Doctor Who: They Made A Woman Out of Him

Well it appears that the insanity of online reactions waits for no man, as this post is kinda late due to the fact that I sat on today’s topic to gather my thoughts; as well as the fact that I was on holiday.

But yes, as you most likely would’ve heard, Jodie Whittaker (from the excellent Attack the Block and Boradchurch) is announced as the 13th Doctor in a rather underwhelming way. BBC, you made me watch ten minutes of tennis, a sport no one likes, to watch a woman stroll in the woods! Much like Sony’s Ghostbusters reboot, the fact that a typical male character is replaced by a woman has split the fandom harder than Steven Moffat’s last few seasons. Some more over reactionary than others.

With many already proclaiming Whittaker to be the new Tom Baker despite only being the character for twenty seconds, with cosplays, fan art and custom figures already being made and hitting the web. And of course there would be some not so keen on this decision, and regardless of whether it’s people in satisfied with the particular woman chosen, or any other reason involved; but it doesn’t matter as they’re all dumped into the dumpster of negative views considered sexist because there’s a woman being criticised; I mean attacked.

In short, whether you love or hate the new cast choice, the reactions have been insane. This has become Ghostbusters (2016) again, in the sense that any disapproval is lumped with the actual sexism, while everyone showering praise for Jodie’s name being attached to the show is criticising others for being “reactionary” without a shred of irony.  To the point that any comment disagreeing is labelled as sexist, and attempts to remove, mock and block said views are celebrated. Tolerance. But let’s talk about said negative reactions, particularly as I’ve said in my ‘Doctor Who: I Can Make A Woman Out of You‘ blog my thoughts on the possibility of such an occasion. And since I said I wasn’t fussed about the matter; when it comes to the anti-SJW commenters who’ve already hopped on this story. Let’s go.

Many people on the political right and critics of SJWs have been throwing around the “diversity is killing entertainment industry, no one wants these characters to pander to the politically correct” line using Marvel Comics as an example of this. img_0999Specifically due to the recast of multiple heroes, scenes and dialogue made to reflect bs SJW talking points, all at the hands of writers who lash out against their critics and the fans they turned away due to their lack of skills and subtlety. I’ll let appabend explain. However, can all that really be blamed on the sole fact the Thor is now a woman, the Hulk is an Asian dude bro, and Iron Man is replaced by a black teenage girl; no of course not. They’re just examples of characters who suck due to poor writing.

So yes the obsession with identity politics is clearly there, due to the writers in charge of the sinking ship. And even if we excuse the unsubtle ‘social commentary’ the fact of the matter is the stories characters like Ri Ri Williams, Lady Thor and the like are headlining are not only bad, but are also WAY too numerous, with event comics crossing into every comic series currently out being announced and released every other weekend, and how multiple series get cancelled and relaunched under new titles for the same characters time after time. Just take Captian Marvel, X-Men and Rocket Raccoon for example. And yet it keeps failing for Marvel Comics because the stories they produce suck; despite the hollow lead characters made to replace the characters gaining Marvel money in cinemas. Just look a Captian America’s Hail Hydra moment as an example of fans forming lynch mobs over unpopular creative decisions.

At the time when DC’s New 52 was actually new in 2012, Marvel decided that ‘dark’ was a something to strive against as a response to negative feedback some of the stories DC were getting .  So Marvel decided to be light and humours as a response; and by light, I mean turn every character into Deadpool; with every story being a world saving adventure one issue, and a cheesy sitcom the next issue.

As Professor Thorgi says in his admittedly bias video on the matter, Marvel’s comic side of the company has become frustrating for life long readers without a weekly pay check in the triple digits, especially when big events shake the status quo every other month. It was the people in charge of story’s who are turning away readers, writers definitely involved under this bus.

Sourced 2014

The key example being Daredevil under the creative control of Mark Waid, who embraced everything that Marvel Comics was looking to do with their writing: pop culture references and poor attempts to be funny and edgy, etc. With fans being driven away by Waids creative direction that can basiclly be descrbied as everything the Netflix series is not.

