The Red Pill

[squ1d]

Also in terms of fact checking that movie ... I think you said above that men and women are roughly equal in terms of being victims of domestic violence. I did some fact checking on that . Yeah ..... nah.

[vendic]

Depending on the study, iirc the rates were about 45 vs 55%.

https://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/ ... 2010-a.pdf
Violence by an intimate partner, Page 38
women: 35% experience violence in a lifetime compared to men: 28.5% for men.
So about 41% vs 59%

Page 39: % of men in of a particular group that experience violence
45% of American Indian men
40% of Black and multiracial (non hispanic) men
about 27% for hispanic and white men.

A racial breakdown among women is higher in the Black and ethnic (non hispanic) group at about 53%


Now this is what your data might be based on (I have to guess since there are no sources listed):
Severe physical violence statistics by an intimate partner:
Women 1/4 over a lifetime (25%)
Men 1/7 over a lifetime (14%)
Given that the rates of violence are similar (roughly 60/40 in the above study) but men are generally stronger and less prone to injury, there would be a skewing towards more women getting severely injured. Imagine a couple getting drunk and arguing when it gets physical. The lack of restraint will cause the woman to more likely be injured. Since about 60% of cases are bi-directional in violence, that's going to happen. I point out here I'm not excusing it, I completely hate domestic violence and even though I was a victim (by my ex) I never hit her. The reality is simply when two people get into a fight, the weaker of the two will generally come out worse.

Now lets throw in some other fun facts:

When a person calls the police regarding domestic violence:
The number of women arrested: low
Number of women who are forced to leave the home: low
Number of women that are arrested if they made the call: low
Lets just say that they aren't low for the men, yet when you look at the figures, they should not be.

The number of men asked by the woman's father, if she beat him: I'm betting zero

The number of women asked by the guys mother if he beat her: Yes, my own mother had the gaul to ask my ex when we split up, and if I my violence was the problem? Well: (she was a lying cheating bitch ma, that's why we split up, just saying)... and I have never given her or any woman reason to think I'd hit them. I don't even like raising my voice at women because I don't want to scare them. Yet my own mother asked that question. So how is a police officer going to fare better. They will make the "statistically safest" choice for themselves, as opposed to the correct choice. IOW, there will be a shit storm if something happened later and he/she made the wrong decision. Better protect my ass, into the cell you go, here, have a bonus domestic violence arrest record too. Trust me, it'll help in your divorce and in getting a job or another home...
When the ex got into a mutually violent relationship, guess who she called to protect her? Yeah, the stupid ex who went and put himself in harms way in a domestic because, my pa always taught me to protect women even if it means dying to do so. Because, you're a no good man if you don't. Well screw you too pa.
But I digress...

Number of womens shelters in the USA: 2000+, many state funded
Number of mens shelters: 1, it was recently made, and, men make up 4/5 homeless.
I see a problem there. Federally they are not allowed to discriminate but many states have it written that these services are for battered women and their children.

Here's a link to a site that seems (I haven't dug too deeply into them) in wanting to help all that are affected by domestic violence and provide links to sources to backup the claims.

If you start looking into domestic murder rates, as opposed to domestic violence, I'll totally agree that there is a huge problem there and the vast majority are women. That however, was not the claim made by me or the filmmaker.

[vendic]

Some myths that are present exposed
A good read with references.

Like: http://www.breakingthescience.org/Simpl ... omDHHS.php
71% of children killed by a single parent were killed by their mothers. 60% of the children were boys.
Claims however are often made that reverse those findings.

The problems in getting facts in scientific studies is highlighted, with references.

Studies by the CDC, peer reviewed show surprising results

Deliberate manipulation of judicial survey regarding custody rates. This false data has widely been used to show no gender bias and blame fathers when it in reality shows the exact opposite.
men

Study of gender symetry in domestic violence has references to 200 studies that show similar results going back decades. link

President elect of the AMA, lying to the Senate link

This issue is not as clear as one would expect.

[vendic]

Lastly

Murray Straus, one of the people that actually brought studies on domestic violence on the table many decades ago, was asked a question on a radio interview:

In this portion of the show, another guest had proposed that academic researchers should partner with the battered women's shelters to figure out how to get the violence to end.

