". Maybe I am just surprised because I never heard of "nice guys of okcupid" though they do sound like jackasses. I just hope you are not overreacting is all. Sorry if I am being patronizing.

Tantum Ergo 2 said...

I've basically been waiting to see how this discussion developed. I find it interesting, though perhaps too heated at times.

Still, my two cents are as follows.

1. As recently as the 1200s, "nice" meant "dull" or "not very bright." These days, it means something different, but still not the same thing as "good."

2. If women are equal to men, then so are their rights. Modern feminism is littered with people who disagree with me on that; often trying to expand their own "rights" to infringe on the rights of others, but we simply need a better means of defining what's a right and what isn't, rather than just whatever we happen to want, or think would make life fair for us.

3. You can disagree with certain interpretations of the bible and still be a Christian. Literalistic, biblical inerrancy is not something that all Christians believe in.

4. On the issue of how religion effects people's behaviors, the real issue here is religious liberty. Is it to be permitted, or not, and if so, under what circumstances? This opens one up to two major dangers. First, of the government imposing its own views on religions, and thereby creating a "state religion" like the relationship that existed between the patriarchs and the emperor in the old Byzantine Empire.

The second danger is of stretching "religious freedom" to include things like murder and human sacrifice, or coercive conversions. When is religious freedom permitted?

The answer? When it's moral to permit it.

So this brings us back, once again, to who decides what is moral. Not the government, certainly. Popular opinion even less so, since this is often so easily influenced by the rich classes in a land so full of modern propaganda.

Without some genuine authority to ground our understanding of morality, we are adrift in the relative notions of the culture on this issue, as I see it.

5. I would caution against lumping the genuine rights of women in with groups like the LBGT. These are two separate cases, and I know people on both sides who would be offended by the comparison.

6. Americans often have a sort of tunnel vision with regard to the historic roles that men and women took in societies throughout history. By this I mean that at base, we are still being effected by the notion that up until the 60s or so, women basically always stayed in the home, took care of the kids, and were essentially jobless, except maybe to cook or clean. This is simply incorrect, especially in poorer countries, where women (and often, children) -needed- to have jobs in order to maintain the survival of the family. They just generally had -different- jobs than men, since men had the upper body strength to manage plows, forges and heavy, stone blocks. However, this limitation was purely practical in nature, and many ancient leaders were women as well, such as the greek leader Cleopatra and Eleanor of Aquitaine. While the situation was pretty lousy for women in the American 1950s, and many pagan cultures did (and still do) treat women like objects, it would be a mistake to attribute this to Christianity, rather than the male temptation to force his will on anything physically-weaker than himself.

Sabre said...

The problem with point 1 is the problem many extremist groups fall into. Without a leg to stand on, they argue on the etymological level, getting into semantics rather than the issue at hand.

I play alot of games, and within my life time, I have seen the word 'noob' take on various meanings. From meaning "new guy" to today, where it is often used ironically in reference to a certain kind of player.

To use a better known example. If I called someone 'gay', you likely wouldn't assume I meant 'happy', or if I'm talking about faggots, you likely wouldn't assume the food.

'Nice' is usually used these days to mean 'good natured', but is being used in this context to describe people who are not good natured, but rather the opposite.

Khan said...

You know? i always think i'm reading the begginigs of the Joker and not of Batman when i read this comics /watch you revie it; even the shot of Dick withe axe made me think of Harley Quinn more than Robin. Cool review nonetheless

Anonymous said...

Yeesh, Miller just keeps on getting worse doesn't he. Makes me glad I was introduced to batman through the animated series rather than the contemporary comic series. I saw an interesting post on eschergirls which might interest you too (If you read escher girls already and have seen it, I apologies for spamming you) somehow some of Millers art instructions for ASBAR got released. Here's the post: http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/post/44478581846/more-asbar and the source: http://girl-wonder.org/girlsreadcomics/?p=13 I don't know how trustworthy they are, but if they're real they certainly offer insight in what is dwelling in that brain of Miller's, primarily buts and boobs from the sound of it.

