Slashdot Mirror
Men's Rights Activists Call For Boycott of Mad Max: Fury Road
ideonexus writes: Aaron Clarey, author of the blog Return of Kings and prominent figure in the Men's Rights Movement, is calling for a boycott of George Miller's new edition to the Mad Max franchise "Mad Max: Fury Road," calling the film a "Trojan Horse feminists and Hollywood leftists will use to (vainly) insist on the trope women are equal to men in all things..." and citing the fact that "Vagina Monologues" author Eve Ensler was brought in to coach the actresses on playing sex slaves who escape a warlord's possession. Critics have been applauding the film, which currently scores 98% on RottenTomatoes.
Is it the 1st of April already? My watch must be a few months off...
I was astonished to see it open at 9.0 on IMDB. I had read that it's just one big chase scene with no plot. Is it actually interesting?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I can't hear you over this tiny, tiny violin.
P.S. have any of these idiots ever heard of the Streisand Effect?
Good grief, dude. Not everything has some deep underlying 'message'.
It's a Mad Max retake. Weird vehicles, Crap blowing up. Post apocalypse...
It's a gorram movie.
Had you not so thoughtfully informed me, I would never have known, or wanted to know, that some woman associated with the "Vagina Monologues" was also involved with this. And you know what? I not not give a rats ass.
I don't watch Mad Max for it's deep social message.
Well, I was on the fence about spending money on this movie, but this has ensured that I will. (If this is a bit of false outrage generated by someone attached to the movie in some way, they're definitely earning their pay.)
Except, well.... men aren't a majority group.
Maybe not in terms of the planet's population, but in many industries and in positions of power and authority, men are still a majority.
No...because they feel that empowerment slipping away, and they fear payback.
Advocates of social progress and civil equality always eventually emerge victorious, and the stubborn, narrow-minded bigots clinging to the status quo always eventually lose.
Just skimmed the article. Summary: Max Max might be woman-friendly. Even if you were remotely interested in this thing, it still is unproven click-bait.. Let's keep the amount of comments as little as possible and save it for 'news that matters' (even for non-nerds).
Am I anti-men thinking this sounds really stupid or have I just internalized my philogyny?
They went a different road from the original(s).
In the original it was more dark and grimy, it felt more dramatic, and the atmosphere in general was sad... very sad.
In the remake, you have drum trucks and flamethrower electric guitars, it's a much more humor-ish comic take, which makes this, again, not a sequel, but a cash-in remake.
It's not a Mad Max movie. The main character isn't Max, the atmosphere isn't Mad Max's, it just happened to have spiked cars chasing plated cars in the wastland.
But hey, how many movies with spiked cars and crazy wasteland chase scenes do we get every year? Am still down for it.
Men's rights and white power groups and other groups that "fight" for the rights of an already empowered majority exist only because they choose to ignore history.
There are no such thing as "group" rights. If a man is denied custody of his children during a divorce procedure, that isn't some how okay because his grandmother was denied a job. Whining about a movie is silly, but MRAs have some valid points about discrimination against men in family law. For instance, most domestic violence laws are written as if men are the sole abusers, when most DV is actually perpetrated by women. In California, the police can only arrest the "dominant" (physically stronger) partner, regardless of who was the initiator or the aggressor. So a woman can attack her husband, and he goes to jail.
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie.
Some idiot writing something on a web site is hardly news particularly when it's a bitter divorcee talking about mass entertainment. What is this doing on Slashdot? Or is the new revenue model to woo readers away from Jezebel and Salon?
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Men might still be prevalent in positions of power and influence, but there are developments on this issue that worry some people (not all of them men either). Not because man's position of power is threatened, but because in some cases the pendulum swings a bit far the other way. For instance, primary schools (and increasingly high schools as well) are thoroughly feminized institutions these days, and it isn't helping education. Political correctness spurred by feminists gets picked up by mainstream media and politics, and sometimes taken to ridiculous lengths. And I do not doubt that this sort of thing has its influence on Hollywood as well. Bill Maher said it right when claiming that it has become somewhat politically incorrect to be a man.
Without arguing the rights and wrongs of each of these examples, it's not a surprise that a "men's rights" movement has sprung up. And it's also not a surprise that this group apparently mirrors the feminist movement: with some level-headed people bringing real issues to the public's attention, and with some moronic cretins who see social injustice in everything
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
There's been too much violence, too much pain. But I have an honorable compromise. Just walk away from this article.
For fuck's sake.
First of all, Aaron Clarey himself says he's not an MRA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Second of all, so what if he was?
