A certain Natalie Wilson, writing for Ms. Magazine, does an laughably inane and politically correct
of Iron Man 2.
What's not so funny is that this woman is a professor teaching other women, indoctrinating others in both Gender-Feminist twaddle and perpetuating absolutely abominable critical thinking skills. This will soon become evidently apparent.
with my critique, but after calling Ms. Wilson out on two salient points in the article, my comment was deep-sized by the moderator. That kind of cowardice makes me cranky, so excuse my snark when it rears its head, but I think you'll see I've got more than my share of valid points.
It’s right there in the title: Iron MAN, not meaning “human” but male.
Right. Sexism detected right in the title of the movie.
How DARE they not title the movie Iron Human! Or Iron Person! Or Iron Carbon Based Life Form of Indeterminate Gender!!
Hey, based on this logic, why isn't it then sexist to call it "Woman's Studies" and not "Human Studies"?
As I sat watching the movie with my 13-year-old son (and cringing at the overt sexualization of females),
I bet your son was not cringing at the females, unless of course you have been programming him to feel dirty and sexist for being heterosexual.
I could do a lot of dissecting what "overt sexualization" means to Ms. Wilson, but I think we'll get an idea below.
I just hope the poor kid got to enjoy his damn movie without being lectured on sexism afterwards.
I realized that Iron Man 2 is about the glory of males, the fact they are indeed “iron” and that, with their strength and ingenuity, the world will be saved.
Well, gosh. I obviously misjudged Ms. Wilson. She actually does seem to get the gist and concept of the film, and that she appreciates the role of males in society. I'm a bit of a pre-judging pig I am.
A number of other significant gender lessons are imparted in the film.
Uh-oh...
First, on men and masculinity:
1. Men don’t cry, they scream, as Ivan (played by Mickey Rourke) does when his dad dies.
Actually, Ivan (Mickey Rourke) did both, granted more the latter than the former, but right at the start we get our first warning sign that Ms. Wilson is not really paying attention to the film she is reviewing, but will merely be using it as the whipping boy on which she can flog various pet issues.
Oh, but thanks Natalie for judging someone else on the way they display emotional trauma.
2. Men like power tools, technology, welding and weapons. Talking, not so much.
Correct, correct, correct, and correct on the first four.
Talking to YOU, a humorless, tiresome, liberal gender-feminist scold? Yes, probably not so much. Guilty.
Too harsh?
Well, consider the rest of this woman's article before you judge, but I've got some personal experience with the type so I feel justified.
I was once out with a small group of friends in college, one of whom was a young woman who was deep in the Woman's Studies realm of academia. We knew each other already, had been friendly, and there was some attraction there, but in the course of the conversation, she asked me something along the lines of, "Have things been tough?" in regards to my week.
Laughing and congenially, I replied, "Lady, you don't know the half of it!" I thereupon received a cold look and an admonition about using a colloquial, sexist term when addressing her.
"My name is X," she lectured me, miffed.
Needless to say, the rest of the night was spent talking to other people, as I had no desire to be chided for being sexist for using a harmless turn-of-phrase. It was the first time I had direct experience with the grievance mining mind-set of the gender-feminist, of which Ms. Wilson is evidently not only a practitioner, but also instructor.
3. Men are big wheels and lone gunmen. They may say, “It’s not all about me,” as Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey, Jr.) does at the beginning of the film, but, really, it is.
Yes, in both mythos and real life, heroes tend to be stand-outs, and often have to go beyond the safe limits where other men fear to tread. Kind of part and parsel of the whole Hero thing, particularly in literature.
Female heroes often do the same. If everyone acted like a hero, the term would be meaningless.
Oh, and we all know woman are never of the “its all about me” attitude…(insert your own snort here).
Anyway, the mere fact that Tony Stark actually puts his ass on the line (and considerable amounts of his cash) to help others in his Iron Man persona is lost on Wilson. Either that, or it does not count, because of his Neo-Imperialist Tendencies, blah-blah-blah.
Is Stark a bit of a egoist, dare I say an ego monster?
Shure nuff!
But that is part of his character, and it still does not change the fact that he makes it "more than about him" with his actions.
4. Men need to leave a legacy and build a better future
I am not sure why Wilson has a beef here. What's wrong with leaving a legacy and building a better future? Is that not a good thing, the kind of thing liberals are always telling us they are trying to do, "Build a better world"?
