We're now entering truly sexist-free television, with one of the hallmarks being a brutal, savage, dirty fight between an equally matched man and woman who punch and kick each other in the crotch with gusto.Setting aside the fact that this supposedly equal match featured a physical freak and a man dying of an infected wound, it's fascinating to note that the pinnacle of equality is deemed to be, and I quote, the "best cunt punt ever".
I tend to suspect whoever is in charge of the Female Imperative will soon be rushing to redefine "equality" with no small degree of alacrity. In my experience, most female equalitarians tend to be in favor of being permitted to vote, divorce, and murder their unborn children, and they are rather less keen on the aforementioned punting.
But I could certainly be wrong. And I found this little window on female solipsism in action to be as amusing as it is expected.
Watching it with my mom. When the Hound got punched in the balls, she goes "ohhh, yeah!" but when Brienne gets kicked in the cunt she goes "oh that's awful"Thereby demonstrating, once more, that it's not empathy. It is pure solipsism.
20 comments:
So, if you break it down, it actually IS free of sexism. It displays the cold hard truth that the only way a woman is going to beat a strong man is if he is heavily handicapped and she could have been a East German female weight lifter (massive steroids). Of course, women will generally ignore all that and look at the result only. Which is incredibly sexist on their part.
I have noticed that none of the Feminazis and Manginas celebrating this TV battle have mentioned that Brienne is a genetic abnormality, despite it being widely acknowledged in the book and show, or that Sandor was clearly very sick.
"best cunt punt ever" lol. Remember this the next time you're being over powered by a big bitch little guys.
At least Buffy was endowed with super strength via magic.
This is just pathetic.
Don't forget Brienne's cheap use of a rock to the Hound's head and face, rather than head-to-head combat by arms. Just the usual unsuspecting equivalent of throwing plates or pans by the "passive" lady!
"Thereby demonstrating, once more, that it's not empathy. It is pure solipsism"
Fascinating. Those are a woman's words, a woman in the midst of a sexual competition, attempting to isolate and abuse a man, take him hostage. Step one is to cut him off from all of female kind, to convince him that what he sees in other women is not really empathy, it's deception. That way he'll become dependent on her.
Was your mother a narcissist, VD? Mine was.
Gg ....the fruit didn't fall far from the tree.
Notice how it is "sexist-free" when presented as "equally matched". Fights are not fought fairly and usually they are not fought equally matched. Most men would not attempt a fight he couldn't win. This cheerleading of an apparent unfair fight contradicts the usual talking point about women being peace-makers. Then again, it was never about peace, but making the man bow down without a fight. The fight was expedient.
Working on my AWCA cred.
My carpooler, typical Bay Area feminist liberal about 25 years past hitting the wall, continues to provide amusement.
Was telling a funny story about my pre-marriage days when I had 2 women as roommates. We were interviewing new roommates to replace one of the women. One candidate showed up who was about a 9 in SMV. The look on both women's faces was priceless when they saw her. She was an ideal candidate in every way, personality, job, classy, kind of like a farmer's girl, stable, etc....
Except she was very attractive. I could see both roommates' hackles rising at her very existence. Came time to vote, they refused to go with it, focusing on something trivial to reject her in favor of another candidate (who was also acceptable but not nearly as qualified). Both confessed later that they were certain that I would take this woman's side if there were any conflicts, and they were afraid that their boyfriends would immediately abandon them for her.
My carpooler was squirming in her seat violently by the time I was done. Hands wringing. Face in contortions, legs kicking around, etc. "It makes me very upset that someone still gives support to the lie that women are mean to more attractive women and and are jealous of them" was how she finally managed to gasp out past the lump in her throat.
"Women don't treat other women unfairly just based on looks and I can't believe this happened." Then realizing that I might be offended by this (I was manfully restraining myself from guffawing while navigating the rush hour traffic), she tried to soften this by saying next - "I certainly hope your ex-roommates have matured and grown out of their attitudes, if that is what they really felt".
This is the same woman who will vote for any female candidate for any political office, regardless of qualifications.
It is so trivially easy to push her buttons and make her head explode as she denies reality. I shouldn't enjoy it so much, but it is a guilty pleasure.
GG,
Are you commenting on the same post we are?
GG, would you stop commenting here if Vox requested?
when the pitchforks and torches come out the first thing every female tries to do is rip off the gear with their bare hands. It is so unnerving in that they think that is the greatest thing. They all cheer when a guy, any guy, gets hit in the berries. Freud would have more than a little to say about it. The same show had a good scene with the imp and Oberyn where the imp's sister is said to have pinched his "tiny pink CLOCK" so hard when the imp was a baby that Oberyn was surprised she did not pinch it off. That kind of fascination cannot be easily overlooked.
I don't know about the show, but the books clearly show Cersei (the imp's sister) as suffering from severe penis envy. She thinks her life would be so much better if she were a man, yet if she thought for two seconds she would realize 1) her husband was killed by his wife, 2) her father was murdered by his son, 3) her twin brother had his pride and joy -- his fighting hand and skill -- forcefully removed forever, 4) her other brother lives a diminished life due to his birth, 5) her first love Rhaegar was killed in single combat, 6) her eldest son was poisoned to death.