Straus responded:
"I tried to do that. I haven't tried for a number of years because the people I tried to do it with insisted on my using a biased instrument."
Interviewer: "What do you mean by that?"

Straus:
"Well, I'm the developer of the Conflict Tactics Scales. This instrument lists things that might happen when there's a conflict or when people are just plain feeling out of sorts, or lousy, or angry for whatever reason. The instrument asks, 'Did these things happen?'

"It includes various acts that the partner can do, and that the respondent – the person being interviewed – might do. They refused to ask the questions about what the respondent did. When they were interviewing women respondents, they insisted on asking only questions about what the partner did.

"That same procedure was carried over into the National Institute of Justice National Violence Against Women study. They asked what they call a 'feminist version' of the Conflict Tactics Scale, that asks only about victimization and leaves out the questions about perpetration. And of course if you do that, you will have to find that only men are violent.

"It was only after much pressure from people like myself that they then added a second sample, of men, to find this out. As a result of this, even though this study is biased in a number of ways, some of them unintentional, some of them intentional, they found that 40% of the past year assaults were perpetrated by women. This is a national sample of 16,000, so it's huge and very dependable."

There is a systematic problem here that I'm seeing.

[squ1d]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/f ... cs/7147938

[vendic]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/fact-file-domestic-violence-statistics/7147938

1 in 19, men experienced partner violence in their lifetime
1 in 6, women experienced partner violence in their lifetime

In the last 12 months
0.6% of men experienced partner violence
1.5% of women experienced partner violence

That's about 30% men vs 70% women.

This analysis shows that one in four Australian women experienced at least one incident of violence from an intimate partner (2,194,200, 25.1 per cent) since the age of 15.

The analysis was made by the women's group ARROW and fact check quoted them. Fact check used their analysis and ignored the ABS figures (which ARROW claims to have used) which actually calculated the figure to be 17%

It is spelled out quite clearly:

Women were more likely than men to experience violence by a partner. In 2012, an estimated 17% of all women aged 18 years and over (1,479,900 women) and 5.3% of all men aged 18 years and over (448,000 men) had experienced violence by a partner since the age of 15.

In the last 12 months:

Women were more likely than men to have experienced violence by a partner in the 12 months prior to the survey. In the 12 months prior to the survey an estimated 132,500 women (1.5% of all women aged 18 years and over) had experienced violence by a partner compared to 51,800 men (0.6% of all men aged 18 years and over).

30% male vs 70% female.

Speculation and bias from "experts":

Cathy Humphries from the department of social work at the University of Melbourne told Fact Check that the main shortcoming of the PSS was that it measured victims, not incidents, of domestic violence.

The data on current partner violence shows that 65 per cent of men and women experienced more than one incident of violence.

She said that only by looking at the number of incidents could the severity of domestic violence be determined.

"All these men could be reporting this but it could easily be a one-off," she said.

So could all these women...
Speculation should be left out of analysis, particularly when it is applied to one group but not the other because that's called bias.

This type of stuff is exactly what some of the links I posted were claiming. That data even when done properly is misrepresented and often cited.

The women's group ARROW carefully selected data to completely demonize men.
They claim 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence and cite the ABS's data, even though the data clearly shows 1 in 6. They point out that 95% of these cases are perpetrated by men. I'll get back to this a little later.
They don't mention that 23% (about 1 in 4) victims are male and of those male victims, the vast majority is perpetrated by females. The net result is that it's only men that are violent and is viewed as a very high rate when the current rate of females experiencing violence is about 1.5% over the course of a year, compared to men experiencing violence 0.6% over the same time frame.
To me at least the rates are similar. 98.5% of women don't experience violence and 99.4% of men don't experience violence in the course of the year from their partner. So how about we help the small percentage that do without making it a men vs women thing. A small percentage of men are assholes and that needs to be addressed. A small percentage of women are assholes and that also needs to be addressed.
As an example, if the rates were 0.000009 vs 0.000001 respectively, are they similar or do we say that there is a huge discrepancy where 90% of victims are female and 10% are male. That easy. We say that there are a small number of assholes.
Remember that 95% of perpetrators of women, are men figure. How does that sound now? Technically it's still correct. It really does demonize men though and without cause. Currently, 98.5% of men in relationships even according to this study are not violent and that includes shouting at each other as a form of violence. 99.4% of women are the same. This isn't a man problem. It's an asshole problem.

