And therein lies the contradiction. On one hand you talk about the merits of accurately reflecting the serious issues and attitudes of the time period and on the other you're happy to turn a blind eye when it plays fast and loose with the accuracy of those issues. Each to their own I guess.
I never said I objected to inaccuracies. I was just responding to a poster who seemed to be saying that the accuracies were objectionable! I don't find the accuracies objectionalbe but I'm happy for a certain level of fantasy because, after all, it's the Marvel Comics Universe not the real Universe!
It wasn't clear to the poster I responded to, and sure, it appears to be accurate in the context of its comic book premise...but that's not what the particular discussion was about.
I thought that was exactly what the discussion was about. It seemed like you were objecting to that scene on the basis of its lack of reality and the fact that it was "juvenile". Personally, I didn't think it was that unrealistic given who Peggy Carter was, nor would I personally class it as juvenile.
It certainly didn't occur to me that you were talking about it beng unrealistic in the context of some generic woman as opposed to who or what Peggy actually was. I don't really understand how that comparison would have been relevant to anything
It certainly didn't occur to me that you were talking about it beng unrealistic in the context of some generic woman as opposed to who or what Peggy actually was. I don't really understand how that comparison would have been relevant to anything
Exactly my thought as well Thrombin. How was what "random woman on the street might or might not have been able to do" at all relevant to a scene involving a female secret agent with advanced defence skills.
I never said I objected to inaccuracies. I was just responding to a poster who seemed to be saying that the accuracies were objectionable! I don't find the accuracies objectionalbe but I'm happy for a certain level of fantasy because, after all, it's the Marvel Comics Universe not the real Universe!
I thought that was exactly what the discussion was about. It seemed like you were objecting to that scene on the basis of its lack of reality and the fact that it was "juvenile". Personally, I didn't think it was that unrealistic given who Peggy Carter was, nor would I personally class it as juvenile.
It certainly didn't occur to me that you were talking about it beng unrealistic in the context of some generic woman as opposed to who or what Peggy actually was. I don't really understand how that comparison would have been relevant to anything
I never said you objected to the inaccuracies, you did however on principale appear to have no objection to others commenting on the inaccuracies. As you wrote here earlier:
The period is the point of the show. It's what makes it different to other shows. In my opinion you can legitimately criticise the show for when it doesn't reflect the period but not for when it does!
Following directly on from that I specifically made the point of saying it was unrealistic because had a woman of that period acted the way Carter did in that scenario the outcome would have been, sadly, very different.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who compares and judges everything with HBO type shows in terms of tone, seriousness, etc. I'm more than capable of contextualising and managing my expectations. I know exactly this where this show comes from and I appreciate its tone is in line with that universe. That doesn't mean people can't make critical observations, and even if making critical observations, it doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad show.
I never said you objected to the inaccuracies, you did however on principale appear to have no objection to others commenting on the inaccuracies. As you wrote here earlier:
I have no objection to it but that doesn't mean I don't reserve the right to disagree with it
To be honest, I think we've just been talking at cross purposes.
The main thrust of my argument was to the other poster that I thought it bizarre to criticize something for things that made it more accurate.
When I said period setting was an important part of the show I meant in comparison to other shows of the genre. You still expect the hero/heroine to be extraordinary and atypical but the backdrop of the setting is what sets it apart from similar shows so I'm happy for things that make it more authentic to accentuate what makes the show different.
When you said you thought that what Carter did was not in keeping with the period I assumed that you meant that for someone in Carter's position it was inaccurate for the period. I think what you actually meant was that it was deterimental to the period feel because it's not something a normal woman of the time would do.
To which I say, I think there's a difference between portraying a circumstance that woudl be atypical for the period but reasonable given the person involved and portraying modern accents or anachronistic female-emancipated work places for which there could be no explanation and which, IMO. would hurt the suspension of disbelief in a much bigger way.
I have no objection to it but that doesn't mean I don't reserve the right to disagree with it
To be honest, I think we've just been talking at cross purposes.
The main thrust of my argument was to the other poster that I thought it bizarre to criticize something for things that made it more accurate.
And the sexism was one of those things. My point was that the sexism was not accurately portrayed for reasons already given (and given again below)
When you said you thought that what Carter did was not in keeping with the period I assumed that you meant that for someone in Carter's position it was inaccurate for the period. I think what you actually meant was that it was deterimental to the period feel because it's not something a normal woman of the time would do.
