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.
Because in reality they would have just locked her up based in the guy's accusation, no due process, no questions asked. And thats why the guy would have gone to the police, because rather than be laughed at, as incredible as it may be to us, he would have been taken seriously. Sexism really was that extreme at the time. That's the sexist attitudes of the day the episode fell short of portraying (for its own in-universe narrative purposes). Yes, there was plenty dismissiveness, patronising, rudeness and bullying going on throughout the episode which did reflect the attitudes of the day, but anyone thinking that was the full extent of the sexism of the day is mistaken. I get that you're a fan of the show, so am I, but if we must discuss the realism being portrayed on the show let's not let get carried away and allow our enthusiasm cloud fact from fiction.
I get that you're a fan of the show, so am I, but if we must discuss the realism being portrayed on the show let's not let get carried away and allow our enthusiasm cloud fact from fiction.
Nothing to do with enthusiasm. I have never heard of these extremes that you're talking about (not saying you're wrong but I've never heard it mentioned anywhere).
All I was ever aware of, in terms of the sexism, was that women were not considered capable. Certain professions were considered unsuitable etc. etc. Nothing to do with women being routinely subject to police violence, physical aggression or summary, kangaroo court, justice. If I'd seen that kind of portrayal I wouldn't have believed it.
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.
And at no point did she draw attention to herself, the whole exchange was carried out in a discrete manner as befitting the objective of what she was doing.
We will agree to disagree on whether it was a crowd pleasing scene, it was in there as a means of demonstrating her capability in dealing with a male bully and to show the audience that she had feelings of friendship for the waitress which she'd been trying to avoid making a personal connection to because of what happened to her last flatmate and her loss of Steve etc imo.
Sadly there were many such miscarriages of justice.
I'd love to see some evidence of them as, like Thrombin, I've never read anything other than the "normal" sexism of the period being restricted to a woman's place is in the home etc.
The only thing I can even think of which would possibly come under a "one rule for a woman, one for a man" issue is that of Ruth Ellis but that was a much later period in time.
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).
Carter was a woman. The customer did not know she was a secret agent, or that she was the star of the show. Those factors didn't affect his reaction.
If you mean, a woman who didn't know how to use a knife, or didn't have true menace in her voice, who could not convey a threat with deadly seriousness, well, maybe. But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about what would have happened if the waitress, for example, had just snapped. We're talking about whether what happened in the show was plausible.
I'm struggling to see what you are getting at with your repeated "not Carter"s. Are you saying that a woman like Carter could not have existed at that time? They were all demure bunnies too weak to stand up to a man successfully? Did you miss the premise of the show?
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.
Some men might have, but not this one, because he was not the violent sort, and a coward. And the police would not have believed him because they would not expect that a woman would be capable of doing that. Women were seen as victims, not aggressors.
I think you've got this wrong on two points: the woman and the man. Maybe the man would have reacted as you say had a weak woman tried it on, but not a strong one. And Carter is a strong woman. That's not plot armour, it's just what she is.
Carter was a woman. The customer did not know she was a secret agent, or that she was the star of the show. Those factors didn't affect his reaction.
If you mean, a woman who didn't know how to use a knife, or didn't have true menace in her voice, who could not convey a threat with deadly seriousness, well, maybe. But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about what would have happened if the waitress, for example, had just snapped. We're talking about whether what happened in the show was plausible.
I'm struggling to see what you are getting at with your repeated "not Carter"s. Are you saying that a woman like Carter could not have existed at that time? They were all demure bunnies too weak to stand up to a man successfully? Did you miss the premise of the show?
Nope, not saying that at all. Pretty sure I've said the exact opposite in this very thread, I'm very much aware of the premise of the show, and I'm sure you're well aware of that.
Some men might have, but not this one, because he was not the violent sort, and a coward. And the police would not have believed him because they would not expect that a woman would be capable of doing that. Women were seen as victims, not aggressors.
I think you've got this wrong on two points: the woman and the man. Maybe the man would have reacted as you say had a weak woman tried it on, but not a strong one. And Carter is a strong woman. That's not plot armour, it's just what she is.
To guys like him, and many others of the time, the view of how a woman should behave and her role in society was a fairy rigid and limited viewpoint (even after the 1920s) and any woman who stepped out of that ideal was seen as abnormal, particularly in terms of "violent or anti-social" behaviour". To many people: woman threatens guy with a knife in a restaurant = nut job who needs to be locked away in the crazy farm. It wouldn't have even entered this guy's mind that she might actually be a strong woman. He'd have no cualms about going to the cops, because he'd know he'd have the respectabilty factor, even if he was a cowardly bully.