Many women in her life have suffered at her hands - she killed her own best friend, emotionally tortured Sansa Stark, has tried dirty tricks to depose her son's wife, Margaery. I think the only reason she wants to be a man is so she has more power to do evil.
Game of thrones became too PC to be bearable after the first season.
IT was good till then, but I simply can;'t watch it anymore.
I like the short guy, who strangely enough was one of the few un-PC characters in the bunch.
Too bad.
"when the pitchforks and torches come out the first thing every female tries to do is rip off the gear with their bare hands
One of the most bizarre Mosaic laws that I can recall reading was in Deuteronomy 25:11-12: "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." It's just kind of wedged in there between the rules about marrying a dead brother's widow to provide him with offspring, and several verses about the importance of using honest weights and measures.
Apparently bitches be wantin' to get a man by the balls even in ancient times.
Man, though, it was a hell of a cunt punt.
MOTHER ACCUSED OF FATALLY POISONING SON WITH SODIUM
...A young mother who documented her 5-year-old son's persistent illness on social media was arrested Tuesday, accused of fatally poisoning him with sodium.
...Investigators say Lacey Spears was desperate for attention and used her son as a tool to make it happen by publicly documenting his condition. ...
...Lacey documented her son's various health problems using a public blog. And five months ago, investigators became curious and looked into her son's death, and that's when they started gathering mountains of evidence. Finally, a grand jury granted the indictment. ...
Ironically, the REAL Miyamoto Musashi was killing grown men at age 13. How? By using a TOOL. In his case, a Samurai sword. Technique plus a TOOL allowed an early teen boy to be very, very deadly. Of course that was single combat, not a swarming melee that went on for hours (the awful carnage at Cannae went on for nine hours of hacking and spearing the doomed Roman legions, all 50,000 or so of them).
One way to show the ability ... and limitations (which dramatically are just as interesting) of women is technique plus tools -- samurai swords, naginatas (the specialty of Samurai women who were trained in this formidable weapon) and bows. Or even, firearms. Willam Bonney was not particularly an imposing physical specimen.
I never bothered with Thrones. TV show nor the books. Michael Moorcock did it better and first with the Elric series, and Robert E. Howard did a more complete epic job with Conan. Heck Edgar Rice Burroughs with John Carter of Mars did a better job, and a lot more entertaining, than George RR Martin.
I mean, think about it. Elric was/is just ... weird. He's not human, he does not think like a human, he does not have human desires even. And weird things keep happening to him ... journeys to alternate universes, meeting variants of himself, friends he met in the future, cursed swords, etc. Conan is ... a man heroic for personal survival, not honor or duty: he has none. And John Carter? A Confederate cavalryman escaping Apaches finds a mystical portal to a savage, half-technology, half-magic Mars? Finds duty and love where he thought it vanished?
Any of these is more compelling, weirder, edgier, more entertaining and better written than the derivative stuff Martin puts out. Yeah, the Medieval and Renaissance aristocrats killed people in various nasty ways. They also lived by rules incomprehensible to the modern Martin who rummages through Europe's nasty history for his plots.
For example, disunited and fractious Europe beset by Vikings in the North, Pagans in the North East, and Muslims in the South and South East, staged a massive set of Crusades to retake the Holy Land and Spain, Southern Italy, and Southern France from Muslim rule. They mostly succeeded outside the Holy Land. This done by a people with no central ruler and arguing amongst themselves. They built magnificent and NEW structures that the Romans had never attempted (flying buttress Gothic Cathedrals). The building efforts led by craftsmen over generations.
What Martin also gets wrong is the emphasis on: the eternal life in Heaven, as opposed to the temporary earthly life. Death and misery was a constant companion and people worried sincerely about their souls fate: Hell or Heaven? They acted accordingly to a much deeper timescale. What would it profit a Prince to rule for ten years and then die and spend eternity in damnation torture in Hell? Martin also misses the absolute requirement for personal bravery. Armies were terribly small. In place of the Roman legions numbering ten thousand, you had a few thousand if that armored knights and ill-trained peasants. Rulers led battle from the front, those who had reputations as cowards were often overthrown. Those who did not reward their allies soon found themselves without succor, as complex feudal obligations raised what few men could be levied, not paid mercenaries. Money itself was nearly absent until the 800's, and it took until the 1300s for copper coins to see widespread usage.
More troubling still, Martin completely misses the Investiture Controversy. You'd think Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, would be more powerful than the Pope. After all, the former had a feudal army and the Pope? None. Fundamentally the wars were about who would name bishops and the Pope? Feudal kings and rulers, or the Church itself.
Everything within The Cathedral, nothing outside The Cathedral, nothing against The Cathedral.
No one in mainstream media, entertainment or culture will ever push a politically incorrect opinion or perspective on any issue ever again. Not ever.
JLT,
A feminist told me it's ok to murder children in the womb if they're "unwanted," because being unwanted at conception means they will have a bad life, and having a bad life means there's no innate value to that life.
These scoundrels could rationalize the Holocaust if they put their minds to it.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.