The Walking Dead; 3.08 "Made to Suffer" (open spoilers)

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Shark Sandwich

I got the impression that up until this episode, we were supposed to see the Governor as "kinda crazy." The killing of his daughter and having his eye skewered has advanced that to "full-blown batshit crazy."

The Governor is not crazy. He's evil. He's savvy enough to hide his wickedness, true enough, but he's evil nonetheless.

[DigitalC]

Yeah, kidnapping Glen and Maggie and torturing them. Then wanting to kill their crew not to take over the safety of the prison but just because, i dunno because fuck them i guess? was already pretty indicative of the Governors insanity or evilness.

[Feyrat]

Originally Posted by Face Intentionally Left Blank

It's safe to say she aggravates everyone as much as she does the viewer.

I think you should avoid generalizations. Michonne actually doesn't aggravate me as much as a lot of the other characters.

Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ

Michonne should have told Lori that the Gov sent his men after her to kill her after she left and that she had now hooked up with Rick and his group. And mentioning that Carl and Maggie had been taken hostage by Merle wouldn't have hurt either. Silence is your best option to a point, but she should have shown her hand.

THIS did bug me though. C'mon. I'm totally fine with her not talking to strangers, but she spent 8 months with Andrea and there's some odd, almost romantic tension between the two of them. She couldn't say "turn your head, he's keeping live zombie heads in aquariums, and a little zombie girl in a straitjacket!" I mean, the Governor's explanation after the fact may have soothed Andrea's fears, but Michonne could have taken advantage of that moment of shock and horror to put him down before he could do that.

I'm just grateful beyond measure that Michonne and the Governor's backs-and-forths weren't what happened in the comics. That would have been my last episode :P

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Lost proved that the key to a successful TV show is making sure your characters never communicate in any sort of vaguely reasonable way with other characters.

Ugh, it is going there, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Human Action

And a thoroughly unpleasant person: whiny, entitled, arrogant, demanding, promiscuous...

The fuck? Two guys in a year is promiscuous?

As to her sleeping only with powerful alpha males - so what? How nice a world do you think women are going to have in the zombie apocalypse? Most of the breeding-age females will be rape-and-baby-bait at best. We've already heard of it happening once, and we've been staying pretty closely to our one tiny group of survivors. The safest thing a healthy woman could possibly do in this situation is 1) learn how to shoot and keep a gun on her and 2) make sure the most powerful men have a vested interest in preventing her from being gangraped. It is what it is.

What is isn't is promiscuous.

Originally Posted by Human Action

Agreed, that scene was sloppy, in that they cranked up the zombie-sounds, then had Michonne be surprised to find a zombie. It made her look pretty stupid.

I didn't hear zombie noises, just rattling from the door.

Originally Posted by Human Action

So you are upset that I was too inclusive in a list of negative character traits possessed by a fictional character? My mistake.

No, because it's a bullshit sexist comment.

Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer

I thought the use of the word "terrorist" was odd, too. "Intruders" would have been the one that came to my mind.

The Governor seems to be taking a propagandist playbook to heart. I'm not at all surprised he'd use a word like that - very loaded to Americans - to describe the people who broke into a calm, secure and green-lawns settlement and started killing people.

Originally Posted by Human Action

I read it that zombie Penny did respond to the music and/or her father's voice, but once she noticed the meat, she was a mindless zombie again. But I am eager for signs of sentience from the zombies, so I need to rewatch that scene to make sure my take can be justified.

I actually thought that scene was an awful fail. The little girl actress wasn't selling the whole zombie thing at all. And the Governor's face was easily within reach. Why fixate on a bowl of meat with a live face that close? She didn't even lunge at him. If anything would "prove" she had some mind left, to me it's the fact she didn't react to him at all.

Originally Posted by Human Action

Agreed, it might happen, but it won't strike me as believeable if it does. And if The Governor has no intention of moving Woodbury to the prison, why is he so fixated on it? Just stamping out potential competition? I had thought he might take a chosen handful of residents and abandon the rest of Woodbury to move to the prison full-time, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Probably because the prison group IS an actual threat. I mean, they managed to break in with 4 people, break two of their own people out of a guarded group, killed several of the Woodbury people, and then made it out unscathed. They wouldn't have even lost Daryl if he hadn't gone (apparently) looking for Merle.

