Talk:Override Prime - Revision history

Lush City at 21:53, 5 January 2012

2012-01-05T21:53:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 5 January 2012
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:I wanted to get rid of the note entirely because it has no value. It implies something noteworthy when it only would have been noteworthy if Override (and Elita-1) didn't exist. That's why I added the line - to poke fun at an uncomfortable truth nobody in particular is responsible for, which makes it all the tougher to get some actual improvement.		:I wanted to get rid of the note entirely because it has no value. It implies something noteworthy when it only would have been noteworthy if Override (and Elita-1) didn't exist. That's why I added the line - to poke fun at an uncomfortable truth nobody in particular is responsible for, which makes it all the tougher to get some actual improvement.
	:I'm not sure how wise it is to add this to my case, but there's also the little matter that Japanese fiction's attitude towards women gets mercilessly dissected on various of the wiki's pages, even when from context I feel there's a rationale behind it that at worst only is partially misogynistic. Yet when Western fiction pulls stunts like this, it is barely allowed to be mentioned or complained about. I don't think I find that all that fair. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:26, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:I'm not sure how wise it is to add this to my case, but there's also the little matter that Japanese fiction's attitude towards women gets mercilessly dissected on various of the wiki's pages, even when from context I feel there's a rationale behind it that at worst only is partially misogynistic. Yet when Western fiction pulls stunts like this, it is barely allowed to be mentioned or complained about. I don't think I find that all that fair. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:26, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	::pokes [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 01:47, 8 March 2011 (EST)		::pokes [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 01:47, 8 March 2011 (EST)\
			::: I'm with Trav on this, it's a good point to make, but it could be handled better. Maybe "The first female Prime! Oh wait, ''Animated'' prime? Carry on." [[User:Lush City\|Lush City]] 16:53, 5 January 2012 (EST)

Geewunling at 06:47, 8 March 2011

2011-03-08T06:47:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:47, 8 March 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:I wanted to get rid of the note entirely because it has no value. It implies something noteworthy when it only would have been noteworthy if Override (and Elita-1) didn't exist. That's why I added the line - to poke fun at an uncomfortable truth nobody in particular is responsible for, which makes it all the tougher to get some actual improvement.		:I wanted to get rid of the note entirely because it has no value. It implies something noteworthy when it only would have been noteworthy if Override (and Elita-1) didn't exist. That's why I added the line - to poke fun at an uncomfortable truth nobody in particular is responsible for, which makes it all the tougher to get some actual improvement.
	:I'm not sure how wise it is to add this to my case, but there's also the little matter that Japanese fiction's attitude towards women gets mercilessly dissected on various of the wiki's pages, even when from context I feel there's a rationale behind it that at worst only is partially misogynistic. Yet when Western fiction pulls stunts like this, it is barely allowed to be mentioned or complained about. I don't think I find that all that fair. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:26, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:I'm not sure how wise it is to add this to my case, but there's also the little matter that Japanese fiction's attitude towards women gets mercilessly dissected on various of the wiki's pages, even when from context I feel there's a rationale behind it that at worst only is partially misogynistic. Yet when Western fiction pulls stunts like this, it is barely allowed to be mentioned or complained about. I don't think I find that all that fair. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:26, 7 March 2011 (EST)
			::pokes [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 01:47, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Peter Damian at 17:39, 7 March 2011

2011-03-07T17:39:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:39, 7 March 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	::::::::It's actually pretty obnoxiously feminist, in a sarcastic kind of way.		::::::::It's actually pretty obnoxiously feminist, in a sarcastic kind of way. {{unsigned\|69.14.24.94}}
	And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)		And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:Wow, talk about an overkill reaction from all of you. Or maybe not, I get the feeling I might have not entirely phrased it well in that one sentence, so let me elaborate.		:Wow, talk about an overkill reaction from all of you. Or maybe not, I get the feeling I might have not entirely phrased it well in that one sentence, so let me elaborate.