Nope that's not what I meant. I wrote what I meant. I said that if a woman had challenged and threatened a man the way Carter did, the woman would have come out of the situation worse of. I made no coment with regards to whether women of that period would behave in such a manner or not. In fact, some women did try to stand up for themselves when faced with sexism and bullying. However when they did try to do so they were often just laughed at and dismissed. If they behaved in a threatning manner (as portrayed in the episode) they would have been beaten and arrested, the man's word would be taken as fact, witnesses or not. As satisfying a scene it may have been to the audience, it was an inaccurate depiction of how a situation like that would have played out in real life at the time, had a woman threatened a man like that in real life.
And the sexism was one of those things. My point was that the sexism was not accurately portrayed for reasons already given (and given again below)
Nope that's not what I meant. I wrote what I meant. I said that if a woman had challenged and threatened a man the way Carter did, the woman would have come out of the situation worse of. I made no coment with regards to whether women of that period would behave in such a manner or not. In fact, some women did try to stand up for themselves when faced with sexism and bullying.
However when they did try to do so they were often just laughed at and dismissed. If they behaved in a threatning manner (as portrayed in the episode) they would have been beaten and arrested, the man's word would be taken as fact, witnesses or not. As satisfying a scene it may have been to the audience, it was an inaccurate depiction of how a situation like that would have played out in real life at the time, had a woman threatened a man like that in real life.
But all of that is utterly irrelevant as the show isn't depicting the behaviour of "any woman". That's the point myself, and I believe Thrombin, have been trying to make.
You absolutely cannot say for certain that that situation would not have happened as it did on screen, no-one can make that kind of definitive statement.
It may have been unlikely but to say it would not/could not have happened is simply untrue, especially given the circumstances of the storyline they were telling - highly trained female secret agent is able to warn off cowardly, overweight bully.
"A woman" isn't likely to have done it in the first place. The fact Carter did is because she's Agent Carter.
But all of that is utterly irrelevant as the show isn't depicting the behaviour of "any woman". That's the point myself, and I believe Thrombin, have been trying to make.
It is wholly relevant to the specific conversation that was taken place with regards to the accuracy of the show's portray of the sexist attitudes of the time period.
You absolutely cannot say for certain that that situation would not have happened as it did on screen, no-one can make that kind of definitive statement.
What a disturbing and ignorant thing to post. I can say that because I know historical fact. Women were in fact beaten up for standing up to male bullies, women were in fact locked up for threatening to use a weapon against men (even in self defence). But hey let's just ignore that and pretend it never happened, as long as it gives us a crowd pleasing scene were the protagonist gets her personal victory. It's one thing to enjoy the show whilst fully realising it's playing fast and loose with historical attitudes for narrative purposes, but it's quite another to ignorantly dismiss its historical flaws purely because your really like it. To be honest I thought most people, adults anyway, would be watching on the former basis.
It is wholly relevant to the specific conversation that was taken place with regards to the accuracy of the show's portray of the sexist attitudes of the time period.
You absolutely cannot say for certain that that situation would not have happened as it did on screen, no-one can make that kind of definitive statement.
What a disturbing and ignorant thing to post. I can say that because I know historical fact. Women were in fact beaten up for standing up to male bullies, women were in fact locked up for threatening to to use a weapon against men.
But hey let's just ignore that and pretent it never happened, as long as it gives us a crowd pleasing scene were the protagonist gets her personal victory.
It's one thing to enjoy the show whilst fully realising it's playing fast and loose with historical attitudes for narrative purposes, but it's quite another to ignorantly dismiss its historical flaws purely because your really like it. To be honest I thought most people, adults anyway, would be watching on the former basis.
Did you actually read what I said as it would appear not. Find me where I said NO woman would get beaten up and I'll concede the point.
As that isn't what I said, I will in fact state it yet again - you cannot say for sure that this situation where Agent Carter took action against the customer in the cafe could have never happened at all, which is what you were claiming.
Not that women didn't get beaten up, no-one's ever said anything about that not happening at this period of time. What people, myself included, have said is that this show is depicting the actions of a female secret agent NOT a normal random woman and it was, therefore, not unrealistic for the time period.
Not that women didn't get beaten up, no-one's ever said anything about that not happening at this period of time. What people, myself included, have said is that this show is depicting the actions of a female secret agent NOT a normal random woman and it was, therefore, not unrealistic for the time period.
