Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.

---

Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.

---

I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.

---

Talk about being triggered.

Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.

---

So, in terms of leadership where they're not actually doing any fighting, they're weaker than men? Because I've not seen her do any hand to hand combat or even carry heavy equipment.

---

TCTTS said:

---

It's just the fact that you feel that you HAVE to complain about this kind sh*t day in and day out, on thread after thread after thread. Always the most mindless, inconsequential nonsense that NEVER amounts to the level of vitriol your giving it. In this particular instance, yes, you're technically right that a woman likely wouldn't be in charge in this scenario. But you choose to express your disdain in the most aggrieved/offended way possible, same as you do when you turn every last thread into your personal soapbox about why X, Y, or Z doesn't meet whatever archaic view you have. There's a way to express your opinions via mature, constructive criticism that doesn't constantly derail threads… and then there's whatever the hell you do.

---

TCTTS said:

---

It's just the fact that you feel that you HAVE to complain about this kind sh*t day in and day out, on thread after thread after thread. Always the most mindless, inconsequential nonsense that NEVER amounts to the level of vitriol your giving it. In this particular instance, yes, you're technically right that a woman likely wouldn't be in charge in this scenario. But you choose to express your disdain in the most aggrieved/offended way possible, same as you do when you turn every last thread into your personal soapbox about why X, Y, or Z doesn't meet whatever archaic view you have. There's a way to express your opinions via mature, constructive criticism that doesn't constantly derail threads… and then there's whatever the hell you do.

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.

---

Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.

---

I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.

---

Talk about being triggered.

Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.

---

So, in terms of leadership where they're not actually doing any fighting, they're weaker than men? Because I've not seen her do any hand to hand combat or even carry heavy equipment.

---

But think about how people become leaders of self organizing militant groups. They don't get elected or selected by a president. They do so by proving themselves on the battlefield prior. From Genghis Kahn, John Coffee Hays, Quanah Parker, etc. All were selected by their peers by being badasses in the fight. Does anybody seriously think this person would be a badass in battle:




Please.

---

https://www.tckpublishing.com/suspension-of-disbelief/

---

There is only so much one can suspend before it becomes too much. This is every bit as bad than a 10 year old Anakin defeating an entire army by himself.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.

---

Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.

---

I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.

---

Talk about being triggered.

Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.

---

So, in terms of leadership where they're not actually doing any fighting, they're weaker than men? Because I've not seen her do any hand to hand combat or even carry heavy equipment.

---

But think about how people become leaders of self organizing militant groups. They don't get elected or selected by a president. They do so by proving themselves on the battlefield prior. From Genghis Kahn, John Coffee Hays, Quanah Parker, etc. All were selected by their peers by being badasses in the fight. Does anybody seriously think this person would be a badass in battle:




Please.

---

https://www.tckpublishing.com/suspension-of-disbelief/

---

There is only so much one can suspend before it becomes too much. This is every bit as bad than a 10 year old Anakin defeating an entire army by himself.

---

Just enjoy the show and stop thinking so much. It's not realistic. At all. If you can handle zombies, you should be able to handle a woman in charge. And if not, then perhaps this isn't the right show for you.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.

---

Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.

---

I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.

---

Talk about being triggered.

Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.

---

So, in terms of leadership where they're not actually doing any fighting, they're weaker than men? Because I've not seen her do any hand to hand combat or even carry heavy equipment.

---

But think about how people become leaders of self organizing militant groups. They don't get elected or selected by a president. They do so by proving themselves on the battlefield prior. From Genghis Kahn, John Coffee Hays, Quanah Parker, etc. All were selected by their peers by being badasses in the fight. Does anybody seriously think this person would be a badass in battle:




Please.

---

https://www.tckpublishing.com/suspension-of-disbelief/

---

There is only so much one can suspend before it becomes too much. This is every bit as bad than a 10 year old Anakin defeating an entire army by himself.

---

Just enjoy the show and stop thinking so much. It's not realistic. At all. If you can handle zombies, you should be able to handle a woman in charge. And if not, then perhaps this isn't the right show for you.

---

AggieOO said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.

---

Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.

---

I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.

---

Talk about being triggered.

Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.

---

So, in terms of leadership where they're not actually doing any fighting, they're weaker than men? Because I've not seen her do any hand to hand combat or even carry heavy equipment.

---

But think about how people become leaders of self organizing militant groups. They don't get elected or selected by a president. They do so by proving themselves on the battlefield prior. From Genghis Kahn, John Coffee Hays, Quanah Parker, etc. All were selected by their peers by being badasses in the fight. Does anybody seriously think this person would be a badass in battle:




Please.

---

https://www.tckpublishing.com/suspension-of-disbelief/

---

There is only so much one can suspend before it becomes too much. This is every bit as bad than a 10 year old Anakin defeating an entire army by himself.

---

Just enjoy the show and stop thinking so much. It's not realistic. At all. If you can handle zombies, you should be able to handle a woman in charge. And if not, then perhaps this isn't the right show for you.

---

since men are so strong and such, ALL zombies would be women! I mean, how could someone as strong a man become infected? They should be able to physically fight off any women zombies, and their immune systems would obviously be far superior enough to fight off any infection. And for that matter, its terribly unrealistic that Ellie, a female, would be the one who is immune. This show is so unrealistic. I'm done with it.

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

lol i just thought Melanie Lynskey wasn't the best choice for this role and of course the discussion became about 'women in charge'

---

TCTTS said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.

---

Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.

---

I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.

---

Talk about being triggered.

Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.

---

So, in terms of leadership where they're not actually doing any fighting, they're weaker than men? Because I've not seen her do any hand to hand combat or even carry heavy equipment.