To you, and Thrombin & Cadiva, I would say that I appreciate we differ on how extreme sexism at the time was, you either believe it or don't. You either look into it (if you feel that way inclined), or you don't. There's little point me saying things were like X and you not accepting it because you haven't come across such accounts previously. Ultimately this is a thread about a TV show, and isn't the right place to get into such a discussion. Personally I'm only aware of such instances because I was exposed to it via an old exgrifreind, who had researched the subject matter (it was during the height of Buffy days and that triggered he curiosity with regards to all things relating to gender equality, including historically). Needless to say a lot of her research didn't come from official sources as a lot of this stuff wasn't even reported to/by the police. But it was based on numerous articles, books and documentaries containing interviews and accounts of such things. Make of that what you wil, but I for one I'm not one to argue for the sake of arguing so if you believe me fine, and if you don't, also fine.
To you, and Thrombin & Cadiva, I would say that I appreciate we differ on how extreme sexism at the time was, you either believe it or don't. You either look into it (if you feel that way inclined), or you don't. There's little point me saying things were like X and you not accepting it because you haven't come across such accounts previously. Ultimately this is a thread about a TV show, and isn't the right place to get into such a discussion.
Personally I'm only aware of such instances because I was exposed to it via an old exgrifreind, who had researched the subject matter (it was during the height of Buffy days and that triggered he curiosity with regards to all things relating to gender equality, including historically).
Needless to say a lot of her research didn't come from official sources as a lot of this stuff wasn't even reported to/by the police. But it was based on numerous articles, books and documentaries containing interviews and accounts of such things. Make of that what you wil, but I for one I'm not one to argue for the sake of arguing so if you believe me fine, and if you don't, also fine.
As I've said, I'd be interested in reading some examples. It generally falls upon the person who makes a statement to provide the evidence to support it.
As I've said, I'd be interested in reading some examples. It generally falls upon the person who makes a statement to provide the evidence to support it.
Be that as it may, on this occasion, if you are really that interested you're going to have to do your own work. I haven't seen that particluar ex in over a decade. All I can do here and now is give generic non specific examples like I have been doing until now, all which, without specifics, you could just say I'm making up to make my point.
Nope, not saying that at all. Pretty sure I've said the exact opposite in this very thread, I'm very much aware of the premise of the show, and I'm sure you're well aware of that.
Then I don't get what you mean by saying "not Carter".
To guys like him, and many others of the time, the view of how a woman should behave and her role in society was a fairy rigid and limited viewpoint (even after the 1920s) and any woman who stepped out of that ideal was seen as abnormal, particularly in terms of "violent or anti-social" behaviour".
Agreed. And that makes her more scary.
To you, and Thrombin & Cadiva, I would say that I appreciate we differ on how extreme sexism at the time was, you either believe it or don't.
I do believe sexism was extreme. But that's not the same as saying the bloke would have behaved as you say. For example, in an article like this about sexism there's nothing to surprise me, and also nothing that supports your position.
I'd also note that the notion of a "henpecked husband" is quite old (eg, The Order of Henpecked Husbands goes back to the 1890). I'm sure they existed in the 1920s, and the diner customer might have been one. Basically, it's one thing to say that sexism was widespread, women routinely disbelieved etc, and another to say how one individual man would have behaved. You're trying to get from "most" to "all".
In an era where women were locked away for years at time for deemed Innapropriate behaviour, it makes her more of an easy target for anyone which a grudge against her, such as, say, a two faced coward bully boy.
I do believe sexism was extreme. But that's not the same as saying the bloke would have behaved as you say. For example, in an article like this about sexism there's nothing to surprise me, and also nothing that supports your position.
But those are simply genal observations, without any focus on the miscarriages of justice.