Its called civilization, Ms. Wilson. Bask in its glory…
The best way to do this is via weapons, wealth and womanizing.
Oh, okay, so we see maybe the real issues. It's the wrong kind of legacy. Let's examine this...
In regards to weapons... they win wars against oppressors and fascists, so they are kind of useful. Other ways of achieving legacy are possible, but Tony’s found his niche, building weapons to kill bad guys. Why can’t we appreciate his achievement in finding his life’s calling and talent?
Oh, and Tony ALSO builds a totally new form of energy production, which seems to be pretty carbon neutral, so one assumes Wilson would be okay with THAT, but it receives no mention.
Wealth helps pay for all this civilization we mentioned earlier, and allow for societies where woman can make a living writing shallow, polemic movie reviews and teaching false premises for a living instead of toiling in fields or carving up dead animals for dinner.
Wealth also pays for all those social programs liberals are always haranguing us to fund, but wealth needs people to create it, something too many liberals don’t seem to get nowadays.
In regards to “womanizing”…
There's a lot to dissect with this topic, but I'll stick to one tack right now, which is personal
peeve of mine...
HEY! Natalie!
How about respecting male heterosexuality as much as everyone else’s sexuality gets respected nowadays? Do homosexual men get crap from you for “manizing”? No, I did not think so.
Heterosexual men LIKE woman. We like to have sex with woman, and despite what you deny to yourself, most woman like to have sex with men. Somehow, the latter is okay now, no shame or regrets, but the former is some sort of patriarchal master plan of objectification and subjugation.
Blogger SQT, a woman, does a pretty nice job summing up the double standard here:
"Here's the thing. Modern feminism is schizophrenic. One one hand, women want to have the freedom to behave like sexual predators-- in the vein of "Sex in the City" -- with no repercussions. Shows like "Cougar Town" celebrate the single woman as someone who can pounce on young men as if it's no big deal. And don't even get me started on the reality-television culture that makes celebrities out of women like Paris Hilton who are famous precisely because of their aggressive sexuality. How are men supposed to view women when this has become the norm? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that Ms. Magazine understands that you can't behave like Paris Hilton and expect to be treated like Mother Teresa. Let's face it, "Iron Man 2" is more accurate in it's portrayal of the women likely to throw themselves at Tony Stark than Ms. Magazine would like to admit."
Read the whole thing, as they say.
5. Men’s hatred of women is cute and humorous–or as one blogger puts it, “Tony Stark’s privileged sexist playboy antics are hilarious,” teaching viewers that “Men’s sexism is funny and endearing, as is their greed.”
How is Tony Stark hateful of woman? How is he sexist? Because he desires beautiful woman, and wants to have sex with them? Because he's successful at it?
See Point #4 above again.
Its called biology. Look it up.
Why is it okay to encourage woman to be sexually adventurous and “go for it” okay, but not okay for men to play the field?
Again, some respect for OUR sexuality, dammit!
6. Men are fabulous at business–so fabulous that they can successfully privatize world peace.
Many men are fabulous at business; this is something odd? Something tells me Wilson has problems with anyone fabulous at business, ie, because of their “greed”.
BTW, just out of curiosity, IF world peace could be achieved through privatizing it, would liberals prefer war and strife? One wonders.
7. Real men (aka Tony Stark) think the “liberal agenda” is boring.
It is boring, and more than just “real men” think so. Many real women think so, too.
It used to be amusing to point it out, but now the lack of deep thought it often displays is tedious.
That's partly because much of liberalism has been discredited as either being unrealistic and/or a cynical deception for other agendas.
It's also because liberals tend to be harping bores who demand certain behaviors out of others which they don’t seem obligated to follow themselves, Ie, Global warming nags who have multi-multi-million dollars homes and private jets.
Wilson's article is a decent example of why, which is why I am Fisking it.
Look, I have liberal friends and have read some liberals who are entertaining and provoke serious thought, raising good points even though I disagree with them. Sometimes they get me to re-examine an issue, which is as it should be.
However, I find too much of liberal 'thought' is not really thought at all, but regurgitation ideological talking points. They simply assume that they "think the right way" so anything that comes out of their mouth or keyboards must be right. This piece from Wilson if rife with that kind of entitlement as she uses worn cliches and mile wide holes in her arguments, and completely ignores the facts in many cases.
Oh, and "real men" may be so contemptuous and scornful of the liberal agenda because so many liberals like Wilson are contemptuous and scornful of them.