[SenorBeef]

I rewatched the scene, there are definitely zombie noises although not full on attack loud zombie noises, more like idle vaguely choking zombie noises. Enough that someone experienced in walking among them would notice. Even if not, she could've talked to the girl and asked for a response, or even just kept her chained up and pulled the hood off at max distance. If we're trying to portray Michone as a world-weary badass, it's pretty silly for her to do what she did even without the sounds.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Feyrat

<snip>
The Governor seems to be taking a propagandist playbook to heart. I'm not at all surprised he'd use a word like that - very loaded to Americans - to describe the people who broke into a calm, secure and green-lawns settlement and started killing people.<snip>

Good point. He's making his citizens all good and propagandized.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by DigitalC

Yeah, kidnapping Glen and Maggie and torturing them. Then wanting to kill their crew not to take over the safety of the prison but just because, i dunno because fuck them i guess? was already pretty indicative of the Governors insanity or evilness.

Actually, my point was that the Governor's actions do not generally seem purposeless, delusional, or irrational; rather, they are selfish, callous,and designed to consolidate and increase his hold on power, and to bring him pleasure regardless of the cost to others. Evil.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Well we know that the helicopter pilot's head was one of them, and he was alive when it was cut off presumably.

Why would the pilot have been alive when they cut his head off? I highly doubt that's how it went down.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

Why would the pilot have been alive when they cut his head off? I highly doubt that's how it went down.

I think the point is "Not a zombie when taken."

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

Why would the pilot have been alive when they cut his head off? I highly doubt that's how it went down.

Well I meant that he wasn't a zombie. He was in the infirmary or whatever injured, but still human, the last time we saw him. Then his head was in a fish tank. So what I was saying is that his head wasn't a zombie head, it was a human head. It wasn't a trophy from a zombie kill, but a human one. So yeah, evil.

edit: simulpost. Yeah what he said.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Elmer J. Fudd

Another thing that occurs to me about the Axle character is that he's been written to be an ironic counterpoint to Carl...

I fear for Axel's safetly once Carl starts to pick up on his interest in Beth. Carl wouldn't even need to kill him himself; one little false accusation and Carol would kill him without a second thought.

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

It's ridiculous because of the obvious zombie sounds playing when that happened, which is why it makes the character look stupid. The scene clearly called for silence. I have a hard time believing the writer actually called for the zombie sound (which ruins the suspense, since we're expecting Michone to figure it out before she gets in danger), so I suspect the sound guys were being dumb.

Michonne had several, conflicting clues. Yes, Penny was changed up in a cage & there some odd sounds. She was also wearing clean clothes, there were toys insight, and probally smells heavily of perfume. It's not hard to believe she mistook Penny for a living child at all. Hell we know she could've been flashing back to her own childhood memories.

Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom

I thought her zombies were related to her? Not that it was stated out loud but I thought that was the impression we were supposed to get. So yeah count me in as another who didn't get her whole OMG how horrible reaction to the Governor keeping his zombie daughter chained up.

There's been nothing onscreen to suggest she knew her zombie pets; she destroyed them without hesitation the moment they became a liability. In the comics...

SPOILER:

...one was her boyfriend, the other his best friend.

Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ

Was I the only one laughing at how quickly Carl offered to put a bullet in the other kids mom's head?

Yeah, that was pretty funny. You know Carl was probally thinking something like "What a wus, he can't even watch someone hell put his mother down."

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

Actually, my point was that the Governor's actions do not generally seem purposeless, delusional, or irrational; rather, they are selfish, callous,and designed to consolidate and increase his hold on power, and to bring him pleasure regardless of the cost to others. Evil.

Agreed. And I think the Governor isn't doing this for purely selfish reasons; he genuinely believes his actions are what's best for Woodbury & his leadership is the only thing keeping them safe. Don't get me wrong; he is an extremist, and he's making some pretty torturous rationalizations.

[Feyrat]

Did anyone else notice that the Governor's gauze eyepatch was clean when he started talking, but bloodstained on the bottom by the time he finished, as if he'd started oozing. I thought that was a nice touch by the costume/makeup folks!

[Furious_Marmot]

At the risk of doing further damage to suspension of disbelief, how painful/incapacitating is an injury like that, IRL? It looks absolutely awful and I think I'd still be laying on the floor screaming while the Gov is stalking around giving speeches. Leaving aside infection, would the trauma have been life-threatening?

[Elmer J. Fudd]

Originally Posted by Furious_Marmot

At the risk of doing further damage to suspension of disbelief, how painful/incapacitating is an injury like that, IRL? It looks absolutely awful and I think I'd still be laying on the floor screaming while the Gov is stalking around giving speeches. Leaving aside infection, would the trauma have been life-threatening?

I've had a severe eye injury and the ER put a drop of something in there that took the pain level from a 10 to a 0 in less than a second. As useful as they are, eyes are not vital organs.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Well I meant that he wasn't a zombie. He was in the infirmary or whatever injured, but still human, the last time we saw him. Then his head was in a fish tank. So what I was saying is that his head wasn't a zombie head, it was a human head. It wasn't a trophy from a zombie kill, but a human one. So yeah, evil.

edit: simulpost. Yeah what he said.