Whilst I don't have access to the material I'm basing my assertions on, and which did focus in such instances, for the reasons already given, a quick search shows how women who behaved outwith the norm were treated. This gave way to false accusations by the benedictive, the conservative and those fearful of change, accusations which were taken seriously. It is behind the official records where we find the extreme sexism and the miscarriages of justice. Here for example we see how readily women were locked away for decades in our own country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7523000/7523680.stm
Feminism and change
Many women’s lives in the 1960s and 1970s were still organised around Victorian stereotypes of the loving mother and dutiful housewife. Influential feminist writers of the time criticised psychiatry. They argued it was one of the main ways society controlled women. Women who did not behave ‘properly’ risked ending up in psychiatric care. Many feminist writers also criticised psychoanalysis, the then-dominant approach in psychiatry. They argued Freud’s focus on sexual fantasies, and the fact that most of his patients were women, rehashed old ideas. It was similar to hysteria being labelled a ‘women’s problem’ that should be cured by finding a man.
Whilst these do not directly reflect the depth of sexist attitudes in relation to what we are discussing, it highlights how precarious life was for any women who showed signs or dared to behave in non-conformist ways. It was that readiness to judge and hide away "problem women" that gave way to many false accusations. As I said, this is just a quick search, and doesn't address the point in question directly, for that you need to scratch behind the surface of official records, and that is not as easily accessible.
I'd also note that the notion of a "henpecked husband" is quite old (eg, The Order of Henpecked Husbands goes back to the 1890). I'm sure they existed in the 1920s, and the diner customer might have been one. Basically, it's one thing to say that sexism was widespread, women routinely disbelieved etc, and another to say how one individual man would have behaved. You're trying to get from "most" to "all".
This is about typhoid victims so, again, I'm struggling to see how it has any relevance to sexism and it about the 1950s. I dare say there are similar instances of men suffering from typhoid being locked up without release, in fact I know so because there was a typhoid hospital in Menston around the same time alongside the mental hospital which also took in men and women and kept them locked up until they died.
Whilst these do not directly reflect the depth of sexist attitudes in relation to what we are discussing, it highlights how precarious life was for any women who showed signs or dared to behave in non-conformist ways.
It doesn't just apply to women though. Men with mental illness were locked away too. High Royds Hospital in Menston was one of the biggest asylums in the country and it took patients of both sexes.
Mental illness was misunderstood and women were locked up for having children out of wedlock never mind any actual mental illness. None of this, however, has anything to do with sexism in the workplace which is what Agent Carter is depicting.
No-one is saying sexism wasn't rife in the 1930s and 1940s which is when Agent Carter is set, What people have been saying is that "normal women" isn't an argument which works when the show is depicting what a female secret agent was living with.
Anyway, this is just going round in circles. Lets just all agree to disagree on the level of "realistic sexism" being depicted on the show shall we and move on?
This is about typhoid victims so, again, I'm struggling to see how it has any relevance to sexism and it about the 1950s. I dare say there are similar instances of men suffering from typhoid being locked up without release, in fact I know so because there was a typhoid hospital in Menston around the same time alongside the mental hospital which also took in men and women and kept them locked up until they died.
Do you have evidence that comfirms men also being locked away for decades for typhoid?
It doesn't just apply to women though. Men with mental illness were locked away too. High Royds Hospital in Menston was one of the biggest asylums in the country and it took patients of both sexes.
Mental illness was misunderstood and women were locked up for having children out of wedlock never mind any actual mental illness. None of this, however, has anything to do with sexism in the workplace which is what Agent Carter is depicting.
This did indeed apply to men and women. However this was an augmented issue/risk for women due the less than female friendly psychiatry, which allowed those with their own agendas to direct false accusations which were taken seriously
No-one is saying sexism wasn't rife in the 1930s and 1940s which is when Agent Carter is set, What people have been saying is that "normal women" isn't an argument which works when the show is depicting what a female secret agent was living with.
Yes, a secret agent, I've mentioned this particular aspect twice, and not had any comeback on it funnily enough. Would a secret agent risk the attention? Putting aside all other aspect we've been discussing, it was a stupid move on her part and totally unrealistic in terms of how a secret agent, male or female would behave.
]Anyway, this is just going round in circles. Lets just all agree to disagree on the level of "realistic sexism" being depicted on the show shall we and move on?
Do you have evidence that comfirms men also being locked away for decades for typhoid?
Yes but it's not online, it's in the files of the Wharfedale & Airedale Observer in Otley, West Yorkshire, which is where I was a journalist for 13 years and where I wrote a feature about the three different hospitals which were once in Menston - a TB hospital for children, a typhoid hospital for patients of both sexes and High Royds Mental Asylum
Yes but it's not online, it's in the files of the Wharfedale & Airedale Observer in Otley, West Yorkshire, which is where I was a journalist for 13 years and where I wrote a feature about the three different hospitals which were once in Menston - a TB hospital for children, a typhoid hospital for patients of both sexes and High Royds Mental Asylum
Interesting that there are no mentions of males being detained for decades for typhoid. Here is another BBC article on the subject, again all female specific. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7528045.stm
You'd think if this was a story that affected both males and females there wouldn't be need make sole reference to women. Obviously you must have been on to a world exclusive.