Geewunling at 17:28, 7 March 2011

2011-03-07T17:28:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 7 March 2011
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:Wow, talk about an overkill reaction from all of you. Or maybe not, I get the feeling I might have not entirely phrased it well in that one sentence, so let me elaborate.		:Wow, talk about an overkill reaction from all of you. Or maybe not, I get the feeling I might have not entirely phrased it well in that one sentence, so let me elaborate.
	:The sentence that Override Prime is the first female Prime in Transformers history bugs me, because it implies that she's some kind of milestone figure. She is not. She is by far not the first female leader figure in Transformers (how about ''Cybertron'' Override, for starters?) and she's also not actually a "Prime" in the sense of the word as it is usually understood ánd used in the sentence. Far as I can make out for TFA, the writers wanted to be able/had to use the name "Optimus Prime", but also wanted to make the lead character one of those young-uns-growing-up types rather than the fullfledged leader the character usually is. Hence, the rank "Prime" became something less than in other franchises, so little that graduation isn't even a requirement. It would have been sexist if absolutely no female Primes would have existed in Animated with such standards (and for that matter, a potential Prime, like Elita-1 once was, counts), so Override is a necessity rather than something praise-worthy.		:The sentence that Override Prime is the first female Prime in Transformers history bugs me, because it implies that she's some kind of milestone figure. She is not. She is by far not the first female leader figure in Transformers (how about ''Cybertron'' Override, for starters?) and she's also not actually a "Prime" in the sense of the word as it is usually understood ánd used in the sentence. Far as I can make out for TFA, the writers wanted to be able/had to use the name "Optimus Prime", but also wanted to make the lead character one of those young-uns-growing-up types rather than the fullfledged leader the character usually is. Hence, the rank "Prime" became something less than in other franchises, so little that graduation isn't even a requirement. It would have been sexist if absolutely no female Primes would have existed in Animated with such standards (and for that matter, a potential Prime, like Elita-1 once was, counts), so Override is a necessity rather than something praise-worthy.
	:I mean, let's face it, the odds of a female Prime existing in a franchise/continuity where being a Prime is important and the character would eventually have impact on the story? Not going to happen any time soon. Unless you count ''Cybertron'' Override who is semi-technically a Prime.		:I mean, let's face it, the odds of a female Prime existing in a franchise/continuity where being a Prime is important and the character would eventually have leaderish-legendary-ish impact on the story? Not going to happen any time soon. Unless you count ''Cybertron'' Override who is semi-technically a Prime.
	:I wanted to get rid of the note entirely because it has no value. It implies something noteworthy when it only would have been noteworthy if Override (and Elita-1) didn't exist. That's why I added the line - to poke fun at an uncomfortable truth nobody in particular is responsible for, which makes it all the tougher to get some actual improvement.		:I wanted to get rid of the note entirely because it has no value. It implies something noteworthy when it only would have been noteworthy if Override (and Elita-1) didn't exist. That's why I added the line - to poke fun at an uncomfortable truth nobody in particular is responsible for, which makes it all the tougher to get some actual improvement.
	:I'm not sure how wise it is to add this to my case, but there's also the little matter that Japanese fiction's attitude towards women gets mercilessly dissected on various of the wiki's pages, even when from context I feel there's a rationale behind it that at worst only is partially misogynistic. Yet when Western fiction pulls stunts like this, it is barely allowed to be mentioned or complained about. I don't think I find that all that fair. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:26, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:I'm not sure how wise it is to add this to my case, but there's also the little matter that Japanese fiction's attitude towards women gets mercilessly dissected on various of the wiki's pages, even when from context I feel there's a rationale behind it that at worst only is partially misogynistic. Yet when Western fiction pulls stunts like this, it is barely allowed to be mentioned or complained about. I don't think I find that all that fair. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:26, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Geewunling at 17:27, 7 March 2011