It was not a human head, it was a zombie head because everyone turns into a zombie when they die.

The only possible way it wasn't a zombie head is if they did enough brain trauma to prevent coming back as a zombie, which would have killed him before they lopped the head off anyway.

I see no way they took the head off while he was alive.

[Elmer J. Fudd]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

There's been nothing onscreen to suggest she knew her zombie pets.

That sugestion was made by Andrea and Michonne didn't dispute it.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

I see no way they took the head off while he was alive.

I think you're missing the salient point. The Governor took a perfectly healthy (okay injured) human being, murdered him and took his head as a trophy. Nobody's arguing that the dude was literally alive when they cut his head off. Just that he was made dead either by the Governor's hand or on his orders.

[Ellis Dee]

It goes without saying that the governor had him killed.

I'm confused why people don't think it was a zombie head, though.

EDIT: What I mean is, I saw no obvious head trauma on the pilot head, and I saw other aquarium heads moving their mouths, so I assume the pilot head was also a zombie head.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

I'm confused why people don't think it was a zombie head, though.

EDIT: What I mean is, I saw no obvious head trauma on the pilot head, and I saw other aquarium heads moving their mouths, so I assume the pilot head was also a zombie head.

Nobody thinks that it wasn't a zombie head. Perhaps some posters could have more carefully chosen their words but nobody is arguing that the head wasn't a zombie. They simply meant that the head was removed from a person that was murdered rather than removed from some zombie they found.

[obfusciatrist]

And decapitation may well have been the method of killing him meaning the head wasn't a zombie head until after it was just a head.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Feyrat

<snip>
The Governor seems to be taking a propagandist playbook to heart. I'm not at all surprised he'd use a word like that - very loaded to Americans - to describe the people who broke into a calm, secure and green-lawns settlement and started killing people.
<snip>

I was thinking about this some more, and I realized why his use of the word terrorists bothered me so much - it indicates that they were innocent victims of bad people, which we know was far from the truth - the Prison Gang wouldn't have been there at all if Merle and the Governor hadn't kidnapped and tortured Glenn and Maggie. His people in Woodbury don't know what a piece of crap he is, but we do. I guess part of his reasons for using the word terrorists was to stop anyone from questioning why those big, bad men were showing up and messing with them.

[Critical1]

I havent noticed anyone mention this yet, in the last ep the Gov had a pretty serious hard on for Michonnes head and sword, Merle had to lie about both being lost.
those heads are trophies.

[Baker]

Originally Posted by Critical1

I havent noticed anyone mention this yet, in the last ep the Gov had a pretty serious hard on for Michonnes head and sword, Merle had to lie about both being lost.
those heads are trophies.

I think you've hit the nail on the head!

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by SenorBerf

The more I think about it, the more I think the Epic Climactic Mid-season finale battle could've been great but ended up being stupid...They should've either emphasized the previous theme of our group = hardened, woodbury = soft, or at least had our people come up with a clever plan using their initiatve.

We got a little bit of that theme with Glenn manufacturing weapons from the bones of a walker, but it went unaddressed in the rest of the mission. I think a running, mobile gunfight would have worked best. Under fire, the Woodbury people could have sought cover, as people do, while the bolder, more reckless prison group could have outpaced them and escaped.

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

They would've showed our group to be both clever, explained how a small group could take on bigger numbers, and used their environment better if instead of smoke grenades they used teargas, and they used the gas masks from the prison. It could've even been fairly organized and planned rather than the ad-hoc "throw smoke on the road and stand on it" plan that we actually saw.

Teargas would have been much better, but it would have meant having the main cast wear masks for much of their screentime. Remember the SWAT armor from episode 102, "Guts", which was used once and then discarded forever? Same problem. The show always chooses ease of filming over realism or storytelling.

Originally Posted by Soylent Juicy

You'd think that Michonne would WANT Andrea on her side and against The Governer and that she'd want to expose Andrea to what a psycho the Gov. really is. Instead she just scowled and took off. What the hell.

Originally Posted by Feyrat

I'm totally fine with her not talking to strangers, but she spent 8 months with Andrea and there's some odd, almost romantic tension between the two of them. She couldn't say "turn your head, he's keeping live zombie heads in aquariums, and a little zombie girl in a straitjacket!" I mean, the Governor's explanation after the fact may have soothed Andrea's fears, but Michonne could have taken advantage of that moment of shock and horror to put him down before he could do that.