Yes, I know this, we all know this; but what you keep ignoring is that this particluar discussion is in the context of how accurately it depicts the period. That requires comparison, which is why a generic woman is relevant to the discussion. You either get that or you don't. But, if you want to go one step further and want to compare like for like, i.e. fictional female secret agent vs real life female secret agent...yeah, do you really think a real secret agent (emphasis on secret) would be so stupid to risk drawing attention to herself in such a manner. Even when comparing like for like, her actions were insulting to the intelligence of any real female secret agent that may have been out there.
As satisfying a scene it may have been to the audience, it was an inaccurate depiction of how a situation like that would have played out in real life at the time, had a woman threatened a man like that in real life.
I don't see how you can definitive about that at all, effectively saying no woman would have been able to defend herself.
I don't see how you can definitive about that at all, effectively saying no woman would have been able to defend herself.
I'm saying that in a scenario where a woman stood up to man and threatened him with a weapon, even in self defence, in a general social setting, the likely outcome would not have turned out in her favour, and consequences would have been harsh.
I'm saying that in a scenario where a woman stood up to man and threatened him with a weapon, even in self defence, in a general social setting, the likely outcome would not have turned out in her favour, and consequences would have been harsh.
In a general version of that scenario then yes but in the specific scenario depicted where the confrontation is not open the outcome would depend on the type woman and man.
In any case I don't think anyone claims it's a accurate in terms of historical reality. It's accurate in the comic book context and you agree with that; I have a feeling that that was the point Thrombin was making in his reply to another poster before you put up your first reply to him.
The question is then given it's accurate in the context of the show, why you have an issue/annoyance with it? Would it better to not bother at all to be accurate in context of the premise of the show?
In a general version of that scenario then yes but in the specific scenario depicted where the confrontation is not open the outcome would depend on the type woman and man.
In any case I don't think anyone claims it's a accurate in terms of historical reality. It's accurate in the comic book context and you agree with that; I have a feeling that that was the point Thrombin was making in his reply to another poster before you put up your first reply to him.
The discussion in question was specifically in relation to the accurate historical reflection of the attitudes portrayed on the show.
The question is then given it's accurate in the context of the show, why you have an issue/annoyance with it? Would it better to not bother at all to be accurate in context of the premise of the show?
Ignoring the 'inaccuracies/unrealistic' debate, I don't really care, it was another enjoyable episode and I'm loving Carter and Edwin Jarvis, they have a good on screen chemistry.
Yes, I know this, we all know this; but what you keep ignoring is that this particluar discussion is in the context of how accurately it depicts the period. That requires comparison, which is why a generic woman is relevant to the discussion. You either get that or you don't.
But, if you want to go one step further and want to compare like for like, i.e. fictional female secret agent vs real life female secret agent...yeah, do you really think a real secret agent (emphasis on secret) would be so stupid to risk drawing attention to herself in such a manner. Even when comparing like for like, her actions were insulting to the intelligence of any real female secret agent that may have been out there.
No, it's not a case of getting anything, it's a case of disagreeing with you that it is at all relevant.
The discussion in question was specifically in relation to the accurate historical reflection of the attitudes portrayed on the show.
See post #55 for the answer to that question.
And see my response to that which hasn't changed. I just don't follow your reasoning.
That scene was more than just sexism. It was about a guy being a nasty piece of work bully and about Peggy, the protagonist, showing her spirit and ability to protect a friend and give the bad guys their just desserts.
To dismiss that scene as a misrepresentation of the sexist attitudes of the time and to call it "cheap and disrespectful", just doesn't compute, as far as I'm concerned. I just don't get how you draw that conclusion at all.
There was nothing about that scene, for me, that made me disbelieve the 1940's setting. Whether a normal female of the time would have acted that way or got away with acting that way is entirely irrelevant as it wasn't a normal female. Peggy Carter would have and could have done what she did in 1940's comic-book America and that is entirely fine by me.
The scene, as you say, elevated the protagonist and, as such, I enjoyed it immensely.
And see my response to that which hasn't changed. I just don't follow your reasoning.
That scene was more than just sexism. It was about a guy being a nasty piece of work bully and about Peggy, the protagonist, showing her spirit and ability to protect a friend and give the bad guys their just desserts.
To dismiss that scene as a misrepresentation of the sexist attitudes of the time and to call it "cheap and disrespectful", just doesn't compute, as far as I'm concerned. I just don't get how you draw that conclusion at all.