I'm tired of MRAs being the boogeyman of feminists looking for someone to blame everytime a tampon slips out of joint.
Oh, was that sexist?
Or did I get to say that because I'm a woman and not "punching down"?
Feminists are allowed to "disown" or "hide" any of their own rank that doesn't play along with the narrative (such as: #killallmen or the SCUM manifesto). Do MRAs (the quiet, non-extremist variety) not get the same benefit of the doubt? Is that really equality, women?
When was the last time you actually talked to someone claiming to be an MRA, rather than just shouting them into silence before actually listening to their points of view? Or do you just blindly listen to The Mary Sue and Jezebel, because they've never shown any biased reporting, right?
This isn't because I'm an MRA (I'm an egalitarian; there's room at the table for everyone with a gender-based axe to grind). I'm just annoyed with feminism needing any enemy to latch the hate onto every time someone dare criticize a woman for anything, instead of, you know, dealing with it like grownups do.
Especially since Eve Ensler wrote a piece that is supposed to be empowering to women that condones not only rape, but statutory rape.
So, feminism, can I broad-brush blame you for that? Is that okay?
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Some of the points the men's right movement are valid and worth debating, such as disparity in prison sentencing and child custody. However, this Return of Kings guy is a fucking moron.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
and they fear payback.
I think that is a relatively healthy fear.
I am not a "men's right's activist", nor am I feminist. I don't believe in men's rights, or women's rights or any kind of "group rights." Just individual rights. Equal rights to all under the law. Cover the individual and cover every smallest minority imaginable without playing favourites.
Growing up, I knew a lot of men who went through divorces. They would all complain about how biased the system was in favour of their ex's and how screwed they were getting. I always assumed they were just bitter and angry and biased themselves (I was taught that there is always two sides to every story). Until I went through a separation myself, and my lawyer (who represents both men and women and comes across as a very down-to-earth guy; e.g he urges his clients to seek mediation and not litigate whenever possible), told me flat out that in his experience the system is biased in favour of women. That's not necessarily feminism, in fact it's ANTI-feminist because it treats women like helpless, disadvantaged charity cases who need the support of men to take care of them. But I think that's what a lot of "men's rights activists" fear, and rightly so. It's unfairness in the disguise of seeking fairness.
Part of "being a man" is not being a whiny bitch.
Just sayin'.
-Styopa
Why is this on Slashdot? Has Slashdot become this clickbaity? Secondly, Charlize Theron has said herself that Mad Max is "an incredibly feminist action film" and "It's a total empowerment of women,". Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wir...
I've also heard the synopsis of the film, and it sounds like Charlize Theron's character is the main character in the film and women come to the rescue in the film. It sounds like it really sidelines Mad Max in an attempt to push a political agenda, I liked the Aliens movies, but it wasn't a bait and switch like Mad Max appears to be -- we knew that Sigourney Weaver was the star.
More and more women are losing custody of their children. I'm an example, have custody of three children. Men's rights are alive and well.
> Did people not enjoy the Matrix because Trinity kicked a bunch of ass?
That's a poor example. A better one would be if "The Matrix" was titled "Neo" and then involved Trinity kicking a lot more ass and being the main character, rather than Neo.
This isn't a call for a boycott.
Well, let's see what TFA says:
Not only REFUSE to see the movie, but spread the word to as many men as possible.
What part of the word "boycott" do you not understand?
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Men's rights and white power groups and other groups that "fight" for the rights of an already empowered majority exist only because they choose to ignore history.
I have a cousin, who for gender-related reasons, is having difficulty getting into college. Is this right? No, you do not get to know the gender of my cousin, that is irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong.
These people that you think are ignoring history, they really aren't. The men's rights groups that fight for discrimination that favors men, as wrong as they may be, aren't ignoring history, they are trying to preserve it, to preserve their power and influence. Again, I am not saying such groups are right, just that they are not ignoring history.
Likewise, the men's rights groups that fight for a genuine end to discrimination instead of discrimination that disfavors men, they know from history that hate just leads to more hate, discrimination just breeds more discrimination, and that the way to stop it, isn't to change the status quo from discrimination that favors men to discrimination that disfavors men, it is to fucking end discrimination.
But hey, thanks for trying to make this into an "us" vs "them" situation and just overall being part of the fucking problem.
A woman can be equal or better (stronger etc) than a man. There probably are a lot of women who could lift more than I can or beat me up. However, on average, women are weaker than men. Also, the strongest woman is most likely weaker than the strongest man. Why else there would be a need for segregation in sports? Have women compete against men in weightlifting, boxing etc.