2011-03-07T17:27:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 7 March 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)		And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:Wow, talk about an overkill reaction from all of you. Or maybe not, I get the feeling I might have not entirely phrased it well in that one sentence, so let me elaborate.		:Wow, talk about an overkill reaction from all of you. Or maybe not, I get the feeling I might have not entirely phrased it well in that one sentence, so let me elaborate.
	:The sentence that Override Prime is the first female Prime in Transformers history bugs me, because it implies that she's some kind of milestone figure. She is not. She is by far not the first female leader figure in Transformers (how about ''Cybertron'' Override, for starters?) and she's also not actually a "Prime" in the sense of the word as it is usually understood. Far as I can make out for TFA, the writers wanted to be able/had to use the name "Optimus Prime", but also wanted to make the lead character one of those young-uns-growing-up types rather than the fullfledged leader the character usually is. Hence, the rank "Prime" became something less than in other franchises, so little that graduation isn't even a requirement. It would have been sexist if absolutely no female Primes would have existed in Animated with such standards (and for that matter, a potential Prime, like Elita-1 once was, counts), so Override is a necessity rather than something praise-worthy.		:The sentence that Override Prime is the first female Prime in Transformers history bugs me, because it implies that she's some kind of milestone figure. She is not. She is by far not the first female leader figure in Transformers (how about ''Cybertron'' Override, for starters?) and she's also not actually a "Prime" in the sense of the word as it is usually understood ánd used in the sentence. Far as I can make out for TFA, the writers wanted to be able/had to use the name "Optimus Prime", but also wanted to make the lead character one of those young-uns-growing-up types rather than the fullfledged leader the character usually is. Hence, the rank "Prime" became something less than in other franchises, so little that graduation isn't even a requirement. It would have been sexist if absolutely no female Primes would have existed in Animated with such standards (and for that matter, a potential Prime, like Elita-1 once was, counts), so Override is a necessity rather than something praise-worthy.
	:I mean, let's face it, the odds of a female Prime existing in a franchise/continuity where being a Prime is important and the character would eventually have impact on the story? Not going to happen any time soon. Unless you count ''Cybertron'' Override who is semi-technically a Prime.		:I mean, let's face it, the odds of a female Prime existing in a franchise/continuity where being a Prime is important and the character would eventually have impact on the story? Not going to happen any time soon. Unless you count ''Cybertron'' Override who is semi-technically a Prime.
	:I wanted to get rid of the note entirely because it has no value. It implies something noteworthy when it only would have been noteworthy if Override (and Elita-1) didn't exist. That's why I added the line - to poke fun at an uncomfortable truth nobody in particular is responsible for, which makes it all the tougher to get some actual improvement.		:I wanted to get rid of the note entirely because it has no value. It implies something noteworthy when it only would have been noteworthy if Override (and Elita-1) didn't exist. That's why I added the line - to poke fun at an uncomfortable truth nobody in particular is responsible for, which makes it all the tougher to get some actual improvement.
	:I'm not sure how wise it is to add this to my case, but there's also the little matter that Japanese fiction's attitude towards women gets mercilessly dissected on various of the wiki's pages, even when from context I feel there's a rationale behind it that at worst only is partially misogynistic. Yet when Western fiction pulls stunts like this, it is barely allowed to be mentioned or complained about. I don't think I find that all that fair. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:26, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:I'm not sure how wise it is to add this to my case, but there's also the little matter that Japanese fiction's attitude towards women gets mercilessly dissected on various of the wiki's pages, even when from context I feel there's a rationale behind it that at worst only is partially misogynistic. Yet when Western fiction pulls stunts like this, it is barely allowed to be mentioned or complained about. I don't think I find that all that fair. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:26, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Geewunling at 17:26, 7 March 2011