8. Men will always need to be in the theatre of war. As such, they might as well turn their bodies into weapons.
Well, as long as war exists, this seems pretty obvious. If you question this, then who will be in the theatre of war? Woman only? Dogs?
And men have turned their bodies into weapons since the very first time they developed martial arts, through the development of armor, tanks, aircraft, and beyond. Your contention that this is something new here is wonderfully baffling.
Tony Stark/Iron Man is basically a 21st century knight, running around in wonderfully upgraded plate mail.
Many World War II fighter pilots talk about how the really great pilots seem to fuse with their aircraft, literally becoming one with their machine.
How is this a concept worthy of derision?
9. In fact, the male body is a weapon.
Well, Bruce Lee seemed to think so. So did millions of people in Asia who learned and taught how to fight and kill people with just their bare hands. How dare you not respect their cultural history. And you call yourself a liberal!!
BTW, the female body is also shown to be quite a weapon in the movie, ANOTHER point Ms. Wilson ignores in order to make hers.
Literally, figuratively, metaphorically. Man is iron. Or, as Andrew O’Hehir’s naming of the Iron Man suit as “impenetrable iron-dong costume” in his Salon review suggests, the iron suit allows for the fulfillment of the male body not only as weapon but as walking erection–hard and ready all the time.
Question: wouldn’t an “impenetrable iron” costume be really uncomfortable with a hard-on?
Being impenetrable, would it not keep Stark from getting some "action" with the ladies?
Does this in fact mean Iron Man 2 is a statement about the emasculating nature of modern technology?
See how fun it and easy is to create "themes" and "subtexts" out of whole cloth?
Secondly, on females and femininity (these lessons are longer, you see, because females need a lot of teaching):
Hey, YOU said it, not me!
- Women are for dancing, either around poles or on stage as props. Wherever they are dancing, they should be scantily clad. Note to cameraman: Shoot women dancers from behind so as to get maximum amount of booty shots, as in the opening scene of Iron Man 2 where our gaze is directed to numerous bent-over butts in red spandex hot pants. As O’Herir points out in his Salon review, there is “no irony” in these “loving, loop-the-loop tracking shots of these dancin’ hoochie-mamas with their spray-bronzed legs and perfect Spandex asses.” Rather it is, as this blogger aptly names it, “a vomit-inducingly sexist scene involving various swooping close-ups of womens’ body parts as they gyrate.”
Women are NOT for dancing? Well, best tell Twyla Tharp and all those ballerinas to sit the %&* down, then. Sexist sell-outs!
BTW, if someone REALLY feels vomit building in their throat viewing womens' body parts (assuming they are still attached to the women) it seems Wilson's blogger friend is the one with problems with women and their sexuality. This kind of hyperbolic outrage, intended to instill indignant rage, merely makes me want to roll my eyes.
What's becoming clear, here, is that when people have their noses to their ideological grindstones, its hard to see much else.
This, of course, totally ignores the strong roles of woman as more than just T and A in the movie, like Pepper, who is a smart, capable and somewhat wiser and more mature than Tony businesswoman. Ditto for the Scarlett Johannsen’s character, Natalie Rushman , but more on her later.
This also AGAIN goes back to point #4 before about respecting the sexuality of men, who, please forgive us, find attractive women and their various parts, attractive.
2. Women are objects. When Tony is shown his new car, he makes a joke about the woman standing next to the vehicle: “Does she come with the car?” In other words, women, like cars, should be sleek, good looking, fast and expendable. Tony assesses new female character Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson) using the same parameters: Her intelligence, multi-lingual skills and martial arts training don’t seem to matter;
Okay, wait, I am confused…
I thought the movie only thought woman were for dancing around poles or being props, that it only was interested in them as body parts. Wilson just got through telling me this, but now we have her citing a female character’s intelligence as well as impressive language and combat skills.
Sorry, now matter how you feel about gender issues, feminism or Iron Man 2, this is SLOPPY thinking, and writing. Bad, BAD academic!
"Wait," you say, "She only meant how Tony viewed woman!"
Read on...
he uses Google to find her old modeling pictures. As Froley of ReelThinker notes, she is put “in her underwear just for the hell of it” and her character is no more than a “near-cameo.” This incites Froley to assume that director “Jon Favreau must be some kind of chauvinist dog, because he takes every opportunity to objectify women.”
