Thanks for saving me the trouble, and the time.
My experience with looking at studies is that feminists are quick to trumpet ridiculous findings like this: while phoning in bomb threats to people who do real research, and come up with numbers they don’t like.
Ever heard of Erin Pizzey? The link is to her Wikipedia entry, or you can just google her name.
Nice.
I’m not aware of that survey having been discredited, unless having people on the Internet saying “that survey sucks” counts as discrediting.
Still waiting for a response from **LinusK ** about the shirtgate stuff.
It’s not necessarily that simple, depending on the state. If a couple is married, the husband is presumed to be the father of a child born during that marriage. Even if DNA shows otherwise later, the child is still legally considered the offspring of the man married to the mother.
If a divorce occurs and you don’t deny paternity, you’re pretty much stuck with child support, even if a DNA test is taken later.
If a couple is not married and a man puts his name on the child’s birth certificate and treats that child as his own, that again is taken into consideration and can be difficult to undo, even with DNA testing.
But overall, once the court has ruled that you’re the father of a child, it is not easy to change it.
Again, specifics vary from state to state.
Meaning movies where the protagonist kills people, and gets a passive woman as his reward? I want to make sure we agree on terms before I start listing.
Maybe Cameron didn’t want to make the same gender boilerplate; maybe he wanted a tidy conclusion where everything from the future was destroyed. In either case, one film (or even two by the same director) does not a trend make.
They can, sure. I’d argue that Sarah is the sole protagonist of this particular film, as she has a story arc, and Reese doesn’t - he’s a static character.
As for “the protagonist is supposed to be a man”…you aren’t going to argue that male protagonists aren’t more common, are you? Let’s glance at recent successful films, shall we (ie, top-10 grossing, thus with the largest cultural footprint):
2014: 7 male, 2 female, 1 ensemble.
2013: 6 male, 3 female, 1 ensemble.
2012: 6 male, 1 female, 3 ensemble.
2011: 6 male, 0 female, 4 ensemble.
2010: 7 male, 3 female.
Yes, she did.
I don’t know about that, Romeo & Juliet is a paragon of romance, is it not? And Jack living would be just as appealing, for box-office purposes.
It’s almost like Buttercup is more of an object than a character, isn’t it? An ornament, if you will?
Actually, I read an article not long ago complaining that women in construction were mainly limited to the low-paying, dead-end “flagger” position. I can’t find that one, but here’s a feminist article bemoaning a lack of opportunity for women in construction.
It is pretty amazing that of the whole universe of things to talk about that have people with genders in them, the example that he’s choosing to spotlight to point out how we glorify women is: how much of a badass hero the fictional Dread Pirate Roberts is, and how much crazy shit he overcomes by being strong and smart and super sweet, vs. how useless Buttercup is and how little she does besides be pretty, in a made up story for our entertainment.
In a thread where he complains that feminists sometimes talk about trivial shit.
Might as well keep going…
2009: 8 male, 1 female, 1 ensemble
2008: 6 male, 1 female, 2 ensemble, 1 robot
2007: 8 male, 0 female, 2 ensemble
2006: 6 male, 0 female, 4 ensemble
2005: 7 male, 0 female, 3 ensemble
2004: 7 male, 0 female, 3 ensemble
2003: 7 male, 0 female, 3 ensemble
2002: 8 male, 1 female, 1 ensemble
2001: 7 male, 0 female, 3 ensemble
2000: 8 male, 0 female, 2 ensemble
Though to be fair, the robot in question was pretty clearly presented as male, with an ostensibly female love interest.
I haven’t actually seen WALL-E, hence hedging on the gender issue. Thanks for the additional information. In general, I tried to be charitable to the opposition in my categorizations; for example, the Ice Age and Madagascar franchises are heavily male, but since there are female characters with nominally equal weight in the proceedings, I classed them as ensembles.
It’s hardly the only study.
Here’s Lisak and Miller, (2002), Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending among Undetected Rapists:
[quote]
Pooling data from four samples in which 1,882 men were assessed for acts of interpersonal violence, we report on 120 men whose self-reported acts met legal definitions of rape or attempted rape, but who were never prosecuted by criminal justice authorities. A majority of these undetected rapists were repeat rapists, and a majority also commited other acts of interpersonal violence. The repeat rapists averaged 5.8 rapes each./quote]
Helpfully, they also cite other studies which come to similar findings:
.
I looked up some abstracts:
Collings:
Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987
Merril et al:
There have been a lot of studies. They consistently show the same thing - a disturbingly high percentage of young men who freely admit to being rapists. Far from “singling out innocents” it seems likely that mandatory anti-rape seminars are ensuring that these young men (and a presumed further number who share the same attitudes to sexual violence but have not yet had the opportunity to act upon them) are at least in possession of a clear understanding of what the law is. It may even suggest to them that a different approach would be wiser. Given that they are likely to rape again, this seems worthwhile.
On the other hand, won’t someone think of the poor innocent men who’s precious honour is so deeply insulted? It’s a fine balance, to be sure.
Still would love an answer to this one. LinusK, you’ve claimed in multiple threads that feminists don’t talk about prison rape. I and others have posted links to feminists talking about prison rape. Will you concede that feminists talk about prison rape?
I listed to evidence of the NOW acting against prison rape. Not just talking, but making a difference.
Water off a grebe’s back.
No reply, LinusK? Here are the posts. I’ve made them very accessible.
Why do you hate America?
Because I’m a feminist, obviously.
I laughed.
Cute movie, though. Uneven, but cute.
Yeah I started mostly tuning this thread out after seeing exactly the posts you mentioned followed by no response whatsoever from Linusk
On another topic that LinusK keeps bringing up, notice how most of the dangerous jobs he lists pay really well? I imagine a Catch-22 for women. If they don’t pursue the jobs, it’s because they are selfishly putting men in harm’s way. If they do pursue the jobs, they only want them because they pay a lot.
An article here talks about women making inroads into oil field work.
Oh, and I worked in the oil field for a couple of years in the mid-nineties, if anyone cares.
That’s a silly spin to it. When feminist go on about how women earn 77 cent for each dollar a man make, or whatever silly thing they drone on (and on and on) about, the risk profile (as well as other factors) of the jobs need to be taken into account. Not doing so is one of the examples of the widespread manipulative usage of statistics and surveys feminists rightfully have been criticised for.