2011-03-07T17:26:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:26, 7 March 2011
Line 11:		Line 11:
	::::::::It's actually pretty obnoxiously feminist, in a sarcastic kind of way.		::::::::It's actually pretty obnoxiously feminist, in a sarcastic kind of way.
	And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)		And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)
			:Wow, talk about an overkill reaction from all of you. Or maybe not, I get the feeling I might have not entirely phrased it well in that one sentence, so let me elaborate.
			:The sentence that Override Prime is the first female Prime in Transformers history bugs me, because it implies that she's some kind of milestone figure. She is not. She is by far not the first female leader figure in Transformers (how about ''Cybertron'' Override, for starters?) and she's also not actually a "Prime" in the sense of the word as it is usually understood. Far as I can make out for TFA, the writers wanted to be able/had to use the name "Optimus Prime", but also wanted to make the lead character one of those young-uns-growing-up types rather than the fullfledged leader the character usually is. Hence, the rank "Prime" became something less than in other franchises, so little that graduation isn't even a requirement. It would have been sexist if absolutely no female Primes would have existed in Animated with such standards (and for that matter, a potential Prime, like Elita-1 once was, counts), so Override is a necessity rather than something praise-worthy.
			:I mean, let's face it, the odds of a female Prime existing in a franchise/continuity where being a Prime is important and the character would eventually have impact on the story? Not going to happen any time soon. Unless you count ''Cybertron'' Override who is semi-technically a Prime.
			:I wanted to get rid of the note entirely because it has no value. It implies something noteworthy when it only would have been noteworthy if Override (and Elita-1) didn't exist. That's why I added the line - to poke fun at an uncomfortable truth nobody in particular is responsible for, which makes it all the tougher to get some actual improvement.
			:I'm not sure how wise it is to add this to my case, but there's also the little matter that Japanese fiction's attitude towards women gets mercilessly dissected on various of the wiki's pages, even when from context I feel there's a rationale behind it that at worst only is partially misogynistic. Yet when Western fiction pulls stunts like this, it is barely allowed to be mentioned or complained about. I don't think I find that all that fair. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 12:26, 7 March 2011 (EST)

69.14.24.94: /* "And all it took was for the title to be devaluated!" */

2011-03-07T16:45:40Z

"And all it took was for the title to be devaluated!"

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 7 March 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)
			::::::::It's actually pretty obnoxiously feminist, in a sarcastic kind of way.
	And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)		And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Peter Damian at 16:35, 7 March 2011

2011-03-07T16:35:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 7 March 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	And congratulations to "Alientraveller". --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)		And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Peter Damian at 16:35, 7 March 2011

2011-03-07T16:35:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 7 March 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)
			And congratulations to "Alientraveller". --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)

Peter Damian: /* "And all it took was for the title to be devaluated!" */

2011-03-07T16:29:24Z

"And all it took was for the title to be devaluated!"

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 7 March 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::::I think it's pretty clear that the caption-writer meant that we can't have female Primes unless Primes aren't as important. Personally, I'm more offended by the use of "devaluated". -[[User:LV\|LV]] 11:03, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::I think it's pretty clear that the caption-writer meant that we can't have female Primes unless Primes aren't as important. Personally, I'm more offended by the use of "devaluated". -[[User:LV\|LV]] 11:03, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:::::This is a horrible statement and it needs to be blown up and destroyed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:04, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:::::This is a horrible statement and it needs to be blown up and destroyed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:04, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)
			:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 7 March 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)
			::::::::It's actually pretty obnoxiously feminist, in a sarcastic kind of way.
	And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)		And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 7 March 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	And congratulations to "Alientraveller". --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)		And congratulations to "Alientraveller" for doing the right thing and nuking it. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 7 March 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:
	::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)
			And congratulations to "Alientraveller". --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:35, 7 March 2011 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 7 March 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::::I think it's pretty clear that the caption-writer meant that we can't have female Primes unless Primes aren't as important. Personally, I'm more offended by the use of "devaluated". -[[User:LV\|LV]] 11:03, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::I think it's pretty clear that the caption-writer meant that we can't have female Primes unless Primes aren't as important. Personally, I'm more offended by the use of "devaluated". -[[User:LV\|LV]] 11:03, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	:::::This is a horrible statement and it needs to be blown up and destroyed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:04, 7 March 2011 (EST)		:::::This is a horrible statement and it needs to be blown up and destroyed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:04, 7 March 2011 (EST)
	::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)		::::::I am reading it better now. Apparently it's easy to misread as super horrible when you've been up for 48 hours. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 11:22, 7 March 2011 (EST)
			:::::::Even so, it comes across as sexist. That is in no way a good thing. The statement should be removed. --[[User:Peter Damian\|Peter Damian]] 11:29, 7 March 2011 (EST)