---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

If you can suspend disbelief that there are zombies, why can't you suspend disbelief that there is a woman in charge?

---

rtpAggie said:

because while its a zombie show, the point of most shows is to show how people would realistically act in a non realistic scenario.

this isnt hard to understand.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

Oh...so you're ok with Zombies wiping out most of the world, but bristle at a woman being in charge because it's not realistic.

---

rtpAggie said:

did you read what I said?

of course the zombies are unrealistic. no *****

but how the world handles them would not be with women barking orders and militant dudes just being like "yes ma'am whatever you say!"

---

---

---

+ 3 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

---

---

+ 4 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

---

---

+ 5 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

---

---

+ 6 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

---

---

+ 7 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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:

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.

---

---

---

+ 7 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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:

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.

---

---

---

+ 7 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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:

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.

---

---

---

+ 8 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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:

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:

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'

---

---

---

+ 8 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

---

---

+ 8 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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:

---

---

---

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

---

---

+ 9 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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:

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:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

That probably sounded really good in your head.

---

DallasTeleAg said:

---

We even have the old adage, "it's just fiction, bro. Why can't you suspend belief?" Just about the most ridiculous argument to anything because it's basically conceding the point but saying it's okay because it's just a story. If that's the case, then you can't criticize anything about the story because it's just fiction.

---

---

---

+ 6 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

---

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'

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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?

---

---

---

+ 9 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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?

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

I don't know, you tell me?

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

So why did Kathleen shoot the doctor? I didnt fully understand that? Was she just mad and wanted to take out her anger on him? Thinks he had something to do with the deaths of her people?

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

So why did Kathleen shoot the doctor? I didnt fully understand that? Was she just mad and wanted to take out her anger on him? Thinks he had something to do with the deaths of her people?

---

---

---

+ 7 more quotes (click to expand)

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

TCTTS said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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.

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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

---

aTmAg said:

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.

---

FancyKetchup14 said:

Ok that's great actually, cause if you think this is THAT bad I'm really looking forward to you not watching the show anymore and leaving this thread alone.

---

---

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

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'

---

Chuck Cunningham said:

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:

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.

---