I think there's three ways to take that scene. 1. Michonne is more plot device than character, and keeping Andrea uninformed and on The Governor's side serves the plot. 2. Michonne no longer wants Andrea on her side, and returned to Woodbury purely for revenge on The Governor. 3. Michonne believes that Andrea should trust her without the need for evidence or explanation.

Originally Posted by DigitalC

Having some hope left that there might some day be a cure or that there might be something human left in them doesn't really strike me as all that horrible either though.

I have to agree. Keeping Penny in and of itself is not evidence that The Governor is crazy or evil, I think it's a pretty understandable response, and he's taken due care to make sure she's not a threat to anyone.

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Keeping your daughter alive because you think a part of her might be in there is actually a bigger dick move. You have to think that A) part of your daughter's mind is in there somewhere but that B) she's undergoing a horror beyond comprehension, forced to live in this horrible state, having something else control you, your body rotting while you're traped inside...

Perhaps; but not enough is known about zombie-ism to speculate as to what their inner life might be like. It might involve suffering, but it might not. And The Governor is in a unique position that Herschel wasn't: he has a scientist of some kind working on zombie research, finding a cure or at least a treatment isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Originally Posted by Shark Sandwich

I got the impression that up until this episode, we were supposed to see the Governor as "kinda crazy." The killing of his daughter and having his eye skewered has advanced that to "full-blown batshit crazy."

Keeping his daughter around was an indicator of hope for the future, just as Woodbury itself is. Losing that hope forever would naturally harden someone.

Originally Posted by Feyrat

The fuck? Two guys in a year is promiscuous?

Originally Posted by Feyrat

No, because it's a bullshit sexist comment.

Already addressed.

Originally Posted by Feyrat

As to her sleeping only with powerful alpha males - so what? How nice a world do you think women are going to have in the zombie apocalypse? Most of the breeding-age females will be rape-and-baby-bait at best. We've already heard of it happening once, and we've been staying pretty closely to our one tiny group of survivors. The safest thing a healthy woman could possibly do in this situation is 1) learn how to shoot and keep a gun on her and 2) make sure the most powerful men have a vested interest in preventing her from being gangraped. It is what it is.

Women should use their sexuality to manipulate men into protecting and providing for them? That's sexist.

Originally Posted by Feyrat

Probably because the prison group IS an actual threat. I mean, they managed to break in with 4 people, break two of their own people out of a guarded group, killed several of the Woodbury people, and then made it out unscathed. They wouldn't have even lost Daryl if he hadn't gone (apparently) looking for Merle.

True, but that was a rescue mission to free two captives that The Governor's operative brought in. Woodbury has created its own threat.

[Fubaya]

Man shoots woman over Walking Dead argument: http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/c...ment-1.4289872


Alright, which one of you was it?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Human Action

And a thoroughly unpleasant person: whiny, entitled, arrogant, demanding, promiscuous...

She has a great ass, though.

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by Fubaya

Man shoots woman over Walking Dead argument: http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/c...ment-1.4289872

Alright, which one of you was it?

Seems it was an arguement about the plausibility of the premise, not nitpicking the show itself:

Originally Posted by Linked Article

"I just know that he felt very adamant that there could be some type of military mishap that would result in some sort of virus or something being released that could cause terrible things to happen," Cote said.

Gelderman, Cote said, thought her boyfriend's belief was absurd.

"She felt that it was ridiculous," Cote said.

So I think we're in the clear.

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

She has a great ass, though.

I was surprised to learn that Laurie Holden was 42, I'll say that. It's hard to think of a reason The Governor was so attracted to her other than her being a main character, though.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Michonne's reaction to Penny is influenced in part by the paricular concern she has for children. She took the formula to the prison, and was shown having a long and meaningful look at the baby through the bars of the door. She wasn't offended by the Governor's treatment of a walker, but was disappointed and shocked that it wasn't a live child under the hood.

In that sense, if she had seen the child first rather than hearing zombie noises, I would forgive them having her miss obvious cues that something was wrong.

The sound effects for that scene were even messed up before then. She was initially drawn to that room by a noise that was clealy a thumping on a wooden door. Penny couldn't have made the noise on her metal grate, so what was bumping the door?

[Feyrat]

Originally Posted by Human Action

Women should use their sexuality to manipulate men into protecting and providing for them? That's sexist.

Should, no. That would be the world a woman lives in though.

I firmly believe the only reason that women have any rights and safety is through the civilization laws we live under. That's not even true in most of the world. And even in this country, these fun statistics.

Maybe it's ok as a male to pretend that women would continue to be treated as people and not chattel if society collapsed, but I certainly don't believe it.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Feyrat

Should, no. That would be the world a woman lives in though.