Fact Check has scrutinised the available data on domestic violence and talked to experts to present this guide to what the data does, and does not, show.

Not one "expert" is from any men's advocacy group even though they used a men's group's claims. They also used incorrect data (as I have shown) when the real data is there from the source that they used.

This is one case study done for Australia. Each country is different. The links I have given above list multiple countries statistics. Some are near equal, some are like Australia and some actually have more men being abused than women. The overall average is there are more women victims but the difference is not huge.

The biggest problem is that there were no questions about reciprocal violence. As a result the information can't be extracted to see if it was bi-directional violence or perpetrator on victim violence. That's a huge factor and one that is commonly left out. By leaving it out, the real picture is not shown. This is what Murray Strauss was talking about when he refers to a biased instrument.
Even so, men vs women who act violently toward each other are a very small minority of the population within their own gender. Sure we need to do something. What we don't need to do is call it all a men's problem.

TLDR:
According to the study, about:
15 in 1000 women in that study experienced partner violence over the last year, including verbal abuse.
6 in 1000 men experienced the same thing over the same time.
How is this not about the same, even with the problems in the study?
If 15 in a million women experienced partner violence and 6 in a million men did, is there still a huge gender bias? At what point do we stop magnifying the percentage difference and acting like it represents the whole?
98.5% of women experienced no violence, including verbal or coercion in the last year.
99.4% of men can say the same.
Why is this a gender issue?
It's an asshole issue.

[Tarragon]

I've never heard of this film or The Red Pill subreddit until this thread. But I have heard of the Matrix, men's rights groups in general. I don't perceive a conflation in the film title, which I assumed referred to The Matrix. If I represent the majority of the planetary population, there's probably not a problem with the title.

On the first day of Political Theory in college, they taught this truth: "justice done to one group is necessarily injustice done to another group."

Being woke is for sleepyheads. There are, however, Egalitarian Insomniacs.

[grapes]

TLDR:
According to the study, about:
15 in 1000 women in that study experienced partner violence over the last year, including verbal abuse.
6 in 1000 men experienced the same thing over the same time.
How is this not about the same, even with the problems in the study?
If 15 in a million women experienced partner violence and 6 in a million men did, is there still a huge gender bias? At what point do we stop magnifying the percentage difference and acting like it represents the whole?
98.5% of women experienced no violence, including verbal or coercion in the last year.
99.4% of men can say the same.
Why is this a gender issue?
It's an asshole issue.

I assume the men statistic also includes verbal abuse. Are there statistics that pull out physical violence, or injury? That could account for the discrepancy in shelters, for instance.

[SciFiFisher]

Interesting statistical factoid: More men than women are sexually assaulted in the miltary. The news rarely talks about that aspect. But, in male on male domination violence often calls for the victim to be subjected to some form of sexual assault. It is almost always perpetrated by men who are not homosexual. It is so under reported that the military rarely gets asked about it by Congress or the public. Yet, we teach about it in the sexual assault prevention training the military conducts.

[vendic]

TLDR:
According to the study, about:
15 in 1000 women in that study experienced partner violence over the last year, including verbal abuse.
6 in 1000 men experienced the same thing over the same time.
How is this not about the same, even with the problems in the study?
If 15 in a million women experienced partner violence and 6 in a million men did, is there still a huge gender bias? At what point do we stop magnifying the percentage difference and acting like it represents the whole?
98.5% of women experienced no violence, including verbal or coercion in the last year.
99.4% of men can say the same.
Why is this a gender issue?
It's an asshole issue.

I assume the men statistic also includes verbal abuse. Are there statistics that pull out physical violence, or injury? That could account for the discrepancy in shelters, for instance.