Road Warrior was peak Mad Max, it's eminently rewatchable. Thunderdome II, not so much.
I looked briefly at the massive "MRA" "activists" behind this. One mental patient with a wonky web page.
Makes me wonder who's behind the massive publicity behind this non-story.
Meanwhile I have a friend who's paying child support in *two* states for a kid he has sole custody of his only child and putting her through college despite the fact his toxic ex beat the kid. Bue she went to school with the prosecutor, who knows the judge in a small town in Georgia. Backwoods southern justice strikes again.
Family law is still the 900 pound gorilla in the room.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Men's rights are alive and well.
Men's rights are alive and making progress. Slowly.
Not at all the same thing.
Why don't they call themselves masculists?
If your ideological position allows you to divide people into groups in the first place (men, women, straight, gay, white, black, rich, poor, etc.), then the people who find themselves attacked as a group in the contemporary space based on that ideology will suffer from discrimination and it shows in courts, in laws that are passed, etc. If a group of people is attacked there will be a counter movement created by that attack, why do you find that surprising or even wrong?
Yes, there are men who have genuinely suffered bad consequences of this ideology where they themselves are in no way proponents of any type of oppression towards any group.
As to the movie itself, well the media is the message, I can see how some people can take any media and message and put theirbown perspective on it. But calling for a boycott is not the same as calling for discrimination or violence.
Calling for a boycott is speech. By the way governments hate speech. Canadian government wants to prosecute a group of people calling for a boycott of Israel because Israeli forces are given orders to target civilians on purpose. Canadian government wants to use so called 'hate speech' laws to prosecute those people criminally.
So AFAIC whether there is something or not behind this call for a boycott, it does not make the claims behind the calls into bad faith claims.
You can't handle the truth.
This case is ridiculous, no one sane will argue with that. However, the whole "white men can get and do anything" means the ones that don't fit in the over-generalization are fucked.
ie: the kids who are raped before age of consent (let say a teacher or something), the offender gets pregnant, and then can go and sue the kid for child support, and is almost garenteed to win. Those are uncommon, but because we're no in a cuture of "the majority is never right", we're VERY quickly flipping the table 180, and it won't take long until we're in a big mess all over again. Except this new mess is gonna come with a round of applause.
You last point is heavily offset by the gender selection problems in countries that have more people in each of them than entire North American continent. I'm talking about China and India. They're looking at male:female ratios worse than 130:100 in edge cases and female life expectancy is not as high because of childbirth and sanitation issues.
Not arguing with your first points. Here in Nordics, we're traditionally far ahead in the matter of equality of sexes, my home country of Finland was the first one in the world to have women as members of parliament back in 1917, and we've already had a long period when both president and prime minister were women. And many of people who were pushing for equality of sexes, very much a woman-dominated field of study now heavily studies problems with boys and men that emerged when we hit as close to equality as we did. For example, in truly equal meritocracy based school system, boys are heavily disadvantaged in part due to biological difference from girls. By the time you need to pick between your choice of lyceum (high school equivalent which paves way to higher education) or vocational training which leads to blue collar low education job, girls are typically already past the rebellious age while boys are in the grips of it. That causes severely lower performance for boys, effectively pushing many out of higher education in an easily observable pattern. Then there are issues that you mention, as well as having army conscription mandatory for men but not women in our country.
Equality of sexes is very different from goals of feminism, and many of those who were pushing for equality of sexes while calling themselves feminist are now pushing for men's rights around here.
Um..
Just exactly when are you going to stop helping females and take your foot of the back of young men? The ratio is 60/40 now-- when will it be "enough" to stop having hundreds of groups helping females but few helping males?
---
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07...
Most institutions of higher learning, except engineering schools, now have a female edge, with many small liberal arts colleges and huge public universities alike hovering near the 60-40 ratio. Even Harvard, long a male bastion, has begun to tilt toward women.
"The class we just admitted will be 52 percent female," said William Fitzsimmons, Harvard's dean of admissions.
Women now outnumber men two to one at places like the State University of New York at New Paltz, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and Baltimore City Community College.
---
seriously--- I'm retired and don't really give a shit- I'm not a "men's" activist-- but I see in my gaming groups and in my in-laws relationships how the males are suffering while the females are still getting assistance and help even tho things are well past 50/50 (i.e. "fair") now.