I firmly believe the only reason that women have any rights and safety is through the civilization laws we live under. That's not even true in most of the world. And even in this country, these fun statistics.

Maybe it's ok as a male to pretend that women would continue to be treated as people and not chattel if society collapsed, but I certainly don't believe it.

Society doesn't need to collapse, really. In our civilized military, woman are treated as chattel.

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by Feyrat

Should, no. That would be the world a woman lives in though.

If I may steer things toward TWD, you are stating that Andrea's relationships with Shane and The Governor, both being "alpha male" types, were deliberate choices on her part to ensure that she was protected, above all other concerns. And that other women should pursue this course in TWD's world. Correct?

Do you feel that the show is conforming to your ideas about how women should use their sexuality in an apocalypse scenario? That is, are Maggie, Carol, Beth, the late Lori, and the other female characters acting as they should?

Originally Posted by Acsenray

In our civilized military, woman are treated as chattel.

Can you elaborate on this? "Chattel" literally means "movable personal property", so I'm not following you.

[Feyrat]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Society doesn't need to collapse, really. In our civilized military, woman are treated as chattel.

That's kinda my point. It already teeters on a knife's edge. If anyone thinks it wouldn't IMMEDIATELY overturn, they're hopeless optimists.

Originally Posted by Human Action

If I may steer things toward TWD, you are stating that Andrea's relationships with Shane and The Governor, both being "alpha male" types, were deliberate choices on her part to ensure that she was protected, above all other concerns. And that other women should pursue this course in TWD's world. Correct?

No, and I think you're being deliberately disingenuous. I have been speaking about TWD - and by extension, the logical and realistic result, for women, of any post-apocalyptic scenario.

Women are currently often attracted to strong alpha males with a lot of power and prestige, who may or may not treat them, or anyone else, very well. It isn't deliberate, it's innate. Not all women are like this (I've personally never been attracted to an alpha male myself) but enough are that Andrea's actions should be utterly unsurprising. They are typical enough that they raise no eyebrows.

What raises eyebrows is someone slut-shaming a woman in her situation.

But do you honestly believe that a human being (male or female) should not pursue a course to make sure one's own life is as protected as one can possibly ensure it is?

Originally Posted by Human Action

Do you feel that the show is conforming to your ideas about how women should use their sexuality in an apocalypse scenario? That is, are Maggie, Carol, Beth, the late Lori, and the other female characters acting as they should?

I'm not the one slapping labels like "should" on Andrea's actions. You are, by calling her promiscuous. I'm saying her actions - and frankly those of Maggie, Carol, Beth and Lori - are entirely understandable and reasonable within the framework of the mini-society and the macro-situation they are living in.

Originally Posted by Human Action

Can you elaborate on this? "Chattel" literally means "movable personal property", so I'm not following you.

Yes. It does. So you've followed me just fine.

[Human Action]

Ok, for clarity's sake, I'm devoting this post to this tangent:

Originally Posted by Feyrat

Maybe it's ok as a male to pretend that women would continue to be treated as people and not chattel if society collapsed, but I certainly don't believe it.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Society doesn't need to collapse, really. In our civilized military, woman are treated as chattel.

Originally Posted by Human Action

Can you elaborate on this? "Chattel" literally means "movable personal property", so I'm not following you.

Originally Posted by Feyrat

Yes. It does. So you've followed me just fine.

I was addressing Acsenray's remark about women in our military being treated as chattel, i.e. personal property. That's a rather bold statement, so I was asking for clarification.

[Acsenray]

Have you been following the news? Women in the military are basically free game for sexual assault by their compatriots. That has the whiff of chattelry about it.

[Human Action]

Moving on to the main points. It looks like there are three discussions here:

1. Should a woman in an apocalypse scenario use her sexuality to ensure that powerful men will protect her (among other methods, such as arming herself)?

This is inferred from this post:

Originally Posted by Feyrat

As to her sleeping only with powerful alpha males - so what? How nice a world do you think women are going to have in the zombie apocalypse? Most of the breeding-age females will be rape-and-baby-bait at best. We've already heard of it happening once, and we've been staying pretty closely to our one tiny group of survivors. The safest thing a healthy woman could possibly do in this situation is 1) learn how to shoot and keep a gun on her and 2) make sure the most powerful men have a vested interest in preventing her from being gangraped. It is what it is. What is isn't is promiscuous.

2. Is Andrea carrying out this practice? I say she most likely is, you seem to disagree, per:

Originally Posted by Feyrat

Women are currently often attracted to strong alpha males with a lot of power and prestige, who may or may not treat them, or anyone else, very well. It isn't deliberate, it's innate. Not all women are like this (I've personally never been attracted to an alpha male myself) but enough are that Andrea's actions should be utterly unsurprising. They are typical enough that they raise no eyebrows.

