The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
Exactly. The OP appears to be advocating that indiscriminate use of violence just for the heck of it is somehow "masculine", and advocating that the use of controlled violence is somehow "soy" or "feminist". On the contrary, an appropriate expression of violence is controlled violence, not indiscriminate violence. In addition, the characterisation of "male violence" as being largely indiscriminate is a flawed feminist understanding of violence. In other words, advocating indiscriminate violence is probably more "soy" than castigating it.
A masculine use of violence would have a purpose, because a man knows what's at stake when violence is deployed. You'd have to be an idiot to try to take on any more than you needed to.
Exactly. The OP appears to be advocating that indiscriminate use of violence just for the heck of it is somehow "masculine", and advocating that the use of controlled violence is somehow "soy" or "feminist". On the contrary, an appropriate expression of violence is controlled violence, not indiscriminate violence. In addition, the characterisation of "male violence" as being largely indiscriminate is a flawed feminist understanding of violence. In other words, advocating indiscriminate violence is probably more "soy" than castigating it.
Thanks -- I meant to add that point but forgot.
A masculine use of violence would have a purpose, because a man knows what's at stake when violence is deployed. You'd have to be an idiot to try to take on any more than you needed to.
Well shit. I guess Jackie Chan doesn't do 'masculine' action movies because nobody dies.