At the last place I worked before I retired, 70% of managers were females and they openly discriminated in favor of females for team leader positions the ratio was 80% female to 20% male. They did things which would be illegal if a man did it. The law wasn't being equally enforced.
People hire people "like" them unless the government gives them a reality check. Women are equally able to discriminate, behave in a prejudicial fashion, and abuse the power of their positions.
The area where it is imbalanced in favor of males is at the very top. Among 60 year old males- the percentages are m ore like 80% male and 20% female. Where we need affirmative action is at the top- not in the bottom or even in the middle any more.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Maybe not in terms of the planet's population, but in many industries and in positions of power and authority, men are still a majority.
...and those men comprise an exceedingly miniscule percentage of the male population. The rest of us in the 99.999th percentile aren't as "empowered" as those guys.
BTW, males DO outnumber females worldwide, but females outnumber males in the vast majority of the developed world.
Good grief, dude. Not everything has some deep underlying 'message'.
Well, I would agree with you...except, they brought in the author of the 'Vagina Monologues", Eve Ensler, to consult on making the film. You do not bring her in unless you are putting in some deep underlying message which she would approve of. For that matter, Eve Ensler would not have consented to consult on the film unless she agreed with the message.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
yup
the arc of history is clear: progress is real. it wasn't long ago the idea of gay marriage rights or marijuana legalization seemed distant and impossible
bigots, sexists, racists: they may whine and bitch, or go full douchebag and do immoral things, but their fate is clear and certain: the dustbin of history. they are losing, and they will lose in the end
don't get me wrong, sexists, racists and such losers will always exist. it's just that they will no longer dominate the social, legal, and political status quo like they used to. the fact that they no longer do is, like the arrow of time, proof of the march of history and progress
you will always encounter sexists and racists. a moronic comment on slashdot. a throwaway comment by a loser coworker. a catcall or a tweet from who knows where that momentarily catches your eye
ignore them. they hold no power
such shitbags will always linger like a fungus in a dank basement, the socially malformed pathetics of any society. serious civilization has moved on without them, and will continue to make them more and more irrelevant
like cannibalism and slavery, things that also do still exist, and always will exist, in the dark cracks. but are now an exotic shocking fringe, and no longer dominate our societies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a feminist monster truck rally - forever" - Me after watching Mad Max
Men and women have different advantages and disadvantages in life. Men's Rights groups, while it's true that they are often filled with men who have gotten burned in divorces and child-custody battles (and therefore biased and angry), they do actually have a point with regard to certain issues. It's nice and easy to pretend that men have all these advantages over women and no disadvantages, but that's simply not the case. For example, did you know that in France and Germany it is illegal for a man to test the paternity of his children? Courts have ruled that it might cause a man to find out that "his children" aren't actually his biological children, and therefore abandon his wife and the children that aren't his. France and Germany decided they don't want that to happen, so men who attempt to get paternity tests on their children can be thrown in prison and hit with a fine. Men commit suicide at four times the rate of women. Men are the victims of 80% of homicides. Men are far more likely to suffer workplace fatalities. Studies have shown that men get prison sentences 60% longer than women for the same crime, and women are much more likely to serve no time at all in prison after being convicted of a crime ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... ). Men who are victims of domestic abuse or rape are taken much less seriously than women. Men are far more likely to end up homeless than women. Men are scared of the idea pushed forward by feminist groups that, when it comes to sexual assault, you should always believe the woman rather than giving due process and trying to get the facts.
There's a variety of bad feminist statistics which serve to help reinforce the "female victim" status, but it's annoying when you find out that it's not the truth. Some articles to read:
"Economist’s Glass Ceiling Index Distorts Reality" - an example of biased reporting about women's equality in the workplace http://www.feministcritics.org...
"When Is 19 More Than 940?" - regarding workplace deaths, where the white-latino gap is talked about but the male-female gap is ignored http://www.feministcritics.org...
"Yet Another Example Where Equality Isn’t Equality" - An example of biased lifespan data being used to paint women as oppressed - http://www.feministcritics.org...
"More Workplace Gender Lies From HuffPo" - regarding workplace deaths, where HuffPo pretends that women die as often as men on the job: http://www.feministcritics.org...
TLDR: It's silly to say that men have the best of everything in life.
1. Return of Kings is not MRA. Return of Kings is anti-MRA. That's a pretty big difference.
2. It's not plural activists. It's *one* guy.
3. This is the first time ever I've seen someone use RottenTomatoes as a reference for movie quality? Why?
I go to see Mad Max movie for Mad Max.