There was nothing about that scene, for me, that made me disbelieve the 1940's setting. Whether a normal female of the time would have acted that way or got away with acting that way is entirely irrelevant as it wasn't a normal female. Peggy Carter would have and could have done what she did in 1940's comic-book America and that is entirely fine by me.
The scene, as you say, elevated the protagonist and, as such, I enjoyed it immensely.
Hayley Atwell wins epic Marvel Dubsmash war... with a little help from Chris Evans
Fans of ABC's Agent Carter and Agents of SHIELD have been treated to an epic Dubsmash battle involving some of the MCU's biggest TV stars.
Here's what you need to know: Hayley Atwell, James D'Arcy, Chloe Bennett, Clark Gregg and the rest have been firing Dubsmash video across social media in an effort to out-do each other.
I assumed that you objected to people being stupid because you found that difficult to believe or to warm to characters with such low powers of reason.
Nope. It was believable enough, and we're not supposed to warm to those characters. (Which latter is arguably a flaw. To be realistic, they should show the good guys being sexist too.) I didn't like the stupidity because it wasn't fun to watch. It's frustrating and tedious.
Read my post I'm not talking about Carter, I'm talking about what would have happened in real life I'd at that time a women had acted in that manner. The fact that he was a bully suggests he wouldn't think twice about laying into someone he perceived to be weaker than him (remember, not talking Cater).
I disagree. The reason he was able to bully the waitress is that he was the customer. He could hurt her, with words and demands and by withholding a tip, and she couldn't do anything about it. If she complained, she risked getting fired.
Carter's situation was completely different. He had no power over her. He couldn't physically lay into her, because he didn't have that kind of strength. Also, because she had a knife at him. Had he made a fuss, most likely no-one would have believed such a woman would be so violent. At best he'd only publicise his embarrassment. Getting beat up by a girl would be humiliating. Since no-one saw, he'd just slink away so no-one ever knew.
I disagree. The reason he was able to bully the waitress is that he was the customer. He could hurt her, with words and demands and by withholding a tip, and she couldn't do anything about it. If she complained, she risked getting fired.
Carter's situation was completely different. He had no power over her. He couldn't physically lay into her, because he didn't have that kind of strength. Also, because she had a knife at him. Had he made a fuss, most likely no-one would have believed such a woman would be so violent. At best he'd only publicise his embarrassment. Getting beat up by a girl would be humiliating. Since no-one saw, he'd just slink away so no-one ever knew.
I made it clear twice in the post you quoted that I was talking about the likely outcome of such a situation had a woman, not Cater, I'll repeat not Carter, acted in such a way (in direct response to the assertion that the sexism being portrayed was a fair representation of that period). And in such a situation, had a women, not Carter, a woman, threatened the guy wth a knife he would have reacted violently, or indeed run straight to the authorities to have her locked up and they would have believed him. That's the level of sexism that was around at the time, but the episode for its own purposes fell short to portray. What a fuss over such a minor thing!
I made it clear twice in the post you quoted that I was talking about the likely outcome of such a situation had a woman, not Cater, I'll repeat not Carter, acted in such a way (in direct response to the assertion that the sexism being portrayed was a fair representation of that period).
And in such a situation, had a women, not Carter, a woman, threatened the guy wth a knife he would have reacted violently, or indeed run straight to the authorities to have her locked up and they would have believed him. That's the level of sexism that was around at the time, but the episode for its own purposes fell short to portray. What a fuss over such a minor thing!
And, as people have repeatedly said, the sexism being portrayed is being specifically related to a female secret agent operating in a sexist workplace NOT the ordinary woman on the street.
The previous sexism shown - the customer versus the waitress - is perfectly acceptable for the period. Agent Carter's response is perfectly acceptable for a female secret agent, what would have been out of period or a mis-match, would have been if the waitress behaved like Peggy did but that isn't what they showed.
What they were demonstrating was that Peggy Carter is more than capable of sticking up for herself and her friends.
And, as people have repeatedly said, the sexism being portrayed is being specifically related to a female secret agent operating in a sexist workplace NOT the ordinary woman on the street.
The previous sexism shown - the customer versus the waitress - is perfectly acceptable for the period. Agent Carter's response is perfectly acceptable for a female secret agent, what would have been out of period or a mis-match, would have been if the waitress behaved like Peggy did but that isn't what they showed. What they were demonstrating was that Peggy Carter is more than capable of sticking up for herself and her friends.