3. In an apocalypse, would women be reduced to chattel and rape victims? You seem pretty clear on this one:

Originally Posted by Feyrat

Maybe it's ok as a male to pretend that women would continue to be treated as people and not chattel if society collapsed, but I certainly don't believe it.

Originally Posted by Feyrat

It already teeters on a knife's edge. If anyone thinks it wouldn't IMMEDIATELY overturn, they're hopeless optimists.

I think you overstate things, especially on the "immediately" part. Women in the TWD scenario have two great assets: over 200 million firearms in circulation, and a culture that treats women as equals. These are advantages that women who are oppressed elsewhere do not have.

Lastly:

Originally Posted by Feyrat

But do you honestly believe that a human being (male or female) should not pursue a course to make sure one's own life is as protected as one can possibly ensure it is?

Certainly one should try and protect one's own life, but not above all other concerns.

[Feyrat]

Originally Posted by Human Action

I think you overstate things, especially on the "immediately" part. Women in the TWD scenario have two great assets: over 200 million firearms in circulation, and a culture that treats women as equals. These are advantages that women who are oppressed elsewhere do not have.

You're adorable. Go back to that link I posted.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

The Governor is not crazy. He's evil.

Can't he be both, like the zombie Earl Warren?

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by Feyrat

You're adorable. Go back to that link I posted.

This one? I read it when you posted it. Yes, sexual assaults occur. I didn't think that was in dispute. But 207,754 assaults in a year, in a nation of 314 million, doesn't indicate that a meaningful number of American men are just a zombie attack away from becoming rapists.

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Can't he be both, like the zombie Earl Warren?

Earl Warren wasn't a zombie!

[Furious_Marmot]

Originally Posted by Human Action

Certainly one should try and protect one's own life, but not above all other concerns.

This is the second time you've expressed this opinion in this thread. I am genuinely curious what concerns should have priority over self preservation and whether this is a personal standard or one that you expect all right-thinking people to adhere to. IOW, the difference between "I think it's best to put on my pants starting with the left leg". vs. "One should put on one's pants starting with the left leg.".

Again, just interested about the underpinnings of the position.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Human Action

Earl Warren wasn't a zombie!

Now who's being eaten?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Human Action

1. Should a woman in an apocalypse scenario use her sexuality to ensure that powerful men will protect her (among other methods, such as arming herself)?

I'd just like to point out that this also is not correctly identified by the word "promiscuous."

[wheresmymind]

Originally Posted by Human Action

That's another question I had, are we meant to take Andrea as being competent? She insists that warning residents is beneath her and that she should be in the thick of the fighting (and blows off her assigned duties to do so)...is she meant to be a fool, or to be underestamated by others?

She's definitely a go-getter, anxious to be in the thick of things, not wanting to sit on the sidelines. I think that much is obvious. And I think that while she is competent now, it's in her nature to bite off more than she can chew or rush into things, perhaps to show those around her how tough or competent she is. I seem to remember in the first season she had her gun, but didn't really know how to use it. She eventually got some training, but then was so anxious to show off her new skills that she almost blew Daryl's brains out, after being told specifically not to take the shot. By the season 2 finale she was a very proficient fighter, and we saw her kicking some serious ass before she met Michonne. But then when she manned the wall in Woodbury, she broke Rule #1 within 5 minutes when she jumped from the wall and stabbed the zombie, as if to say "Silly little girl. Let me show you how it's done!" when she was the one who was being trained. Then we have the latest example, in which the Gov gives her a specific and important job, which she abandons. It wasn't even a lame "babysitting" job, as the Gov pointed out the infiltrators could be hiding out anywhere, possibly with hostages at that very moment. Her job was as much search-and-destroy as it was babysitting. Yet she refused anything that wasn't in the heat of the main battle.

So I think that her character is very capable, and willing to learn to improve, but unwilling to accept her limitations or orders/advice from others, and she has a need to prove herself to those around her. What was the dynamic between her and her father and sister that was revealed on the fishing boat in the quarry way back in Season 1? Was she always trying to seek approval or get his attention? Because that would go a long way in explaining her current behavior.

[Bryan Ekers]

Yeah, that, or it's just another drawn-out audience-tease, trying to put Andrea as close as possible to Rick and company without ever actually being able to recognize them.

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Now who's being eaten?

Ha! Good stuff.