And any of my readers who are Doctor Who fans would’ve had one name come into their head at the mention of a fans turned away from their favourite franchise’s change, due to its new creative direction; that name being Steven Moffat. A reoccurring writer during the first four seasons of the revived Doctor Who, to which after being loved for writing some of the beloved episodes of those seasons, he was then promoted to show runner for season five onwards in 2010; “genius choice, this will be best season ever!” And while admittedly he did start with a strong first series; things then took a deep decline when everyone noticed the serious flaws in his writing when left to his own devices. Overly complicated stories trying to show how much of a clever writer he is, underwhelming story arc reveals, cringey dialogue that either explains motivations or bad jokes, giving non stop attention to characters that fans don’t care about (cough, Ashildar) etc. While not all of his writing past five series was bad, these actions have slowly turned a lot of fans against Moffat, turning him from golden boy to a meme.

Series nine being a straw that broke the camels back with its season finale, Hell Bent, being one of the most detested episodes in the shows history; with it followed by a Christmas that also split the fandom upon release. You mean to tell that fans had to put up with this five years of inconsistency of talent, ending up with the as for mentioned Hell Bent; but it’s the fact that Moffat paid a black woman to kiss another woman was the reason his last season has reached a new low in terms of declined viewers?
Yeah when a popular, openly bisexual character like Captain Jack Harkness (played by the opening gay John Barrowman) gets his spin-off show revived by Big Finish; seems legit. As I’ve previously stated in the past: the Ghostbusters reboot (“oh god not again!”) didn’t flop due to the presence of the female cast; but as i explained, it was due to the fact Sony threw out their plans for Ghostbusters III just to please Paul Fieg and get him on board, because to hell with what fans wanted. And then once Sony released trailers for said reboot, and it was panned with every criticism and news from behind the scenes labelled as either sexist ramblings or a conspiracy theory.

Look I get the argument of how studios and creators recast popular/ well-known characters with different races/genders to give this new character a head start in the news by leaching of the originals success. But while celebrating a characters recasted gender solely because it’s a new gender is just as pointless as saying the show is dead for that same reason. Again check out Appabends excellent video on the matter. But until Chris Chibnall’s first episode as new show runner is released, then we can actually judge this new Doctor.

In short while changing a characters race and gender is an obvious marketing attempt for press coverage, no matter the result, but given what the audiences have put up with; the fact The Doctor or Thor now have boobs is the least of the fans problems if and when the inmates are running the asylum.

Thank you for your time.


The New Laci Green

I’ve made it clear that I follow the SJW vs anti SJW conflict happening online, and have been vocally against feminism and the politically correct dogma involved. As feminism’s credibility went down the drain as it crumbles under the arrogance. Mainly due to the refusal to accept any decent or criticism when it comes to subjects like: rape culture, the gender wage gap, the influence of the patriarchy and the legitimacy of the dictionary definition of feminism. As the stereotype of a feminist being an ugly, fat bitch with an axe to grind at men slowly becomes the standard image of the movement.

I bring this up as Laci Green is making waves within the anti-SJW community for saying something smart. In her recent video ‘Taking The Red Pill’  (referring to The Matrix, the phrase meaning that finally see the world as flawed or not as perfect as you thought) expressing how many within the social justice movement need to exchange dialogue with detractors; as she has expressed the desire to speak with those does and doesn’t agree with. And after speaking with people like Blaire White and Jeff Holiday, she’s realised that many of the people she has spent years labelling as bigots and misogynist may actually have valid arguments; the unwillingness of feminism to listen to critics by ordering their shut down as a response being one of them.

Seriously, last week if you were to type her name into YouTube, you would find video after video by people like Sargon, Tl;DR and Undooomed calling her an idiot. But now the search results are about her recent video.

I’ll admit I’ve taken jabs at Laci in the past, but I must say I’m actually proud of her, and not just because people like me get to have our ” I bloody told you so” moment. While she hasn’t out right disregarded her beliefs about feminism as a whole while wearing a MAGA hat; but to have someone build bridges after years of name calling is at least worth a thumbs up on her video. And this is coming from a jaded former subscriber of her’s. Granted a debate between and SJW and someone they’ve labelled a bigot….ugh, I mean criticised is not a new thing; Sargon has done that multiple times. But given how it was Laci that threw her gauntlet to Chat with Blaire, and has offered the chance to interact with more people with open arms; that is so good to hear.