Anonymous said...

Jeez, Linkara, have you missed they were DIRTY cops? Who like were totally going to MURDER Dick? Stop bringing them up as an example of MillerBatman's craziness/assholishness. They got what they deserved.

Anonymous said...

@Alex, you are a misandrist bitch and you will die alone as you deserve. No one gives a shit about you and you are useless for society.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"Jeez, Linkara, have you missed they were DIRTY cops? Who like were totally going to MURDER Dick? Stop bringing them up as an example of MillerBatman's craziness/assholishness. They got what they deserved."

Jeez, it's almost like Batman murdering ANYBODY is a bad thing or something.

But since you brought it up, we only know about a small group of cops that he killed were corrupt. We have no knowledge about the other ones who were chasing him.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"@Alex, you are a misandrist bitch and you will die alone as you deserve. No one gives a shit about you and you are useless for society."

@Anonymous, you are a sexist sack of crap and you are not welcome here.

Anonymous said...

People have brought it up, but I guess it bears repeating. You have repeatedly stated you are Christian, yet you don't care about the Bible's instructions about male/female roles and interactions. Religion is not a mere system of ceremonies but a way of living. A true believer doesn't pick and choose what rules to follow while discarding the ones he doesn't like. Only Pharisees call themselves Christian while not following Christian principles in their day-to-day lives.

Keep sprouting your feminist rhetorics all you like, just don't call yourself a Christian. You aren't one.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"People have brought it up, but I guess it bears repeating. You have repeatedly stated you are Christian, yet you don't care about the Bible's instructions about male/female roles and interactions. Religion is not a mere system of ceremonies but a way of living. A true believer doesn't pick and choose what rules to follow while discarding the ones he doesn't like. Only Pharisees call themselves Christian while not following Christian principles in their day-to-day lives.

Keep sprouting your feminist rhetorics all you like, just don't call yourself a Christian. You aren't one."

Then please tell me how you honor the Sabbath every week and then kill those who fail to honor it. Please tell me how your clothing is not made of different kinds of fabric. Tell me about the slaves you keep or how you reconcile the contradictory lessons and information from one book to the next.

A "true believer" uses their mind as much as their faith and recognizes when some things are out of date or when they were written by men with their own agendas and outdated practices. Or when they recognize that historically the Bible was put together a few centuries after Jesus' life by people who ALREADY picked and chose what ended up in the Biblical Canon and what did not.

And one more thing - unless you capable of reading and speaking the very original text of the various books of the Bible as they were written 1900+ years ago, please do not lecture to me about its contents or how I keep my faith. Or just keep sprouting ignorance and sexism as if you truly know everything and can pass judgment on others and what their faith is. After all, you seem to know all the answers, Anonymous, so secure in your own faith that you didn't even leave a name.

Dwarvenhobble said...

The only way I can make any sense of this is to say this entire series takes place in the Justice Lords Dimension after the Flash has been killed and that Womderwoman and Batman has been an item as suggested could happen in JLA unlimited then Batman broke up with her because he wanted a child and she didn't.......... and even then it still makes very little sense

Unknown said...

Hey Linkara remember Dr. Wolper from The Dark Knight Returns the jerk who thinks Batman creates his own enemies...

This book pretty much proves that he makes people crazy such as Black Canary and the girl he saved.

Miller has just fallen so far from grace hasn't he?

Radar said...

Linkara, you keep saying that Frank Miller would never sexualize a young girl. What about Holly in Batman: Year One? Catwoman's roommate. She was a kid and a prostitute!

Anonymous said...

Okay who wants to bet that pretty soon this universe's Justice Leauge will end up like they did on the cover of Justice League of America #81?

Anonymous said...