As I wrote earlier it would be even sillier for a secret agent to act in such a way that would draw attention to herself and jeopardise her whole career - and it would have. Sure, it's great she can stand up to bullies, it allows audience to go "yay you go girl", but it wasn't a realistic outcome, it was purely a crowd pleasing scene. Which is great, and is a reasonable outcome within the context of the show and the universe it's set in, but not quite accurate within the context as being a true representation of what would realistically happened at the time, and it's the latter assertion that started off this silly discussion.
As I wrote earlier it would be even sillier for a secret agent to act in such a way that would draw attention to herself and jeopardise her whole career - and it would have. Sure, it's great she can stand up to bullies, it allows audience to go "yay you go girl", but it wasn't a realistic outcome, it was purely a crowd pleasing scene. Which is great, and is a reasonable outcome within the context of the show and the universe it's set in, but not quite accurate within the context as being a true representation of what would realistically happened at the time, and it's the latter assertion that started off this silly discussion.
I'm not even sure that's true. I'm with Brangdon, if some mad woman holds a knife to your throat and threatens bodily harm if you come back, I don't see how sexism has anything to do with it. It's about the innate cowardice of every bully. Would he really risk getting on the wrong side of her by going to the police? Would anyone believe him? I don't see how the sexism of the period would have changed that scene.
Comments
Yes and it's a depiction of the time period involving a secret agent not random woman off the street.
I never said I objected to inaccuracies. I was just responding to a poster who seemed to be saying that the accuracies were objectionable! I don't find the accuracies objectionalbe but I'm happy for a certain level of fantasy because, after all, it's the Marvel Comics Universe not the real Universe!
I thought that was exactly what the discussion was about. It seemed like you were objecting to that scene on the basis of its lack of reality and the fact that it was "juvenile". Personally, I didn't think it was that unrealistic given who Peggy Carter was, nor would I personally class it as juvenile.
It certainly didn't occur to me that you were talking about it beng unrealistic in the context of some generic woman as opposed to who or what Peggy actually was. I don't really understand how that comparison would have been relevant to anything
Exactly my thought as well Thrombin. How was what "random woman on the street might or might not have been able to do" at all relevant to a scene involving a female secret agent with advanced defence skills.
I never said you objected to the inaccuracies, you did however on principale appear to have no objection to others commenting on the inaccuracies. As you wrote here earlier:
Following directly on from that I specifically made the point of saying it was unrealistic because had a woman of that period acted the way Carter did in that scenario the outcome would have been, sadly, very different.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who compares and judges everything with HBO type shows in terms of tone, seriousness, etc. I'm more than capable of contextualising and managing my expectations. I know exactly this where this show comes from and I appreciate its tone is in line with that universe. That doesn't mean people can't make critical observations, and even if making critical observations, it doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad show.
I have no objection to it but that doesn't mean I don't reserve the right to disagree with it
To be honest, I think we've just been talking at cross purposes.
The main thrust of my argument was to the other poster that I thought it bizarre to criticize something for things that made it more accurate.
When I said period setting was an important part of the show I meant in comparison to other shows of the genre. You still expect the hero/heroine to be extraordinary and atypical but the backdrop of the setting is what sets it apart from similar shows so I'm happy for things that make it more authentic to accentuate what makes the show different.
When you said you thought that what Carter did was not in keeping with the period I assumed that you meant that for someone in Carter's position it was inaccurate for the period. I think what you actually meant was that it was deterimental to the period feel because it's not something a normal woman of the time would do.
To which I say, I think there's a difference between portraying a circumstance that woudl be atypical for the period but reasonable given the person involved and portraying modern accents or anachronistic female-emancipated work places for which there could be no explanation and which, IMO. would hurt the suspension of disbelief in a much bigger way.
Nope that's not what I meant. I wrote what I meant. I said that if a woman had challenged and threatened a man the way Carter did, the woman would have come out of the situation worse of. I made no coment with regards to whether women of that period would behave in such a manner or not. In fact, some women did try to stand up for themselves when faced with sexism and bullying. However when they did try to do so they were often just laughed at and dismissed. If they behaved in a threatning manner (as portrayed in the episode) they would have been beaten and arrested, the man's word would be taken as fact, witnesses or not. As satisfying a scene it may have been to the audience, it was an inaccurate depiction of how a situation like that would have played out in real life at the time, had a woman threatened a man like that in real life.
But all of that is utterly irrelevant as the show isn't depicting the behaviour of "any woman". That's the point myself, and I believe Thrombin, have been trying to make.