Both include verbal abuse.
There are statistics for physical violence and well as serious violence.
The rate per year drops significantly if they are used but the proportion shifts towards women getting injured more. This is due men being generally stronger and get less injured than women for the same level of force. Again though, we're not talking a great discrepancy like is commonly made out.

When the questions are asked about mutual violence, i.e. b-directional violence in relationships, about 60% of them fall into that category according to many of the links I posted. If 60% are bi-directional then statistically women will fare worse than men out of that group. Out of the remaining 40%, some studies show women to be more often the sole perpetrator than men, which I found rather surprising.

Also, if we look at the yearly rate vs the lifetime rate, even though the rate of violence has been slowly reducing, the numbers don't mesh well. It would take about 10 years to get the life time figures for both men and women going by the yearly rates. IOW, to have the life time rates (to over age 70) of 17% for women and 1.5% as a yearly rate (remember this rate has been reducing), it will require a large percentage of those reporting violence in a relationship to be caught up in a cycle of abuse, or the life time figure would be far higher. The same applies to men.
The yearly rate calculated using 50 years as a lifetime comes out to: 17/50 = 0.34% if all the women only had one violent relationship. Likewise for men: 6/50 = 0.12%, basically both are about 1/5 or 1/6 depending on the "lifetime" time frame of the published yearly rate.

Regardless, the figures are no where near a ratio of 2000:1, which is currently the ratio of shelters out there for women vs men, in the USA. I think that is a problem that needs to be addressed, particularly since the suicide rate is mostly men and homeless are almost all men (4/5).

Which is why I keep saying it's an asshole problem, not a gender problem. The vast majority of people are not in abusive relationships nor are they homeless. The small minority that are should be looked at as humans instead of genders. But shelters and refuges are a billion dollar industry, to assume that money won't affect decisions is not what I consider logical.
e.g. Where we used to live there was a woman's refuge that always had charity drives, it was a big event in the town for all the big wigs to come and donate. We auctioned off ourselves the first year we were there (got the highest sum paid too!).
I actually went to the refuge itself because the woman running it asked me to speak to the women there (I had to sign non disclosure agreements etc). There were five women in the house which was setup for at least 30. No men were allowed other than by invite (to work, not to stay) and the location was kept secret. There was no service around for men at all. Even though there were men in the streets homeless.

[vendic]

Interesting statistical factoid: More men than women are sexually assaulted in the miltary. The news rarely talks about that aspect. But, in male on male domination violence often calls for the victim to be subjected to some form of sexual assault. It is almost always perpetrated by men who are not homosexual. It is so under reported that the military rarely gets asked about it by Congress or the public. Yet, we teach about it in the sexual assault prevention training the military conducts.

Same thing in prison. Considering the amount of people in prison for basically bullshit reasons, this is disgusting. When they are taken into account there are more men sexually assaulted per year than women. Unfortunately because it is also men that are doing the assaulting, this is dismissed as male on male sexual assault. IOW, men are the ones doing it to other men so who cares?
The problem of course is that most don't think of it as innocent people being sexually abused. They are guilty because they are in prison, they don't count because they are men etc. Men are lumped into a class where they are all just men. Don't forget, all men are rapists, so they rape each other too, who cares?

[vendic]

Since the wage gap constantly comes up, here's a nice video of an economist, and a feminist study that debunks the whole thing

Fisher, you might want to watch that. It has a great section on nursing and the "wage gap" there.

[SciFiFisher]

Since the wage gap constantly comes up, here's a nice video of a feminist economist and a feminist study that debunks the whole thing

Fisher, you might want to watch that. It has a great section on nursing and the "wage gap" there.

I am not sure I buy the logic that the reason women make less money is mostly because of the choices they make. Let's see. Stay home with the children more so they don't grow up to be wild heathens or work more. Women are often portrayed as making the choice voluntarily. In reality, women often have no choice. I have known many men who essentially told the women that the children were her responsibility. Even if the asshole didn't work. I realize this antidotal and not totally scientific. But, until recently there was lot of pressure on women to do exactly that regardless of whether that made the most sense financially.