Interesting that there are no mentions of males being detained for decades for typhoid. Here is another BBC article on the subject, again all female specific. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7528045.stm
You'd think if this was a story that affected both males and females there wouldn't be need make sole reference to women. Obviously you must have been on to a world exclusive.
Not really, the story here was that they were detained for typhoid and they went mad. The typhoid hospital in Menston took both male and female patients but there's no indication of any of them going mad and having to stay locked up for life, which is the difference in the story of these 43 women from London.
Not really, the story here was that they were detained for typhoid and they went mad. The typhoid hospital in Menston took both male and female patients but there's no indication of any of them going mad and having to stay locked up for life, which is the difference in the story of these 43 women from London.
Not quite, it's not a case of the typhoid caused their mental health deterioration so they were just left there. The scandal is that they were left there far longer than they should have and that is what, over time, caused their mental health deterioration. I'm struggling to understand how anyone, particularly a confessed journalist, could not see the diffence. I'm thinking we should probably stop here. We are waaaaaaay off topic anyway, speaking of which, new episode....
Not quite, it's not a case of the typhoid caused their mental health deterioration so they were just left there. The scandal is that they were left there far longer than they should have and that is what, over time, caused their mental health deterioration. I'm struggling to understand how anyone, particularly a confessed journalist, could not see the diffence. I'm thinking we should probably stop here. We are waaaaaaay off topic anyway, speaking of which, new episode....
Which is exactly what I said, however yes we are completely off topic.
So on the episode, number 3 now, I thought that was another excellent episode. Jarvis was played really well in the interrogation and I felt Peggy's pain having to make herself look a fool when she already doesn't have enough respect in the office.
Loved Jarvis this episode. All stiff upper lip and then they mention harming his wife by bringing her into it all and its a different man. Oh and he risked all for love.
Can I fess up and say I am glad the moron bit the dust.:D All he did was bitch and whine and belittle his other team members. All women want red,white and blue and not a man with a crutch.
Loved Jarvis this episode. All stiff upper lip and then they mention harming his wife by bringing her into it all and its a different man. Oh and he risked all for love.
Can I fess up and say I am glad the moron bit the dust.:D All he did was bitch and whine and belittle his other team members. All women want red,white and blue and not a man with a crutch.
TBF I think for most men at the time it would be difficult to compete being the boyfriend after Captain America.
Yes, a secret agent, I've mentioned this particular aspect twice, and not had any comeback on it funnily enough. Would a secret agent risk the attention? Putting aside all other aspect we've been discussing, it was a stupid move on her part and totally unrealistic in terms of how a secret agent, male or female would behave.
Just to address this: she arranged it so that there were no witnesses, and she had his number and knew he would slink away without telling anyone. In any case, she felt she had to do something to help her friend. It's part of her character to make audacious moves.
Basically, it's only high risk if we accept your premise, that she would never have got away with it because he would have beat her up and/or reported her. I don't accept that. Most men may have, but not this one. Again, you are arguing from "most" to "all".
(PS Looking back, I see Cadiva had provided you with a comeback in # 105. Perhaps you missed it.)
Just to address this: she arranged it so that there were no witnesses, and she had his number and knew he would slink away without telling anyone. In any case, she felt she had to do something to help her friend. It's part of her character to make audacious moves.
Basically, it's only high risk if we accept your premise, that she would never have got away with it because he would have beat her up and/or reported her. I don't accept that. Most men may have, but not this one. Again, you are arguing from "most" to "all".
(PS Looking back, I see Cadiva had provided you with a comeback in # 105. Perhaps you missed it.)
A secret agent, above all else, would not risk jeopordising their secracy by drawing attention to themselves. Even with minimal witnesses there is a risk of exposure. Any risk is too high. That applies to both male and female secret agents, I dont see how post 105 adresses this any way. I dont see you agreeing with me on this one either so we'll just cut a long story short and agree to dissagre and move on.
Loved Jarvis this episode. All stiff upper lip and then they mention harming his wife by bringing her into it all and its a different man. Oh and he risked all for love.