Ỹ̨̧̛͎̱̖̠̼̱̻͓̙̜̙̫̩͓̪̋̔ͫͭ͂̀͒͐ͤ̏͋ͭ̆͒̇̿͐̚ͅo̱̭̹̗̬͙̝̣̖͍̥̻̠̞̖͈͓̐͗ͥͩͬͩͧͥͫ́ͭ͆̑͂̀͢ͅu̢͕̣̱̳ͤ́̐ͦ͒ͤͮͯ͢ ̩̫̜͉̦̖͇̣̜̝ͥ̈̑̉̏̈̐͌̐̌ͥ̏͂̏̕a̶̸͓͚̜͍͈̩̱̭̥̝̬̖͖̣̺̺ͬ̑̆̈́̏̎͛̾͌̾̔ͫ͆̆̒ͧ̍́͘͢r͒̈̑̓ͦ̆͂ͮ̐͐ͯͭ҉͖͎̼̦̱̻̝͡ê̸̝̤̳̜̬̬͈̙͈̳̼̳͔̗̘͚̱̖̺̎͗ͪ͆̆͒̐ͪ̓ͪ͒ͥ̐̿̽̚͞ ̡̗͍̟̦̙͖̣̪͇͍̥̳̻̟͙ͭ̎̈́̈ͫ͆͒͌̾̐̕n̵̘̟̹̝̲̯͎̘̺̖͙̹̙͂͋̃̽ͬ̅ͮ͑ͯ̈́̕ͅo̴̷̞̖͔͎͕̫̣̣̜͔̝͈͖͚͓̬̒ͮͤͦ̽ͫ̉̓͋̇̊̊͗̔̒͠ ̵̨̢̖͖̪͕ͫ̐͛ͧͥͪ̏̐̅͐̾̈́̉̇͂̀̈͗̈́͟͠m̽̑ͩͥͫͤͤͧ͋̏̈̈́ͬ̀҉̴͉̱̘̺̣́a̛̛̛͉͓͍͎͖̱̰̫͙̞̻̳͖͕̦̤̠̱ͬ̆̄̅ͤ̏̄͂̔̍̉̔͘͟n̸̢͍̮̥͔̳̺̦̙͎̖̎̈̅ͫ̽͒͘̕͟

Djiinnrae said...

What even is this? Why would anyone let him do this? :C

I will grant it that the scene you read with Alfred was hilarious. All I could think was: "this is one of the funniest fanfics I've heard... oh wait. LOL."

It's a bizarre thought, but bear with me: I think Miller wanted to write in a sort of "motherly" character for Batman as opposed to a stand-in father-figure, but since all the actual females in his work are nothing but whores, I guess Alfred had to do? Maybe that's why he had Alfred working out; he couldn't have Alfred look purely domestic (even though he's a butler, which most people tend to agree is a pretty domestic job).

Either way, Miller's treatment of Batman in general is just... CREEPY.

Felix Brunschede said...

To Your future rebbetzin:

"And while you may not require a male body to practice law or medicine, you certainly do require one to be a firefighter"

That's a load of crap. Yes, when trained to their physical peak, men tend to be stronger than women because of their testosterone, but that difference is inconsequential when it comes to being a competent firefighter, police officer, pilot, soldier, blacksmith, sailors and most other employments stereotypically associated with men.

Really, the only time when there is an at all noticeable difference it's in terms of olympic athletes (which is why men and women are seperated there), who all have a physical condition you do not need in order to be competent in any of the jobs I mentioned previously. Not even all sports make a difference, back in my days of practicing karate our sensei made no difference between man or woman.

We had to run the same miles, reach the same speed and build the same muscle, depending on our style, only height, weight and general built played a role in finding that style, gender was inconsequential.
One day I'd get my behind handed to me by a 1,6 m woman, another I would kick the butt of a 2m man, yet another it would be the reverse of each, but our sensei would always make all of us lower than black belt kiss the canvas.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 245 of 245   Newer› Newest»