There is some basis to the premise that if you are more available and you make choices that tell your boss that you are willing to demonstrate loyalty to the company you are more likely to get promotions and raises. But, I don't think those factors totally account for the wage gap. And the trend for the last 50 years for most companies has been to low ball the value of loyalty and willingness to be more available. Look at the growing gig economy and the increase in part time or contract workers.

Nursing which has been predominately female, has experienced almost negative wage growth when indexed for inflation since the 1980's. The median wage for nurses is approx. $59,000 per year. A Nurse Practitioner's (NP) median wage is approx. $89,000 per year. The salary range is $73,000 to $109,000 per year. A Physician's assistant (PA), a predominantly male healthcare career earns a median wage of $91,000. The range is approx. $72,000 to $117,000.

It looks almost like the NP and PA are comparatively equal. Until you consider the comparative skills sets and autonomy. When you compare the scope of practice of a Family Nurse Practitioner to that of a Physicians Assistant in most states the NP has more autonomy and a higher scope of practice. They are actually closer in skill set to that of a Family Physician whose median annual salary is $170,000. An NP with a similar skill set of the Family Physician earns 52% of what the Physician makes.

A PA has to be "directly supervised" by a physician. He is in reality an assistant to the doctor. An NP is independent medical provider whose scope of practice is only limited by the complexity of the care required by the patient. i.e. highly complex cases are supposed to be referred to a physician. Yet, the PA makes essentially the same money as an independent provider. Caveat: Some states require that NP's be "supervised by a doctor". The AMA is very protective of it's territory.

I can't remember the exact studies and etc. But, one of the things the equal pay for equal work proponents keep pointing out is that if you compare jobs with similar skill sets you suddenly see the wage gap a lot better.

For example, Civil Engineering which is often compared to Nursing as a comparable skill set has a national average salary of approx. $65,000. Nurses earn 90% of what a civil engineer makes. When you compare skills, education, hours of work, and etc it is difficult to explain the difference as merely a difference in choices. One is male dominated and the other is female. Which is what a lot of researchers claim is the real reason why Nurses are paid less than Civil Engineers.

There is a difference between how healthcare responds to supply and demand vs other occupations do. When the supply of healthcare workers is in short supply the healthcare industry often does not increase wages. In fact, when there is a nursing shortage in the U.S. the trend is to try to replace them with lower paid less skilled workers such as nursing assistants, medical technicians, or medical assistants. Which are primarily female. Which drives the average wage for women lower. Trust me. Nurses don't "choose" to work for less money.

One of the arguments for men making more money in nursing was their willingness to re-locate. Yet, if you look at where the most jobs for nursing are it is often in states with lower nursing wages. On Monster one of the top 5 states for nursing job openings is Florida. A state with a historically low RN wage. The average annual wage for an RN in Florida is a whopping $52,000 per year. RN's in Florida earn 88% of the national average. Admittedly, one of the top 5 is California which enjoys one of the highest average RN salaries in the country. Choose that relocation wisely.

Another interesting factor they did not seem to address was the issue about places where comparable positions were paid differently. I.e. the women CEO's and higher level positions who were doing the exact same job as a man but paid less.

In conclusion, some of the ideas they present are definitely worth considering. And some of those factors may explain some of the wage gap between men and women. But, I think there is more to the story.

[vendic]

I think you're conflating choices and voluntary choices.
There is going to be a mix of both in there and no data to determine it.
There are very heavily male dominated industries that women don't want to work in. I imagine a lot of men don't want to work in either but do it for the money. We can ask if the men's choice to work in dangerous jobs is voluntary, social pressure or they had little option. It's shitty but it does work both ways.