Can I fess up and say I am glad the moron bit the dust.:D All he did was bitch and whine and belittle his other team members. All women want red,white and blue and not a man with a crutch.
I've seen the whole of Agent Carter (watched at US Pace) and I loved in this episode how they introduced Jarvis' wife to the story and gave him some history outside of just being Stark's butler.
TBF I think for most men at the time it would be difficult to compete being the boyfriend after Captain America.
Indeed, not sure anyone would be able to live up to Steve Rogers, especially for Peggy given that he died "saving the world" etc
Although I think Souza's already demonstrating he's better than the rest of his colleagues in the office and perhaps that's because he can empathise being a "cripple".
I seem to remember James Bond, who you could class as a secret agent, beingf very conspiquous and making a nuciance of himself.
As for the episode. Did they tae Jarvis straight to the phone company? What would have happened if his lawyers have to come down.
It's hardy going to be a secret base if they're taking suspects there all the time.
Also, why would they let one agent have the responsibility to take a prisioner in.
In this instance with the assasination it may not have helped but in general I would have thought it essential to have one that one agent.
Comments
Nothing to do with enthusiasm. I have never heard of these extremes that you're talking about (not saying you're wrong but I've never heard it mentioned anywhere).
All I was ever aware of, in terms of the sexism, was that women were not considered capable. Certain professions were considered unsuitable etc. etc. Nothing to do with women being routinely subject to police violence, physical aggression or summary, kangaroo court, justice. If I'd seen that kind of portrayal I wouldn't have believed it.
And at no point did she draw attention to herself, the whole exchange was carried out in a discrete manner as befitting the objective of what she was doing.
We will agree to disagree on whether it was a crowd pleasing scene, it was in there as a means of demonstrating her capability in dealing with a male bully and to show the audience that she had feelings of friendship for the waitress which she'd been trying to avoid making a personal connection to because of what happened to her last flatmate and her loss of Steve etc imo.
I'd love to see some evidence of them as, like Thrombin, I've never read anything other than the "normal" sexism of the period being restricted to a woman's place is in the home etc.
The only thing I can even think of which would possibly come under a "one rule for a woman, one for a man" issue is that of Ruth Ellis but that was a much later period in time.
If you mean, a woman who didn't know how to use a knife, or didn't have true menace in her voice, who could not convey a threat with deadly seriousness, well, maybe. But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about what would have happened if the waitress, for example, had just snapped. We're talking about whether what happened in the show was plausible.
I'm struggling to see what you are getting at with your repeated "not Carter"s. Are you saying that a woman like Carter could not have existed at that time? They were all demure bunnies too weak to stand up to a man successfully? Did you miss the premise of the show?
Some men might have, but not this one, because he was not the violent sort, and a coward. And the police would not have believed him because they would not expect that a woman would be capable of doing that. Women were seen as victims, not aggressors.
I think you've got this wrong on two points: the woman and the man. Maybe the man would have reacted as you say had a weak woman tried it on, but not a strong one. And Carter is a strong woman. That's not plot armour, it's just what she is.
To you, and Thrombin & Cadiva, I would say that I appreciate we differ on how extreme sexism at the time was, you either believe it or don't. You either look into it (if you feel that way inclined), or you don't. There's little point me saying things were like X and you not accepting it because you haven't come across such accounts previously. Ultimately this is a thread about a TV show, and isn't the right place to get into such a discussion. Personally I'm only aware of such instances because I was exposed to it via an old exgrifreind, who had researched the subject matter (it was during the height of Buffy days and that triggered he curiosity with regards to all things relating to gender equality, including historically). Needless to say a lot of her research didn't come from official sources as a lot of this stuff wasn't even reported to/by the police. But it was based on numerous articles, books and documentaries containing interviews and accounts of such things. Make of that what you wil, but I for one I'm not one to argue for the sake of arguing so if you believe me fine, and if you don't, also fine.
As I've said, I'd be interested in reading some examples. It generally falls upon the person who makes a statement to provide the evidence to support it.
Agreed. And that makes her more scary.
I do believe sexism was extreme. But that's not the same as saying the bloke would have behaved as you say. For example, in an article like this about sexism there's nothing to surprise me, and also nothing that supports your position.
I'd also note that the notion of a "henpecked husband" is quite old (eg, The Order of Henpecked Husbands goes back to the 1890). I'm sure they existed in the 1920s, and the diner customer might have been one. Basically, it's one thing to say that sexism was widespread, women routinely disbelieved etc, and another to say how one individual man would have behaved. You're trying to get from "most" to "all".