If you go to see John Wayne in Chisolm, you expect to see cattle barons fight in the west you don't expect to see the little girl from True Grit. So is this a Mad Max movie (Hard to do without Mel Gibson to begin with) or is it Tank Girl.
I think this is the first time I've seen "MRA" in a slashdot headline (I could have missed some, but I do check reasonably often). It's certainly the first time Return of Kings attention-getting trollish posts (including stuff like "why girls with short hair are damaged" and "why to date a girl with an eating disorder") has baited slashdot, that I'm aware of.
But the bigger concern is- is slashdot going to really enter this territory? This is hugely controversial stuff. We've already seen "feminism Friday" become a thing- normally some genderwarrior-bait story near the end of the week, normally told from a feminist perspective- sometimes legit, sometimes not. One piece that is largely controversial on slashdot is the "should we bend over backwards to get girls in tech" thing, obviously built in controversy for a bunch of professional tech people, and we see it *over and over again*.
But this is beyond that. You would expect people to have differing opinions on that stuff, and whether you are opposed or in favor, it's pretty relevant. Random gender warring stories, such as this, are not.
I'll also point this out: the editorial staff seems to be pretty strongly on one side. It may be difficult to give MRAs a fair shake, but certainly, by calling RoK an MRA website, and by linking that as the first thing ever, they aren't even fucking trying. This would be like calling out "feminists" and then linking to some really ludicrous 70s-edge position as being the standard-bearer. A Voice For Men's website is probably a better place to start if you want to actually go find non-strawmen points to analyze / refute- they at least self identify as some version of MRA, not some reactionary / PUA crossbreed like RoK.
The people who discuss these gender things online tend to be full-on soldiers, on both sides. They will do or say anything to slam the other side, they will dox, they will make false claims, they are fighting a fucking war. And you want the slashdot commenters to be in on this? Gross.
They seem to get laid once, after which the woman runs away. Or she smells the dork long before something happens. And hearing the stuff that comes out of MRA's mouths, I can't blame her...
It would be so if only MRAs actually cared a fig about discrimination or violence against men.
If you follow the movement, you'll see it has a lot less to do with making anyone's life better and a lot to do with attacking women.
Ah yes, the classic "pay no attention to the rationality of the argument, I can assure you that somehow it's all about invisible oppression."
This appeal to emotion is something I've never understood. Does logic warp in the presence of such accusations? Do valid points become invalid if countered with claims of misogyny? Is 2 = 2 somehow not correct because the author was accused of being an MRA (and therefore bad by association)? How do you rationalise away the valid points about discrimination against men by claiming that arbitrary persons attack arbitrary women?
Who the fuck watches a kickass action movie just so they can find some Tumblr shit to complain about?
There's an entire subgenre of trolling called "Social Justice Warriors" that do nothing but watch movies, TV, read books, and stalk people on social media so they can cherry pick stuff to whine about. They're a particularly vile form of Internet troll, focused mostly on Tumblr and Twitter but a lot of them are entitled trust fund kids so there's a significant number of them infesting colleges and starting to latch themselves onto legit businesses.
Symptoms include made up or redefined words ("Racism = prejudice + power, ergo you can't be racist against white people!"), Magical special snowflake pronouns, and the words "problematic" or "toxic" when discussing things they don't like.
Oh, and a Patreon account, because actually getting a job is for cis shitlord scum.
I'm kind of in two minds here. I think I'll hedge my bets by pirating it but deleting it without watching it. Or at least not properly paying attention.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What is a reference for movie quality, if it's not a site where movie reviews are aggregated?
Do you have some machine that measures movie quality?
You are welcome on my lawn.
this is not a dating site. if you're interested in such things you should be happy to know that gay rights are increasingly accepted. good luck to you and your romantic interests
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That web site is not an advocate for "mens rights", it's a flaming, garish train wreck of a crock of shit. (Tell us how you really feel)
And yet, there's a big to-do over transwomen wanting to participate in girl's/women's sports and doing well enough that they're accused of having an advantage.
Except, well.... men aren't a majority group.
Why would this be a "troll"? It's a true statement. In fact, as the gender obtaining only 40% of college degrees, they are becoming a distinct minority in well-educated populations.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Which is probably why there's substantial overlap between the MRA and "pickup artist" communities.
Shouldn't that be masculininists?
No, because the female analogue is not femininist.
I am a crackpot
You don't say. ;-P
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
> Return of Kings is not MRA. Return of Kings is anti-MRA. That's a pretty big difference.