One of the things I've seen thrown about is that overtime in some positions is not linear. IOW, if you work 3 hours you get one rate, but if you work 6 hours, that last three is paid higher than the first three which is higher than the nominal 40 week rate.
Basically, OT makes a lot more for the person compared to someone that does no OT and if a person does lots of OT it goes higher again. Time and a half, double time and triple time are common rates.

r.e. Civil engineering vs nursing, apples to oranges, but, lets also look at banana's: Compare that to electronics engineering. Right now I'm lucky to find a job that would pay those figures. Most of the demand is going off shore and has been for decades. I have a very unique skill set and when I find a job even though it's extremely specialized, it doesn't pay that well by comparison. If I told you how much I got paid most of my life you all would probably choke. Bad decision, sure. I did something I was good at and liked doing. I should have become and accountant, or a business major and earned 4 times or more than I did for far less stress and work.
Point is, everyone makes decisions based on their personal situation. I would imagine more mothers would like to be with their child than working, especially in the early stages of the babies life. Some may continue to do so by discussing it with their partner and making him the sole bread winner. I doubt anyone can say that they know of no woman that is a housewife by choice but I personally know no men that are house husbands and imagine few others do. Right there is going to be a significant difference in wage gap. Add to it that when there is a one income family the guy is more likely to work more hours since they have higher expenses and the difference can only go up. To top it off, if I was in a position to grant OT between a single girl or a single income family that just had a kid, guess what I will decide. That's not me being sexist, it's me taking care of my workforce and helping the community. If it was a choice between a single mom or a working mom that's the sole bread winner of a family, and a single guy, it would be the woman that gets the OT. Again, nothing about sexism, it's attempting to do the right thing.

What I'm getting at is that trying to fix something like that is next to impossible because we're telling people how to run their personal lives and decisions so we can make a median average calculation be equal then consider that as "equality". It's going to be a big fail.

I'm all for getting more women into other roles. Have at it. I'd like to see more street cleaners as women, more miners, more laborers, more of them on oil rigs, and more of them dying on the job so the "ratio" of work place deaths is more "equal". That's what it is about, right? Statistical equality.

[vendic]

OMG!! I had no idea this was so bad!!!
WashingtonPost

The headline: Murder is the second most likely way for women to die at work.
It goes on to explain that murder by spouses or family is 33% of the workplace death toll for women.
Then it goes on to provide a graph. Damned gawd all mighty it looks bad!!! Something needs to be done to save all these women!!!

imrs.jpg

Then they go on to say

The murder threat for women is different. Both sexes die most often at the hands of robbers, and both also murdered at about the same rate by co-workers. But more than a third of women murdered at work are killed by boyfriends, spouses, exes or other relatives. For men, that category of killer is almost zero.

Holy mother of gawd! men don't even register!!!!
Shit, things are really bad! Blatant example of women dying while men have no such issue!!!!

Now lets look at the actual data in the harsh reality that doesn't view it from a feminist perspective (so not making it a woman's issue).

The article acknowledges that 4,261 men died at work in 2013, compared with 321 women.
There were 341 men and 67 women murdered on the job.
That means that there were more men murdered on the job than the total number of women killed in the workplace in ALL categories.
They they proceed to concentrate on the 33% of women killed on the job by their spouses, i.e. about 23 women in the year.

They are interested in highlighting the "awful" fact that about 23 women were killed in the workplace in 2013 while ignoring the over 4000 men that died in the workplace, 341 of which were murdered, the latter of which as I mentioned previously, is more than the total number of women killed in the workplace from any cause.
Considering they are claiming that the workplace is 60% male and 40% female, this is way out of proportion.

So lets look at the correctly scaled graph to see just what they are so worried about.

FkyO43l.jpg

See that little blue sliver on the women's row?
Well, what they are highlighting in this article is 1/3 of that sliver, while ignoring the whole row for the men.
Just putting things into perspective...

The author:

Dan Keating analyzes data for projects, stories, graphics and interactives. He was part of a team that won a Pulitzer at The Miami Herald for exposing vote fraud, and a team that was a Pulitzer finalist the year before for uncovering police fraud.

Me thinks Dastardly Dan needs to do a fraud check on himself.

[vendic]

In case anyone thinks this is just one article, here you go:
why are so many women murdered at work?

Let's just ignore that five times more men are murdered at work, eh?

Oh look, another one

Oh look, another awesome graph showing similar rates of death of men and women:

Screen-Shot-2016-06-30-at-10.54.40-AM.jpg

Now factor in that women are only about 7% and men are 93% of the workplace deaths and if we showed that in a graph, women would hardly factor.
But here we are again, concentrating on a very small percentage while ignoring the overwhelming majority.

