How could anyone, in 2014, have thought this was acceptable?
"Acceptable"? Was the First Amendment declared null and void, while I was sleeping? What do you mean by "acceptable", mister thought-policeman?
If burning American flag, calling for killing of the sitting President, or publicly defecating on a police car is acceptable, having a book with a hare-brained bimbo as one of the characters certainly is too.
none of those things are acceptable either. 'legal' and 'acceptable' are not the same thing.
this is very clearly unacceptable. it was legal, but it was fucking terrible, and should be called out as such.
mattel has the right to produce terrible products, and everyone else has the right to mock and berate them for doing so. free speech runs both ways.
$5000 ambulance ride, stellar solution for someone who already can't afford car payments!
not really a solution. that $999 car will work, kinda, probably, maybe. or it could fail to start at any time because it is a car that you paid $999 for and it is almost certainly not what most people would consider 'reliable transportation.'
Bump the price up to around $4 or $5k, then you might have something reliable enough to count on for work, school, medical emergencies etc. But that is a much more difficult amount of money to scrape up for someone living paycheck to paycheck.
Your completely ignoring the hamburger analogy makes it quite clear that you have no interest in participating in an honest debate.
If the author had said "all men..." then there would have been no room for interpretation. She did not, thus we are left to infer which men she is speaking about. You choose to interpret it as all men.
My point is that you are interpreting her statement incorrectly. Anything that follows from that is useless, a straw man.
That is why 'not all men!' is a worthless argument, and widely mocked. It is arguing against a statement that is not even being made.
Once you can get over that hurdle you will see that authors such as the one mentioned here are not attacking every man in the world. They speak only of the ones that fit the criteria of the negative traits they discuss. You will stop seeing their words as personal attacks, which they are not, and instead see them as the first step of progress. Step one, acknowledge there is a problem.
It's shocking to me that we STILL can't collectively as a society get past step one without people jumping in to defend men. as if we need to be defended!
no, you are interpreting it as you want to interpret it. the author did not write 'all men...' she simply wrote 'men...' which could be interpreted several ways. you choose to interpret it in a way that is ridiculous, and then go on to refute the ridiculous statement that you have put into her mouth. this is what we call a 'straw man'.
how about this: if i were to say 'hamburgers are delicious', would it be a constructive response to say 'not ALL hamburgers are delicious! McDonald's hamburgers are terrible, and you are wrong for claiming that ALL hamburgers are delicious!'
no, it would be a ridiculous response, because any reasonable human being could infer that when i say 'hamburgers are delicious' i mean that some hamburgers are delicious, that i think hamburgers are delicious in a general sense but that there could certainly be some hamburgers that are not delicious. certainly i would not claim that every single hamburger in existence is delicious.
from that, we could perhaps infer that the author thinks that the majority of men are overly sensitive to criticism from women. based on the comments on this story and past stories that mention sexism, i would tend to agree with her.
No, I am trying to drag you, kicking and screaming, into an epiphany.
I assure you, the author is not an idiot. It would be idiotic to claim that all men are overly sensitive to criticism. Anyone with half a brain, who is not also blinded by their own defense mechanisms, can see that the author does not mean all men. that would indeed be a ridiculous statement.
You can either interpret your way, which gets us nowhere, or my way, which is the beginning of a dialog. Choice is yours.
Let's try this.
One of the consequences is that [some significant portion of] men are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women
Do you still disagree? Because that is the statement the author was making.
you're being so obtuse, i would think you were trolling if you didn't sound so sincere.
One of the consequences is that men are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women
This is something that is simply not true of all men so why make statements like that?
that's you, defending us men against criticism.
Oh, i assure you, the post is terribly ironic. You are making a post defending men against criticism, against an article that says men are overly sensitive and quick to defend themselves. Delicious.
Every time a man responds to "men are this..." with "not ALL men!" an angel gets her wings.
We get it. Not ALL men. The author was not implying all men. Just some. That's still too many! There is still a problem that needs fixing! Self centered asshats assume they are being personally attacked, and feel the need to defend themselves, but THE CONVERSATION ISN'T ABOUT YOU.
Once that hurdle is overcome, maybe we can move on to actually making progress.
i suppose you don't appreciate the irony in your post, but i do. i appreciate it enough for both of us.
yes, we understand that NOT ALL MEN are extremely sensitive to being criticized by women.
some of them are. plenty enough to cause problems. jumping in and saying NOT ALL MEN is just derailing the conversation before it can get anywhere productive. way to defend us downtrodden and persecuted men everywhere!
where is the retconning, exactly? thor falls from grace. new person gets hammer. it's a story arc. possibly permanent, possibly temporary, but there is no retconning happening here.
marvel is saying that thor is whoever's wielding the hammer. much like DC has said that batman/nightwing/robin is whoever's wearing the mask. how many robins have there been again, exactly?
nothing new to see here, move along.
dude, you lost the game as soon as you said feminazi.
seriously, if you think that casting a female as the new thor is somehow equivalent to "bowing down to radical feminism nazi shit" then you are a lost cause and should probably just eat a bullet.
it's also amusing that you are TOTALLY FINE with the fact that marvel has already changed the norse mythology WILDLY... turning thor into a friggin alien instead of a god. one who was a depowered crippled doctor for a long time. but when mjolnir gets passed on to a female character, you are all of a sudden outraged because it's not following the sacred mythology.
you DID read the fucking summary and see that this is a new character, right? they aren't just giving existing thor a sex change. thor is falling from grace and losing his powers, a new female character is being introduced and mjolnir is being given to her. but of course you already knew all that.
so its totally fine for a new person to take on the title of thor... as long as they are male? but passing mjolnir on to a female, that's somehow wrong?
would you also express outrage if mjolnir was passed on to a black person?
can you explain why on either count, without sounding like a bigot?
did you bitch and moan with equal fervor when batman/spiderman/antman/nightwing/robin/etc/etc/etc were portrayed by new characters?
smells like misogyny to me!