THE PREMISE IS A CROCK !!!!!
-
info-4857 — 18 years ago(January 19, 2008 01:31 PM)
I've never been in the military and I'm just an average joe from the UK but I fully agree with you. I don't know the logistics behind it but a womans physical frame is incapable of doing some of the things I can do in the gym, never mind humping a pack full of sh!t up a large hill.
In tests of strength a woman against a man is like a teenage boy against a man they may be quick and fast but one good hit and it's over that's tragic and sad but a total fact. It's why most womens martial arts are designed for a quick strike to the nut or nerve point and then flee, never jab, cross, hook.
My girlfriend had a hard time fighting off one of my mates when he's pinning her down and the guys stick thin. We just have more muscle to the frame an stronger muscle at that.
It really comes down to is there a point? I find a lot of women do stuff simply to prove a point.
Still it's a fun concept for a film though and I guess you take it with a pinch of salt. -
pgrass13 — 18 years ago(March 01, 2008 09:39 PM)
I agree in a sense. Although I have known women who an copmete on a level with men. I was on a coed soccer team in high school and some of the girls were better than a lot of the guys.
Same thing we do every night try to take over the world -
ashes_to_autumn — 17 years ago(March 24, 2009 12:09 PM)
Most people on this thread, and many commenting on the film in general, seem to be missing the point that this film, and associated feminist arguments, are trying to make. People should be judged on their qualities and traits alone rather than simply their gender, or whatever qualities and traits their gender implies. It is NOT logical to say that most women cannot compete with most men on a physical level therefore women should not be aloud to partake in physical activities such as the armed forces or SOF. It IS logical to say that if a woman (OR MAN) cannot demonstrate the physical qualities and traits necessary for such things then they should not be aloud to partake in them, for reasons of political correctness or otherwise. The problem that male characters in the film have with Demi Moore's character is based on the former, flawed, categorical, backward logic: Women are generally not capable of joining the SOF, O'Neil is a woman, therefore she is not capable. If no woman has ever done such a thing, it does not mean that no woman can or ever will. The category of sex is simply too vast to base such assumptions on. It is similar as saying 'no man will ever connect with his child as well as its mother': there is biological basis for it, but it no categorical link involved such as in a true statement like 'no man can give birth'.
Therefore it is not unrealistic for O'Neil to cope with the training seen on-screen, for its is presented as being very unlikely, as it is in reality: that is why the premise is intriguing. Most films are based on unlikelihoods; a film presenting the likely events of general reality as exactly experienced in real life would be completely uninteresting. This is part of the reason the term and concept 'realism' is redundant.
O'Neil does not 'win' against the Master Chief in terms of a physical contest. She gets in a few good hits, but only has any real advantage at all once she has the morale backing of the rest of the trainess and demonstrates her adequacy by retaining her physical and mental strength: thus meaning Master Chief has no further reaosn to master her physically (which clearly he could, easily, if he really wanted to).