Discussion in 'Iron Man 3' started by Thread Manager, Feb 4, 2013.
but... we're men, you can't do the things we can Hawk.
men are poos.
lol It was mostly one person. The majority were defending women
Let's sum up the last few pages of this thread:
Pepper is a strong woman so she doesn't need a suit of her own for defense because, as we all know, strong women are bulletproof and can withstand mansion-destroying explosions. In fact, if Tony gives Pepper a suit that will make her weaker because then she'll be a damsel in need of saving. (The fact that she's a sitting duck in need of saving whenever they get attacked by one of Tony's many enemies anyway is beside the point.) What she should do is wait until Tony saves her himself, in his own Iron Man suit, rather than having any means of getting herself out of trouble. By waiting to be saved by a man and running for her life in designer shoes, instead of saving herself with readily available technology, Pepper will stay true to her character (as Tony's shrieking secretary) and prove that she's a tough secretary CEO who doesn't need a man to be strong.
Do you buy that? I don't buy that. But then we're women. We just don't know our place.
I really hope IM and WM don't "team up" against Mandarin in the final fight, it's the final film of the trilogy it need to be IRON MAN's fight.
War Machine/Iron Patriot should be mopping up Mandarin's lackeys while Ironman takes on Mandarin him self.
what trilogy? there is no such thing
Wrong thread to put that in and no, that's the Bank of America Tower.
If you mean from the people supporting the idea of Rescue Armor, then yeah, I agree it's borderline sexist. Making Pepper too weak to handle things herself; letting Tony treat her like his own personal property that he can put under lock and key ("don't scratch the paint, dude")....yeah, pretty sexist.
The dilemma of the hero's girlfriend is ancient in fiction. In superhero fiction, Pepper is no more and no less at risk than Lois Lane, Mary Jane Watson, Gwen Stacy, Betty Ross, Jane Foster, Iris West, Karen Page and any other you care to name. Has anyone ever suggested that any of *these* women get special protection from all the supervillains their men have coming after them....?
Superheroes do dangerous things. Superheroes make dangerous enemies. Those dangerous enemies target the superheroes' loved ones. Comes with the territory. If a hero doesn't want his girlfriend to get hurt, here are his options: (a) keep her under close watch and lock & key night and day; (b) keep their relationship on the down-low so that villains don't see the connection; (c) play the field instead of tying himself down to just one girl; (d) only date superheroines who are strong enough to hold their own against his enemies; or (e) live life normally and trust her to be smart enough and resourceful enough to stay out of trouble (and pray that their writers aren't sadistic enough to spam woman-in-refrigerator syndrome --- here's lookin' at you, Daredevil).
Or, he could just realize the only true way to keep her safe is for him to break up with her, like Spidey did in the Raimi and Webb films.
Barring that, his best bet is to follow Bruce Wayne's lead and firmly commit to bachelorhood.
Supporting Rescue armor is sexist? Come on, man. That's ridiculous and you know it. Pepper can be as mentally and emotionally strong as she can possibly be. None of that matters when someone is shooting at you and trying to blow up your house.
OKAY, I've posted links to the full size 600 psi scans of the armor wall off the Assemblers toy package in the offical photos section
I completely fail to see how a man giving the woman he loves a method to help defend herself if/when the **** hits the fan is sexist.
But anyway, I like the package image, hope the 'wine cellar' looks something like that.
I fail to see how those of us arguing *against* the Rescue armor are "sexist," too, but hey, as long as people are blindly throwing that label at us and hoping it'll stick, I'm going to lob it right back at 'em.
That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen. How is it sexist to give Pepper a means of protection when Tony knows damn well that she is in danger? When it comes to terrorists launching all-out assaults against their shared home, neither she nor Tony can handle things themselves without some technology to assist them. Tony has his armor, but what does Pepper have?
As I said above, being a strong woman does not make her bulletproof or immune to harm from rockets, explosions, etc. Pepper is a human being, just as Tony is, and as such is physically vulnerable just as he is without his armor. Acknowledging that vulnerability and mitigating it does not make Pepper weak; on the contrary, it strengthens her by preventing her from becoming a victim or a pawn. Stating that giving her armor is sexist is nonsense when in fact not giving her some form of protection would be downright negligent on Tony's part. Pepper is smart and resourceful, no doubt about that, but those traits won't prevent her from being killed when missiles are being fired at her. Armor will, and it might be enough to keep her out of the proverbial fridge.
Most major global corporations provide security details for their top executives, male and female, because the threat of kidnapping and assassination is very real. Executives and their relatives have been kidnapped and killed even here in the US by run-of-the-mill criminals as well as organized groups. (One of the Coors founders comes to mind, as do Patty Hearst, a Getty heir and an Exxon exec.)
Would you argue that Tony was being sexist if he provided those standard security measures for Pepper? If so, why; if not, what is the real difference between that and giving her armor? To me, giving Pepper armor is different from giving her armed guards only in form, not in substance.
End this discussion! NOW!
are the women on this board now being called sexists?
they put up with too much s**t to deal with that kinda nonsense
just because a couple lonely dudes don't like the idea of a superhero protecting his normal human loved ones in a proactive way, that doesn't weaken the characters
My girlfriend's a strong chick who could beat the crap outta me, but when she heads to the ghetto, I still make sure she carries a knife
Maybe you're referring to someone else, Sam, but I'm not one who thinks an argument against it is sexist either. That's equally ridiculous. If you think Pepper should be able to fend off cosmic baddies by herself, that's fine. I disagree with you--kind of a lot--but i'm not going to try to make you out to be a misogynist over it.
She wouldn't be flying around wearing a security detail, shrieking & blasting aliens & joining the Avengers.
I for one hope to not see Rescue but the end of Gwen/Pepper in this film.
this is bloody brilliant! the discussion is won!
My vote for post of the week right there
um so your argument is basically now "that's the way it's always been done, and that's the way it should remain... predictable and the same"
it's not sexist to not want to see Pepper in the Rescue armor... it's sexist to think that it's perfectly fine for a strong man to have a suit of armor to protect himself, but when it comes to the person he loves most.. he's "just going to let her determination and personal strength" shield her from missiles. , nope, gotta have her man do it for her