Just so we're clear, she's indicting the whole movie and the director with the sexist attitude, not just the character of Tony Stark.
See, Ms. Wilson, trying to pay attention to character and plot might be useful here, except if maybe it would tend to undermine your woman’s studies talking points.
As Wilson herself points out, Tony Stark IS a bit of a womanizer.
That’s PART OF HIS CHARACTER.
If I could point out story-telling 101 to you, characters have traits, and those traits make them unique, and also propel the story as those traits determine how a character reacts to unfolding events. Some of these traits are strengths, and some are weakness, and they will have varying effects on our hero’s tale. We call this PLOT.
Now, far from being an opportunity to simply objectify women, this scene is actually part of the plot. Let’s see if we can apply two seconds of thought to figure this out.
(SPOILERS FOLLOW):
S.H.I.E.L.D., the super-secret agency, wants to spy on Tony Stark to see if he is A) suitable for recruitment, or B) a potential threat to American Security. To spy, you need a spy, and preferably one in his company, and the BEST spy would be one that has day-to-day interaction with him. So, how do they accomplish this?
Well, they get a S.H.I.E.L.D agent planted in the Stark organization, and knowing what kind of guy Stark is, they exploit one of his weaknesses, which is he has a eye for the ladies and sometimes thinks with his “iron-dong”. So, they send in Romanov, who is extremely attractive, and then to make sure they get Tony to swallow the bait, they put pictures of her online that displays all of her “visual attributes”. In short, they know Tony Stark, his weaknesses and how to exploit them to get close to him.
See how that works? What looks like simple exploitation is actually something meant to propel the story along. We call this a PLOT DEVICE.
Also, in that sense, the womanizing of which Wilson is not fond, is actually portrayed negatively, as a weakness, by the film she so wants to hate for praising womanizing.
Wilson might have seen this for herself had she not been so intent on seeing rampant sexism and misogyny everywhere she looked.
3. Women need to have good make-up know-how. Both Stark’s assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Natalie are not only beautifully made-up themselves, but also have the skills to mask Tony’s various bumps and bruises with foundation. This skill, along with their ability to take precarious, mincing steps on incredibly high heels, frames femininity as a performance that benefits males.
I, quite frankly, don’t know exactly *what* point Wilson is trying to make here, but it seems to contradict numerous facts in the movie, and herself, AGAIN. I could parse this part out, but I have got to move on.
4. Women’s most important asset is their bodies. Even when they are in full-on battle mode, they should remain hyper-vigilant about their bodily display. They don’t get to wear “iron man” suits, but really tight body suits. What fun would it be if their boobs and butts were hidden under metal?
Okay, sorry to be a picker of nits here for a sec, but EVERYONE’S most important asset is their body, as we all tend to live in them. They allow us to exist, and enjoy life. Sorry to have to point this out, but this is a poorly worded sentence which relies on us to have certain pre-conceived notions so “we get it”. Sorry, homey don’t play that.
Anyway, what I think Wilson meant is that woman are valued for their bodies above all else by sexist pigs like Tony Stark, Jon Favreau, America, the western world, all men, etc.
Really big topic, too big to get into here, but let’s be honest.
Here’s where the woman’s studies crowd are going to get crazed, but yes, ladies, while your body is perhaps not your most important asset as an individual, it does rank up there when it comes to male interest.
Again, the hetero male sexuality, biology thing. Don’t blame us. We were born this way, like homosexuals, except, you know, digging women.
Part of it is that men are programmed by biology to appreciate and desire the female form, part of it is the acknowledgement that woman bring forth life, our children. Aesthetically, we just think the female form is fascinating and objectively beautiful, something me and a bi-sexual date once both agreed on heartily.
So, yea, guilty as charged. Woman's bodies are a major asset for them, something which most women acknowledge and use, whether they admit or not. Blame nature, though, not western civilization or a freakin’ comic book movie.
5. Women are petty and jealous. Make fun of their jealousy by telling them “green doesn’t look good on you,” as Tony says to Pepper when his ogling of Natalie is obviously bothering her.
Again, take your umbrage as you will, but most men, and many woman, will admit that woman can be pretty petty and jealous when it comes to other woman, particularly went it involves a man.
Many men are also jealous when it comes to their woman as well, but something tells me you would not have a problem with someone putting this into a movie or casual conversation, probably because it would highlight how much men think of woman as possessions and add grist for your mill.