You absolutely cannot say for certain that that situation would not have happened as it did on screen, no-one can make that kind of definitive statement.
It may have been unlikely but to say it would not/could not have happened is simply untrue, especially given the circumstances of the storyline they were telling - highly trained female secret agent is able to warn off cowardly, overweight bully.
"A woman" isn't likely to have done it in the first place. The fact Carter did is because she's Agent Carter.
Did you actually read what I said as it would appear not. Find me where I said NO woman would get beaten up and I'll concede the point.
As that isn't what I said, I will in fact state it yet again - you cannot say for sure that this situation where Agent Carter took action against the customer in the cafe could have never happened at all, which is what you were claiming.
Not that women didn't get beaten up, no-one's ever said anything about that not happening at this period of time. What people, myself included, have said is that this show is depicting the actions of a female secret agent NOT a normal random woman and it was, therefore, not unrealistic for the time period.
I don't see how you can definitive about that at all, effectively saying no woman would have been able to defend herself.
In a general version of that scenario then yes but in the specific scenario depicted where the confrontation is not open the outcome would depend on the type woman and man.
In any case I don't think anyone claims it's a accurate in terms of historical reality. It's accurate in the comic book context and you agree with that; I have a feeling that that was the point Thrombin was making in his reply to another poster before you put up your first reply to him.
The question is then given it's accurate in the context of the show, why you have an issue/annoyance with it? Would it better to not bother at all to be accurate in context of the premise of the show?
No, it's not a case of getting anything, it's a case of disagreeing with you that it is at all relevant.
And see my response to that which hasn't changed. I just don't follow your reasoning.
That scene was more than just sexism. It was about a guy being a nasty piece of work bully and about Peggy, the protagonist, showing her spirit and ability to protect a friend and give the bad guys their just desserts.
To dismiss that scene as a misrepresentation of the sexist attitudes of the time and to call it "cheap and disrespectful", just doesn't compute, as far as I'm concerned. I just don't get how you draw that conclusion at all.
There was nothing about that scene, for me, that made me disbelieve the 1940's setting. Whether a normal female of the time would have acted that way or got away with acting that way is entirely irrelevant as it wasn't a normal female. Peggy Carter would have and could have done what she did in 1940's comic-book America and that is entirely fine by me.
The scene, as you say, elevated the protagonist and, as such, I enjoyed it immensely.
Fans of ABC's Agent Carter and Agents of SHIELD have been treated to an epic Dubsmash battle involving some of the MCU's biggest TV stars.
Here's what you need to know: Hayley Atwell, James D'Arcy, Chloe Bennett, Clark Gregg and the rest have been firing Dubsmash video across social media in an effort to out-do each other.
Read more:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/fun/s263/marvels-agent-carter/news/a658587/hayley-atwell-wins-epic-marvel-dubsmash-war-with-a-little-help-from-chris-evans.html#ixzz3gjgA6mMl
Follow us: @digitalspy on Twitter | digitalspyuk on Facebook
See the war:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK6jQFGDt9w
I disagree. The reason he was able to bully the waitress is that he was the customer. He could hurt her, with words and demands and by withholding a tip, and she couldn't do anything about it. If she complained, she risked getting fired.
Carter's situation was completely different. He had no power over her. He couldn't physically lay into her, because he didn't have that kind of strength. Also, because she had a knife at him. Had he made a fuss, most likely no-one would have believed such a woman would be so violent. At best he'd only publicise his embarrassment. Getting beat up by a girl would be humiliating. Since no-one saw, he'd just slink away so no-one ever knew.
And, as people have repeatedly said, the sexism being portrayed is being specifically related to a female secret agent operating in a sexist workplace NOT the ordinary woman on the street.
The previous sexism shown - the customer versus the waitress - is perfectly acceptable for the period. Agent Carter's response is perfectly acceptable for a female secret agent, what would have been out of period or a mis-match, would have been if the waitress behaved like Peggy did but that isn't what they showed.
What they were demonstrating was that Peggy Carter is more than capable of sticking up for herself and her friends.
I'm not even sure that's true. I'm with Brangdon, if some mad woman holds a knife to your throat and threatens bodily harm if you come back, I don't see how sexism has anything to do with it. It's about the innate cowardice of every bully. Would he really risk getting on the wrong side of her by going to the police? Would anyone believe him? I don't see how the sexism of the period would have changed that scene.