I could go on but whats the point.

[SciFi Chick]

I don't know if anyone is even reading this thread anymore. It seems that everyone in the thread has their minds made up already, so I'm probably wasting my time here.

That said, I have now watched the documentary. It is brilliant. It is fair to both sides, and the facts are easily verifiable.

I no longer identify as a feminist. I think Western society has some serious issues that affect both genders, but no one cares about anything except that which affects women. The whole idea of patriarchy is absolute nonsense designed to make men look like evil perpetrators and women look like helpless victims all while insisting that women are just as strong as men in every area.

Men being abused or losing their children or being sent to die is openly laughed at and mocked, or, at the very least dismissed with the words, "Well, yeah, that's a problem but..."

Men's lives are being destroyed for the horrible crime of speaking up and asking for help. They're called whiners, told to grow up or labeled as misogynists. There is a huge war on freedom of speech by designating anything that dares question the status quo as hate speech.

I haven't had a paradigm shift in my thinking this intense since I left Christianity.

I'm not a real political person - as in participating in the political process other than to vote. I shall now retreat to my haven of science fiction where problems like this actually get solved.

[SciFi Chick]

"The Red Pill" just won the Louisiana International Film Festival. I hope this means more people will get to see this very important documentary.

[Rommie]

I don't know if anyone is even reading this thread anymore. It seems that everyone in the thread has their minds made up already, so I'm probably wasting my time here...

No, just I haven't seen it, and am busy enough that I likely won't anytime soon (not seeing it screened in the GTA), so don't have much more to say.

[SciFi Chick]

I don't know if anyone is even reading this thread anymore. It seems that everyone in the thread has their minds made up already, so I'm probably wasting my time here...

No, just I haven't seen it, and am busy enough that I likely won't anytime soon (not seeing it screened in the GTA), so don't have much more to say.

Excellent! We're all so busy these days that FWIS sometimes seems like an Echo Chamber.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it, whether we agree or not.

[SciFiFisher]

I pop in from time to time. I haven't had a chance to see the documentary. So, I am not contributing much. Funny that. I actually think I need to watch the show to form a strong opinion. Which is why I have only chimed in about the wage disparity issue. As that was something I felt I knew something about.

[SciFi Chick]

I pop in from time to time. I haven't had a chance to see the documentary. So, I am not contributing much. Funny that. I actually think I need to watch the show to form a strong opinion. Which is why I have only chimed in about the wage disparity issue. As that was something I felt I knew something about.

That is funny.

Well, since I now know I'm not typing in a vacuum, for anyone interested in checking it out, it will be on Hulu in a week.

For the record, it is NOT an anti-woman documentary.

[vendic]

For the record, it is NOT an anti-woman documentary.

It sure isn't. It's about giving people a chance to voice their concerns regarding issues that affect them with underlying assumption that they have nothing worthwhile to say because they are inherently evil.

The only thing more disgusting that committing a heinous crime, is convicting an innocent person of it instead.
That's what I believe, whether that be convicted by law or media or public opinion. Of course, I am so open minded that maybe my brain fell out, and really we should judge people based on what others say, using quotes out of context and, lets just not let anyone actually defend themselves for fear that it may offend us. Sound's like a wonderful bubble to live in...

[Tarragon]

I don't know if anyone is even reading this thread anymore. It seems that everyone in the thread has their minds made up already, so I'm probably wasting my time here.

Nah, I read through this thread a few weeks ago and came to follow it. I just didn't have much to add. I've neither seen the film nor formed an opinion of it. I've seen both sides of the issue myself, from the absurd to the catastrophic. I have friends and acquaintances, men and woman, who call themselves feminists, but believe in equality and want fairness for men too. I don't call myself a feminist or anti-feminist, because I dislike labels.

I did learn something from this thread. Now I know what MGTOW means when a high school friend on facebook posts videos with that in the title. I still think he sounds whiny in some of his posts, not because I disagree with him, but because he keeps making an issue of it.

[vendic]

maybe relevant