6. The female body is weak. Pepper, after being saved by Tony near the end of Iron Man 2, says “I quit…My body can’t take this stress.” After two hours of watching Tony’s body take bullets, bombs, electric shocks and poisoning, we hear that poor Pepper can’t take the stress–of being a CEO for a week.
If Wilson had any real appreciation of the affect of the female body on the average male, she would know that first sentence to be unbelievably laughable. But, she's a woman, so I'll give her mostly a pass.
In any event, this is directly contradicted by her own descriptions above, as well as the movie:
“Her (Romanov) intelligence, multi-lingual skills and martial arts training don’t seem to matter;”
So, which is it? Are all the woman in IM2 portrayed in as weak eye-candy props, or NOT, Ms. Wilson?
We, in fact, see Romanov as being far from weak in her scenes, and is in fact tougher than any of them men without any of their technical props.
So, is that a sexist message that women are stronger than men without their powered toys?
Funny how Wilson did not see it that way.
Regarding Pepper, if Wilson had bothered to pay attention to the movie, her stress comes from more than being CEO, but also being baby-sitter to Tony whom she is in love with, but who seems to be on a self-destructive streak and is making her job more of a pain in the ass.
7. Women are very forgiving. Ignore her, lie to her, bring her the one food she is allergic to as a gift and make it known that you are a lifelong womanizer: None of that will matter as long as you kiss her at the right moment.
Again, this is a much larger conversation, involving both realistic sexual dynamics and politics, and elements of comedy which would make it more tedious than its worth.
Anyone want to debate this one is a seperate topic, let me know.
But I'd like to point out how Pepper walks out on Stark when he tries to charm his way into her good graces half-way through the movie.
as Kyle Smith gleefully notes, “The Gwyneth Paltrow character is comfortable with being Tony Stark’s assistant instead of judo-chopping and blasting away at bad guys herself, in the somewhat silly manner of virtually every female lead in action movies these days.” Yes, it’s soooo silly when we act as if females want to be part of the action! As one blogger put it, “If I were Gwyneth Paltrow and I just played the role of a stiletto-heel-wearing submissive secretary cleaning up after some rich white chauvinist asshole, I’d send back my Oscar.”
1) Paltrow's character Pepper is made CEO of the freakin' company, and is not just his "assistant" or a submissive secretary
2) She IS involved in an action scene where she helps save Tony
3) The Romanov character is a BIG part of the action and she's a WOMAN
4) Did Wilson pay attention to ANY part of the movie?
We see several parts of the grievance mill agenda here with the" rich white chauvinist asshole" comment. Ms. Wilson, having spent all that time and education and making a career about being politically correct and liberally conscious, displays her bona fides to her fellow travelers.
Make no mistake. For Ms. Wilson, "rich" and "white" are as much epithets as "chauvinist" and "asshole". It's all part of the oppressive white Imperialist oligarchy, much like the Boy Scouts of America which she describes in the comments as:
"The Boy Scouts is indeed more than homophobic — in fact it started as a way to teach white youth about their duties to empire and to inculcate them into idea colonization was both good and necessary."
Oy, VEY!
You see what I am talking about, here?
Finally, the film provides lessons in racism and homophobia:
- Tony Stark explains his desire to no longer making weapons with, “I saw Americans killed by my own weapons in Afghanistan! I can’t put it better than this blogger: “Do I even need to mention how stupid and racist it is to say that he was OK with his weapons being used to kill all those other non-Americans?”
Yeah, see, this is not racism, you dim-witted slacktard...
Man, even while trying to slander and villify someone, left wingers are slackers in thought.
"American" is NOT a race, you freakin' geniuses! "Non-Americans" is also NOT a race, and considering as a catagory it would include ALL races on the planet, it's a ridiculous use of the word, making absolutely no sense in this context. YET, its worthy of quotation.
If you want to be an INTELLIGENT policitically-correct nimrod, it would be best be called "nationalistic" in its most pejorative sense, if you were wont to go there, or maybe "jingoistic". But racism does not even fit here. Jeez...and you dare use the word "stupid" to describe other people?
And "stupid", how? Unless one is of the “war is never the answer, ever” crowd.
Weapons are not SUPPOSED to kill those on YOUR side. Does that really need an explanation?
Yes, I guess it does, because besides all the typical tired tropes (remember why liberalism is boring?) about sexism, racism, etc., we have this idea that we are all one great big family on this planet who can all get along if we just sat down and got to know each other.
