All these people complaining about how the film loses all credibility because "a girl is beating up on a bunch of men" are just sexists.
Aprange? Orpple? Huh?
The difference is that The Expendables is a FARCE. It's supposed to be taken lightly. So it readily
jumps the shark, and we go along with it.
And the F
&F franchise is much the same. It's not
SUPPOSED to be taken seriously.
So your comparison is
apples to oranges.
THIS movie is a
drama and is supposed to be taken seriously, not as action-humor with as much dialogue and situation devoted to
making jokes as to trying to create serious dramatic scenes.
Yes, there are certainly women who can kick my ass. And an exceptional woman can kick the ass of men who are average but well trained. But an exceptional woman does not generally have the capacity to kick the ass of men half-again her size who are ALSO exceptional at what they do.
Why? Because it's NOT SEXIST to point out that, in a fight -- MASS AND REACH both make a huge difference. You can make up for them with speed and accuracy, but not easily. The smaller opponent only has to make ONE mistake and they are out of that fight. The larger one has room for considerable error.
And men uniformly have mass and reach on the majority of women -- including the protagonist of this story.
God help us all, I am SO sick and tired of JACKASSES who use the words sexist and racist to apply to anything that regards gender or race, regardless of the FACTUAL aspect of the comment.
Sexist, like
Racist, deals with
FACTUALLY INACCURATE presumptions of superior or inferior performance or capacity based on Gender and Race.
In other words, saying that a male generally cannot get pregnant is not SEXIST. It's a simple statement of FACT. Stating that blacks are much more prone to develop Sickle-Cell Anemia is a FACT, not a racist comment.
Making the observation that women will lose to men of remotely equal talent in contests in which strength and mass make a significant difference is not SEXIST. It is a self-defined FACT. You can argue about how much of a difference strength and mass MAKE, but, in general, you're a self-deluding FOOL if you believe that
the difference isn't quite significant.
This is why any "self-defense for women" class which does not encourage the women to spar against men sometimes -- to gain an understanding of what might work against another women in their skill range won't necessarily work against a man in the same or even poorer skill range is a major FAIL. Such women are deluded into believing that they can protect themselves when they can't.
Case In Point: About a decade or so ago, when Serena and Venus Williams were both at the early peak of their career, one of them made the comment that they could beat any man not in the top 100 male tennis players. They happened to do this when in the presence of someone (at that time) ranked like #110 or so. He disagreed and challenged them on it. They played.
Not only did he win, he won EASILY -- because Tennis is very much a game where mass and strength matter more than speed and accuracy. If you can hit the ball hard enough to where you want it to go reasonably well, then no amount of speed and accuracy on the other side will enable them to return it and gain control of the ball.
Combat is no different. If I get ahold of you at all, you're going to go where *I* want you to, not where you want ME to go, unless your counter moves are utterly, flawlessly
perfect... So you have to make sure that I NEVER manage to lay a hand on you.
I have far more muscle mass protecting my organs and my "soft spots" than a woman does, so, again, your strikes will need to be absolutely perfectly accurate to have adequate effect, while mine just have to be in the vicinity of the right location, as even a GLANCING blow will still knock you onto your ass and (at best) onto the defensive, if it doesn't stun you and thus render you unable to USE your greater skill against me.
reply
share