Originally Posted by Furious Marmot

This is the second time you've expressed this opinion in this thread. I am genuinely curious what concerns should have priority over self preservation and whether this is a personal standard or one that you expect all right-thinking people to adhere to. IOW, the difference between "I think it's best to put on my pants starting with the left leg". vs. "One should put on one's pants starting with the left leg.".

Again, just interested about the underpinnings of the position.

Sure!

Self preservation is morally limited, as all things are, by the rights of others. That's the essence of it, right there.

Now, what those limits are, and what the rights of others are, is of course very subjective. As well, the variety of factual circumstances that might confront a moral agent is nearly infinite. In my view, you do not have the right to take or endanger others' lives (without their consent, of course) to preserve your own, nor may you deprive them of their property. This part is the one that I expect all right-thinking people to adhere to: a person may only be harmed by another in very narrow circumstances: immediate self-defense against that person's aggression, or subsequent to the due process of law. In the event that said due process has been suspended, as in The Walking Dead, then each person much follow a code of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt until due process can be restored.

The "personal standard" stuff is much less important to me, precisely because it is personal: moral stances, as opposed to a moral imperative. For example, someone might reasonably decide to starve to death rather than cannibalize a fallen companion. Someone else might face danger rather than have sex with a potential protector, purely for the sake of that protection. And so forth.

I hope that answers your question, if you want more detail, I can provide it.

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by Human Action

1. Should a woman in an apocalypse scenario use her sexuality to ensure that powerful men will protect her (among other methods, such as arming herself)?

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I'd just like to point out that this also is not correctly identified by the word "promiscuous."

I agree, this is a side-discussion that originated in this post:

Originally Posted by wheresmymind

Like many, I disagree with the notion that Andrea is particularly "promiscuous," however one defines that word. When she shacked up with the Governor it didn't seem like she was jumping into bed particularly quickly, but what did strike me was that she managed to jump into bed with the ruler of the whole town, who also appeared to already have a girlfriend. If you ask me, her love life has proven her to be opportunistic and ambitious more than promiscuous. I've been waiting for the Gov's old girlfriend (the tour guide from their first day in Woodbury) to make another appearance. She can't be too happy about being kicked out of bed by the new girl!

I replied thusly:

Originally Posted by Human Action

That's a good point, she certainly has a thing for powerful, immoral men. "Opportunistic and ambitious" is about right. The show does spend a fair amount of time on the characters' sexual lives, so they are fair game for analysis. I think Andrea's speaks to being a bad person, when accompanied by her other flaws.

Feyrat then wrote:

Originally Posted by Feyrat

As to her sleeping only with powerful alpha males - so what? How nice a world do you think women are going to have in the zombie apocalypse? Most of the breeding-age females will be rape-and-baby-bait at best. We've already heard of it happening once, and we've been staying pretty closely to our one tiny group of survivors. The safest thing a healthy woman could possibly do in this situation is 1) learn how to shoot and keep a gun on her and 2) make sure the most powerful men have a vested interest in preventing her from being gangraped. It is what it is. What is isn't is promiscuous.

Which continued the side-discussion.

[chinchalinchin]

Originally Posted by Human Action

Certainly one should try and protect one's own life, but not above all other concerns.

And people like that will be the first to go when the zombie apocalypse comes a-knocking. No judgement; just saying.

[Human Action]

Originally Posted by wheresmymind

She's definitely a go-getter, anxious to be in the thick of things, not wanting to sit on the sidelines. I think that much is obvious. And I think that while she is competent now, it's in her nature to bite off more than she can chew or rush into things, perhaps to show those around her how tough or competent she is. I seem to remember in the first season she had her gun, but didn't really know how to use it. She eventually got some training, but then was so anxious to show off her new skills that she almost blew Daryl's brains out, after being told specifically not to take the shot. By the season 2 finale she was a very proficient fighter, and we saw her kicking some serious ass before she met Michonne. But then when she manned the wall in Woodbury, she broke Rule #1 within 5 minutes when she jumped from the wall and stabbed the zombie, as if to say "Silly little girl. Let me show you how it's done!" when she was the one who was being trained. Then we have the latest example, in which the Gov gives her a specific and important job, which she abandons. It wasn't even a lame "babysitting" job, as the Gov pointed out the infiltrators could be hiding out anywhere, possibly with hostages at that very moment. Her job was as much search-and-destroy as it was babysitting. Yet she refused anything that wasn't in the heat of the main battle.

So I think that her character is very capable, and willing to learn to improve, but unwilling to accept her limitations or orders/advice from others, and she has a need to prove herself to those around her.

I think that's pretty spot-on. I listed the negative traits I observed in Andrea in an earlier post, but physical courage and a desire for self-improvement are certainly positive traits she posseses.