But those are simply genal observations, without any focus on the miscarriages of justice.
Whilst I don't have access to the material I'm basing my assertions on, and which did focus in such instances, for the reasons already given, a quick search shows how women who behaved outwith the norm were treated. This gave way to false accusations by the benedictive, the conservative and those fearful of change, accusations which were taken seriously. It is behind the official records where we find the extreme sexism and the miscarriages of justice. Here for example we see how readily women were locked away for decades in our own country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7523000/7523680.stm
Her for example (starts at 1800s)
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/menalhealthandillness/womanandpsychiatry.aspx
Whilst these do not directly reflect the depth of sexist attitudes in relation to what we are discussing, it highlights how precarious life was for any women who showed signs or dared to behave in non-conformist ways. It was that readiness to judge and hide away "problem women" that gave way to many false accusations. As I said, this is just a quick search, and doesn't address the point in question directly, for that you need to scratch behind the surface of official records, and that is not as easily accessible.
No I'm not
This is about typhoid victims so, again, I'm struggling to see how it has any relevance to sexism and it about the 1950s. I dare say there are similar instances of men suffering from typhoid being locked up without release, in fact I know so because there was a typhoid hospital in Menston around the same time alongside the mental hospital which also took in men and women and kept them locked up until they died.
It doesn't just apply to women though. Men with mental illness were locked away too. High Royds Hospital in Menston was one of the biggest asylums in the country and it took patients of both sexes.
Mental illness was misunderstood and women were locked up for having children out of wedlock never mind any actual mental illness. None of this, however, has anything to do with sexism in the workplace which is what Agent Carter is depicting.
No-one is saying sexism wasn't rife in the 1930s and 1940s which is when Agent Carter is set, What people have been saying is that "normal women" isn't an argument which works when the show is depicting what a female secret agent was living with.
Anyway, this is just going round in circles. Lets just all agree to disagree on the level of "realistic sexism" being depicted on the show shall we and move on?
Yes but it's not online, it's in the files of the Wharfedale & Airedale Observer in Otley, West Yorkshire, which is where I was a journalist for 13 years and where I wrote a feature about the three different hospitals which were once in Menston - a TB hospital for children, a typhoid hospital for patients of both sexes and High Royds Mental Asylum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7528045.stm
You'd think if this was a story that affected both males and females there wouldn't be need make sole reference to women. Obviously you must have been on to a world exclusive.
Not really, the story here was that they were detained for typhoid and they went mad. The typhoid hospital in Menston took both male and female patients but there's no indication of any of them going mad and having to stay locked up for life, which is the difference in the story of these 43 women from London.
Which is exactly what I said, however yes we are completely off topic.
Can I fess up and say I am glad the moron bit the dust.:D All he did was bitch and whine and belittle his other team members. All women want red,white and blue and not a man with a crutch.
TBF I think for most men at the time it would be difficult to compete being the boyfriend after Captain America.
Basically, it's only high risk if we accept your premise, that she would never have got away with it because he would have beat her up and/or reported her. I don't accept that. Most men may have, but not this one. Again, you are arguing from "most" to "all".
(PS Looking back, I see Cadiva had provided you with a comeback in # 105. Perhaps you missed it.)
A secret agent, above all else, would not risk jeopordising their secracy by drawing attention to themselves. Even with minimal witnesses there is a risk of exposure. Any risk is too high. That applies to both male and female secret agents, I dont see how post 105 adresses this any way. I dont see you agreeing with me on this one either so we'll just cut a long story short and agree to dissagre and move on.
I've seen the whole of Agent Carter (watched at US Pace) and I loved in this episode how they introduced Jarvis' wife to the story and gave him some history outside of just being Stark's butler.
Indeed, not sure anyone would be able to live up to Steve Rogers, especially for Peggy given that he died "saving the world" etc
Although I think Souza's already demonstrating he's better than the rest of his colleagues in the office and perhaps that's because he can empathise being a "cripple".
As for the episode. Did they tae Jarvis straight to the phone company? What would have happened if his lawyers have to come down.
It's hardy going to be a secret base if they're taking suspects there all the time.
Also, why would they let one agent have the responsibility to take a prisioner in.
In this instance with the assasination it may not have helped but in general I would have thought it essential to have one that one agent.