Over 5,000 years of history says different, but what does the collective experience of humankind know.
- In this same vein, as noted in my earlier post, various Others are framed as “evil terrorists,” namely Middle Easterners and North Koreans.
Okay, so it should be obvious by now that this is not really a review of Iron Man 2, but an opportunity for Ms. Wilson to do a commentary on the entire present day world, or more like it, regurgitate AGAIN all the left-wing tropes about Imperialism, American racism, etc.
I was going to do the whole "there ARE others you are evil terrorists, no scare quotes. The kind of people who, oh, stone woman to death for dishonoring their family, or who rape woman systematically because they are of different faith" thing.
But, as Ms. Wilson might say about her gender-feminist viewpoint, you either "get" the presence of evil or at least terrorism in the world, just by paying attention, or you don't.
Ms. Wilson has made it abundantly clear that she does not pay attention to even a movie she's supposed to review, so how solid would her take on current events and history?
2. Black actors are exchangeable. Swap Don Cheadle (Iron Man 2) for Terrence Howard (Iron Man 1). No one will notice.
This is simply idiotic and at this point Wilson is truly pulling things out of her ass in order to make sure she props up all her absurd liberal talking points.
So, let me get this straight, Favreau, by keeping a black character, but having a different actor play him, is performing some sort of super-secret sign conveying contempt of black people without actually getting them out of his movie entirely? So, does this make Don Cheadle an Uncle Tom for playing along? I’d love to see Wilson call Cheadle that to his face.
This is one of the things I called Wilson out on at the website when my comment was tanked. She admitted, when confronted by someone else with fact that it was a contract dispute of some sort, that she was be wrong. Good.
But then I asked; "WHERE did you get this idea what it was based on racism, except to pull it out of thin air to fit your agenda."
There is absolutely NOTHING but the feverish workings of the liberal mind to support that claim of racism here. She just made it because she is used to making all sorts of BS claims and not being challenged by them. Again, lazy thinking.
- Organizations which discriminate against homosexuals deserve huge donations. In the sequel, Tony donates a modern art collection, which Pepper has collected over 10 years, to the Boy Scouts of America.
Wow! I did NOT think you could pull the homophobia angle out of the tired tropes closet, but I underestimated you. You DO have talent, Ms. Wilson.
Question is, is she upset so much about a donation to a "homophobic organization", or that a rich guy could even have the ability to give away his own wealth as he sees fit.
The Boy Scouts were concerned that homosexual scout leaders left alone with groups of boys would create potential for abuse.
MANY feminists believe all men are potential rapists, and seek to punish them pro-actively for it.
Can't wait for for Ms. Wilson to denounce "heterophobia" in her ranks.
Bonus note:
Oh, yes, PLEASE! This whole thing has been so fascinating and valuable, please give us one little tidbit more of your wisdom, Ms. Wilson!
The sexist message of the Iron Man films spills off the screen and into our fast-food culture, with Burger King offering “four lifestyle accessories for girls and four action-packed toys for boys.” Girls, get busy accessorizing! Boys, take action!
Oh, come on! Are you serious? You write for Ms. Magazine! How many articles on fashion every month as opposed to building a shed?
How many ads for makeup of clothes grace your pages as opposed to power tools or sporting equipment?
POT. KETTLE. BLACK. YOU.
If you have a beef with women being a little too obsessed with fashion, then you need to perhaps to indict your entire sex, and maybe not lay it all on the lap of a freakin' comic book.
Or, maybe give women a break too, relax, and realize that while everyone is an individual, there just might be some common traits among a group of people of a common gender.
For this feminist, one thing’s certain: I won’t be stepping out in my non-high heels in order to see the sure-to-follow Iron Man 3.
We’ll be happy as it will mean that you won’t be writing another mindless piece of trash like this, so we’re both winners.
Notice how she makes sure to mention she does not wear high-heels by the way, because she's not going to be objectified by The Man! Or is it The Men!
So, there you have it. As good an example as illustrating the intellectual bankruptcy of the left. A woman who is a professor at a college who cannot put together a cohesive and logical MOVIE REVIEW.
And as good a reason for me to NOT pay for my daughter's college tuition if she plans to major in "Woman's Studies".
As much fun as I had with this, there is a tragic, TRAGIC side of this, and we're all paying the price.
