Sure I will, I'm a man of my word but I have stuff to do today. Also, what's wrong with my commenting history? I bet you disagree with me that's cool but I'm not a jerk or a troll I don't think. I try to be respectful (a few jokes aside maybe) and actually thoughtful not just "feminazi this and misandry that".

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It's like good food for thought let me chew on it a while and get back at ya maybe.

Maybe the water is poorly written and doesn't make good valid points for you like you think it did.

What's funny is that the two articles you've referred me to, I've read them a while ago. Of course I've been referred to them before. They aren't good articles, even if you get past the condescending snark.

whoops: I meant "not good". sorry.

Thanks for the reply. I don't think feminISTS have to be exclusionary, and so many prove that with their involvement in other issues. I think feminISM does have to be exclusionary because "fem" is built right into the name. Of course, you can redefine feminism so as to mean egalitarianism or anything else. In this…

I can't speak for this guy, but speaking from a similar perspective:

I think you've misread his aversion to the word "fem". It could be (he isn't clear, but this makes more sense given what he does say) he's averse to the fact that the fem part implies the exclusion of men and men's concerns, or the concerns of other groups. Like me, for instance. I'm a black male, and I care about…

That's weird because as a humanist (I assume she means something like egalitarian) she would see "great imbalance in the world and want to change it and agree with feminists and be varied and real". Egalitarianism is everything feminism is AND MORE (minus the unnecessary picking out of groups).

I disagree. You assume too much.

I didn't hate this movie. In fact, I loved it. I've always felt Superman was corny and even a jerk in the comics and other movies. So I'd like to respond to some of your issues as I feel some (if not most) of them make little sense.

That makes sense, and it seems to fall under the normalizing or excusing aspect of the definition I found on wikipedia. I think this factor you speak of is the same operating in Saxby Chambliss of GA when he basically said "military rape? well, boys will be boys. hormones. what do you expect? etc etc." He also bent…

I read the whole essay later, and the other sections don't really add to the understanding of rape culture. I grasp reality ok. I've read a few articles on rape culture before and since and as such am at least somewhat informed. Maybe I was argumentative in the sense I was putting forth an argument (like with premises…

I don't think I own women or the word culture. Define terms is the tricky and messy starting point for any real conversation. As someone who's maybe not too familiar with "rape culture" I was trying to figure out what it was. I figured it must be a "culture that endorses rape" and wikipedia pretty much bore that out.…

Just by way of a quick follow-up to myself, I'd like to quickly address what I see as real rape culture in America, in the past and today.

Just read the whole "rape jokes" section of the essay. No doubt well written and well voiced but I'm still confused as to what, exactly, "rape culture" is supposed to be and/or whether it exists in this country (America). And what principle is supposed to be applied to comedy about rape.

I don't get his complaint at all. He is NOT the character, so HE isn't committing any sin or blasphemy or anything right? If he read a book about a guy who was sinning, does that mean won't or can't continue reading it. Like, if the book said turn to page 2 for the baptism scene, would he demand a refund for his book?

I'm conflicted myself, as a dude. Not trying to feed trolls or be one, and I applaud awareness and sensitivity, but I'd pump the brakes here before cheering CK too hard. It is important to impart information academically and comically, but it's way waaaaayyyyy less potent as the latter.It's the John Stewart effect.…

I'm conflicted myself, as a dude. Not trying to feed trolls or be one, but I'd pump the brakes here before cheering CK too hard. It is important to impart information academically and comically, but it's way waaaaayyyyy less potent as the latter. There's just too much exaggeration, brow-beating ("geez men! you guys…

The basic premise of the article, I would think, is outlined in the title. Which is strange, because midway through the author says 'hating man' is NOT a thing.