Only if you're one of the assholes in either of the those groups. From the outside it all looks the same. Forgive us if we don't distinguish fine gradations between misogynist camps. You can all go your own way for all I care.
Maybe if it were an acutal Men's rights activitst who was saying this. This comes from a peice on Return of Kings, which is NOT part of the Men's Human Rights Movment, but is instead a pickup artist site run by a man who is hostile to the Men's right's movement.
The Men's Human Right's Movment is more concerned with the following:
The unfair way in which family courts treat men with regards to custody, child support and alimony
The lack of services for male victims of domestic violence.
The male suicide rate.
Selective Service and the Draft
Infant circumcision.
Women earning positions of power or being represented as powerful isn't even on their radar. Several of the most prominent men's rights activists such as Karen Straughan are female.
I hope this is educational.and might open your eyes a bit.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
How about a retraction Slashdot for not doing your fucking research.
http://www.returnofkings.com/31590/5-reasons-i-am-not-a-mens-rights-activist
Clearly not a men's rights page. He even has reasons why not.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
Except for the fact that, yknow, they're diametrically opposed ideologies. I mean there's plenty of overlap in the sense that feminists insist they're the same people for politicial convenience, but that's it.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Except for the fact there's hard evidence proving you're wrong.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
I've seen racism and sexism shift back to being normal in my lifetime. I don't think the arc of history bends towards justice, I think it's a constant struggle against normal human tendency to be bigoted and discriminatory.
Play Command HQ online
Minority factions push back a little against centuries of white dominance and millenniums of male dominance........and this is what we get? Crying foul for men's rights? Lol. What a frigging joke. I'm a white male who won custody of his children. The mother did not. I feel very comfortable in saying a man can achieve anything they pretty much want in this life through balancing their desires, morals, and motivations, of course.....white men, especially. Arguments like these -- reverse racism, men's rights -- are coming from the lazy white men who actually have to work to obtain a goal rather than have it handed to them on their majority-filled plates.
Being white has only been an advantage for about 500 years in the west. Before that, it was better to be Arab. Before that it was Mongolian. Then Chinese (or possibly Roman). Then there's a brief Greek period in there. Before that it goes back to the Arabs (Persians actually). Its generally been better to be male in a dominate culture, but if your culture is conquered it flipped to female damn quick.
The truth is that in the US its more about the amount of $$ your family has than anything. The rest of this stuff is all rounding errors and click bait. That and typical tribal groups fighting for control. If you don't understand this, you are both very lucky and a fool. My wish for you is to never have to actually learn these truths.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
give them a generation or two without ramming our perverse ideas of women down their throats as soon as they reach 12,
12? What world are you living in? My son came home from his first day of school at age 5, crying. He had picked out a Dorothy the Dinosaur backpack for school. It was pink. I suggested the blue Wiggles bag, but he liked pink. It's bright and fun.
He was made fun of and teased for having a "girl's bag". At age 5. By a bunch of other age 5 children trained that pink is bad, and blue is good, and one must conform or be tortured.
That's the world today. 12 would be a big improvement. Parents train their sub-5 children to recognize boy and girl, and treat them differently. I didn't, so my kid was bullied on his first day of school. I didn't realize how bad it would be, or I'd have insisted on the blue.
Learn to love Alaska
You see a conspiracy where there is none. They had sex slaves in the plot and wanted to do a better than average portrayal, making them proper characters instead of the usual generic dross. They got in an expert to consult.
What exactly are you trying to say? That this person taints everything she touches? Can you provide specific criticism of the film to support that point? Or are you just saying it is a zero sum game and that men must lose out for women to be portrayed positively in movies?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They are basically a Steven Seagal movie...
I could have sworn he only ever starred in two: the one movie that he did remakes of over and over again, and the one where he dies in an exploding plane in the first five minutes.
Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
There's a sex slave subplot with bitter and twisted women so why not bring someone in that can make that fly?
Makes perfect sense to bring her in.
Also the "message" is where the good guys save people from cartoon grade over the top bad guys. Of course she and everyone else agrees with the message.
Because it looked like the sort of thing that could generate 400+ comments and have people looking at the advertisements on the page.
Yes, and the increasing number of things framed as MRA vs SJW fights are part of it. It's the new bitcoin article of the week.
Sure, just like the goths and vampires in South Park: the differences might be massive between the two groups, but to everyone else they look and behave identically. MRAs and PUAs are both misogynistic beyond belief, and seem to revel in that fact. That's enough for most decent people to simply walk away from the shit-fest and let these poor fools drown in their own mess.