Her main failing, the one that causes her to blunder and endanger others, is the need you mention to impress and be approved of and respected by others, with particular emphasis on her self-reliance and martial prowess. This need actually undermines her self-reliance though, when so much of what she does is done for the sake of others' opinions.

Originally Posted by wheresmymind

What was the dynamic between her and her father and sister that was revealed on the fishing boat in the quarry way back in Season 1? Was she always trying to seek approval or get his attention? Because that would go a long way in explaining her current behavior.

Amy and Andrea realized that their father had given them strict rules about fishing (knots and such), but that the rules were different for each daughter. Their conclusion was that Andrea needed to catch the fish, and Amy needed to let them go. The rule they shared was "no crying in the boat, it scares the fish." The women proceeded to cry anyway, and Andrea noted "I think it was more for Dad than the fish." That's episode 104, "Vatos."

Originally Posted by chinchalinchin

And people like that will be the first to go when the zombie apocalypse comes a-knocking. No judgement; just saying.

That would be a dysgenic effect, then. You may be right, at least in the short term, but I think people capable of peaceful cooperation for mutual benefit would ultimately triumph; not much different from our society today: those who harm others tend to have negative outcomes.

[Furious_Marmot]

Originally Posted by Human Action

In my view, you do not have the right to take or endanger others' lives (without their consent, of course) to preserve your own, nor may you deprive them of their property. This part is the one that I expect all right-thinking people to adhere to: a person may only be harmed by another in very narrow circumstances: immediate self-defense against that person's aggression, or subsequent to the due process of law.

So, it is permitted to kill someone only to defend yourself against that person. No human shields or premeptive "you ain't from around here" murders. That sounds pretty much like the way modern civilization already works.

But your philosophy seems to hold that it would be immoral to steal in self-defense against anything except aggression by the person you are stealing from. So, one should submit to being eaten by a grizzly bear instead of momentarily grabbing then returning a shotgun out of a stranger's cabin. Or one should freeze to death instead of taking a winter coat hung outside a cabin, even though one could return it the next morning when it warms up.

Am I close?

[Push You Down]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

I fear for Axel's safetly once Carl starts to pick up on his interest in Beth. Carl wouldn't even need to kill him himself; one little false accusation and Carol would kill him without a second thought.

I think Carl has far more to worry about with the more age-appropirate teenage boy who just showed up.

[Furious_Marmot]

Originally Posted by Push You Down

I think Carl has far more to worry about with the more age-appropirate teenage boy who just showed up.

Considering their differing levels of tolerance for violence, new boy has more to worry about.

[chinchalinchin]

Originally Posted by Human Action

That would be a dysgenic effect, then. You may be right, at least in the short term, but I think people capable of peaceful cooperation for mutual benefit would ultimately triumph; not much different from our society today: those who harm others tend to have negative outcomes.

Maybe in fairy tales. In the context of the show, the Governor slaughtered an entire outfit of soldiers (dumb scene, I'll grant you, but ignore that for a second). Out come: More supplies. No negative outcome. You could make the case the Governor is a villain and will thus be dealt with accordingly by the plot, but that's just a plot contrivance and doesn't reflect the actual mechanics of a world in which the zombie apocalypse has happened; something I think the show at least tries to stay true to.

Before I go on, let's just buy wholesale into the idea of a zombie apocalypse. The military has been overrun, civilization collapsed, yadda yadda yadda.

A new external force, the zombie apocalypse, has changed the dynamics of society. It's like those simulations that model fox and rabbit populations with differential equations. They exhibit stable equilibrium as long as the rabbits reproduce enough, but if the foxes reproduction rate suddenly goes sky high (or the rabbits get, I dunno, AIDS or something), the equilibrium becomes unstable and the foxes eat all the rabbits. In this analogy, people who cooperate, expect the best of people and are unwilling to compromise their morality would be the 'rabbits' and the people who go on marauding missions to rape and pillage would be the 'foxes'. The relative infrequency of groups in the Zed Apocalypse doesn't allow the 'rabbits' to flourish since their life spans do not give them to opportunity reproduce and pass down their values to a new generation, while the foxes get way more opportunities to propagate their seed whether through rape (as was mentioned in 'Nebraska' in Season 2) or through being the alpha male (How many women do you think the Governor is/has porking/porked? To our knowledge, at least two. But being honest, he probably has the pick of the litter as far as mates go).

Furthermore, the 'rabbits' are not necessarily doomed to stay 'rabbits'. It's pure game theory. If the majority of people are 'foxes', the only way not to get eaten is to become one. I don't think dysgenics is the proper term for it since that implies the traits being selected are disadvantageous. In the given enviroment, they are totally advantageous, at least for survival.