---

But think about how people become leaders of self organizing militant groups. They don't get elected or selected by a president. They do so by proving themselves on the battlefield prior. From Genghis Kahn, John Coffee Hays, Quanah Parker, etc. All were selected by their peers by being badasses in the fight. Does anybody seriously think this person would be a badass in battle:




Please.

---

https://www.tckpublishing.com/suspension-of-disbelief/

---

There is only so much one can suspend before it becomes too much. This is every bit as bad than a 10 year old Anakin defeating an entire army by himself.

---

Just enjoy the show and stop thinking so much. It's not realistic. At all. If you can handle zombies, you should be able to handle a woman in charge. And if not, then perhaps this isn't the right show for you.

---

At this point, it doesn't matter if it's the right show for him or not. It's become a crusade generator for him now, and he won't let that go. Like a fungus, he goes from thread to thread doing this exact thing. It's his only purpose on this board; to let us know he disapproves. Of what, it doesn't matter. It never matters. He simply has a compulsion - what he thinks is a mission - to express his disapproval time and time again, on subject after subject. Something he's willingly and proudly admitted as much multiple times now.

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.

---

Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.

---

I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.

---

Talk about being triggered.

Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.

---

So, in terms of leadership where they're not actually doing any fighting, they're weaker than men? Because I've not seen her do any hand to hand combat or even carry heavy equipment.

---

But think about how people become leaders of self organizing militant groups. They don't get elected or selected by a president. They do so by proving themselves on the battlefield prior. From Genghis Kahn, John Coffee Hays, Quanah Parker, etc. All were selected by their peers by being badasses in the fight. Does anybody seriously think this person would be a badass in battle:




Please.

---

https://www.tckpublishing.com/suspension-of-disbelief/

---

There is only so much one can suspend before it becomes too much. This is every bit as bad than a 10 year old Anakin defeating an entire army by himself.

---

Just enjoy the show and stop thinking so much. It's not realistic. At all. If you can handle zombies, you should be able to handle a woman in charge. And if not, then perhaps this isn't the right show for you.

---

All ask you.. is there ANY amount that would make you say something? What if she were 10 years old? Would you be silently enjoying the show saying "well if I can suspend enough to believe zombies, then I can believe in 10 year old warlords too!!!" Would you lap it up no matter what they threw at you?

---

Prophet00 said:

---

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.

---

Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.

---

I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.

---

Talk about being triggered.

Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.

---

aTmAg said:

---

AggieOO said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm so glad the next episode is airing two days early, because I can already feel the pathetic-woman-in-charge convo becoming the next grist for the outrage mill. At least it will be over by Friday instead of Sunday.

---

Maybe shows shouldn't put pathetic women in charge? Then people wouldn't be distracted by it? Imagine if they made it a 10 year old kid instead. Even YOU would be talking about how stupid it was.

---

I think your posting history *finally* makes sense, seeing as the only explanation is that you're posting from a computer you stole from your future and brought back to the 1950s with you.

---

Talk about being triggered.

Doesn't matter if we are talking 1200s, 1950s, 2020s, or 2200s. Women are weaker than men and are less suited for combat due to millions of years of evolution. It's nothing to do with "misogyny" You can't close your eyes and pretend that wasn't the case.

---

So, in terms of leadership where they're not actually doing any fighting, they're weaker than men? Because I've not seen her do any hand to hand combat or even carry heavy equipment.

---

But think about how people become leaders of self organizing militant groups. They don't get elected or selected by a president. They do so by proving themselves on the battlefield prior. From Genghis Kahn, John Coffee Hays, Quanah Parker, etc. All were selected by their peers by being badasses in the fight. Does anybody seriously think this person would be a badass in battle:




Please.

---

https://www.tckpublishing.com/suspension-of-disbelief/

---

There is only so much one can suspend before it becomes too much. This is every bit as bad than a 10 year old Anakin defeating an entire army by himself.

---

Just enjoy the show and stop thinking so much. It's not realistic. At all. If you can handle zombies, you should be able to handle a woman in charge. And if not, then perhaps this isn't the right show for you.

---

since men are so strong and such, ALL zombies would be women! I mean, how could someone as strong a man become infected? They should be able to physically fight off any women zombies, and their immune systems would obviously be far superior enough to fight off any infection. And for that matter, its terribly unrealistic that Ellie, a female, would be the one who is immune. This show is so unrealistic. I'm done with it.

---

That probably sounded really good in your head.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

lol i just thought Melanie Lynskey wasn't the best choice for this role and of course the discussion became about 'women in charge'

---

I had to look her up as she looked vaguely familliar. I only remember her from playing a paedophile in Perks of Being a WallFlower.

I wonder if the point was to have a soft looking woman in the role.

Would we be having this discussion of Terminator 2 Linda Hamilton was playing the role?

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

lol i just thought Melanie Lynskey wasn't the best choice for this role and of course the discussion became about 'women in charge'

---

I had to look her up as she looked vaguely familliar. I only remember her from playing a paedophile in Perks of Being a WallFlower.

I wonder if the point was to have a soft looking woman in the role.

Would we be having this discussion of Terminator 2 Linda Hamilton was playing the role?

---

Ya i only knew her from 2 and a Half Men lol so my basis wasn't much better. And ya, if I'm being honest, she doesn't have the 'physical presence' to support the role she's in. She is soft. From her voice to the way she walks/carries herself...like, I'm hardly a gun expert but even the way she threatened the Doctor with a gun seemed farcical. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, it's just about her playing this 'mustache twirling' ruthless villain that is just so absurd for the actor. There's no weight behind her. Like when she says "find the collaborators and kill them all" I wanted to laugh.

I never once doubted Marlene as the leader of the Fireflies. Or Tess as the alpha in Joel/smuggling operation. So to me, it has nothing to do with her gender, just her overall...aesthetic in contrast to the role.

---