You see while this community on YouTube is united against feminism and social justice, it’s very diverse interns of what the people actually believe. You have conservatives like Computing Forever, liberals like The Amazing Atheist, Trump supporters like Naked Ape while Thunderfoot is openly against him and the alt-right. Content creators diverse in world views, but are more than willing to speak and are not afraid of saying: “I think your wrong” and reflect upon the public actions of an individual; type Atheism is Unstoppable onto YouTube to see what i mean. Either way many are cheering for Laci’s somewhat of a departure from the community that openly practices the opposite.

Naturally this video was going to have responses from both sides. Despite skepticism coming from years of her throwing the race and sex card, it has gained an overwhelming positive response from the anti-sjws; with many like Sargon of Akkad wanting to take Laci’s offer to debate her. And then you have soon to be former allies loosing their shit in the most ridiculously self-awareness lacking display of rage since the EDL response to Lee Rigby’s death. “What’s that? We should open conversations with those who mock our words on a hourly basis? “No! We need to block them out entirely. #Triggered! Traitor!”

Seriously, that’s been her Twitter for the past couple of days or so. While there are numerous channels and Tweets going into melt down; I would like to comment upon the most cited example of this. That being the reactions of Steve Shives. For this who don’t know, Steve is a You Tuber that became well-known back when the skeptic community was the atheist community nearly a decade ago. And everyone loved him, I even subscribed to him at one point. So what happened? Well he went down the same path Laci did back in the early twenty tens. Both were popular You Tubers loved for their smart and entertaining videos. However both downed the feminism kool aid and preaching the gospel of Social Justice; and much like a religious leader, anyone with objections would be thrown out due to being unworthy in the eyes of the course.Image result for laci green meme

Laci produced nonsense about gender spectrums, the oppression of women in the first world and actively spoke for the removal of due process for rape accusations. While Steve bought every feminist taking point that was already rendered bull crap with a quick google search: such as rape culture and the wage gap. With his response constantly being to block those with a pin that are standing next to his bubble. I’m serious, go to his Twitter right now and see if you’re blocked….I know right! His openly done so many times to the point that not only is he a meme; and there is even a hashtag. #blockedbysteve.Image result for steve shives memes

Steve, since Laci’s video has been ranting and roaring like a true british sailor, as he has been proving Laci right; in the sense that people who share similar world views are more likely to call for the banning of someone, because speaking to them is far too difficult. If your interested Bearing shows the entire Twitter conversation if your interested, as Steve claims that blocking people and silencing ideas isn’t censorship, but rather a stren showing how someone and their ideas is not exceptable within the wide You Tube community that I agree with.

So yes, i am happy over the Laci’s decision to publish the red pill video, and I do hope she keeps to her promise of further talking with anti-SJWs and anti feminist. Not just to finally show her how flawed her statements were, not just to trigger people like Steve by having her buddy up with the people they rant about on a minutely basis. But because discussions have kept this part of You Tube active, how else did you think the term triggered become a meme? Hell the fact that many of the most popular people started making videos during the earliest years of You Tube prove it.

Especially when many have been predicting 2017 to be the year of the death of social justice. Honestly in a time where most the world still believes the Russia gate scandal with Trump despite the found evidence being amounted in the minus digits; and half of my Facebook friends list is planning to vote for a communist Jedi as prime minister on the promise of free shit; that day won’t come in my life time. That said I do agree with some who have claimed Laci’s turn was due to social justice as a financial path on You Tube, is laughable when not on mainstream television. The logic going that, if she can get a big named skeptic You Tuber on a live stream, that user’s subscribers would come to watch her, purely to see what she says next. I don’t personally buy that, however I do see the logic. As sites like Everyday Feminism are shutting down, and social justice propaganda sites such as Buzzfeed, MTV and Jezebel are funded by big companies, who clearly don’t give a fourth of a damn of whether it’s well received. Mind you, You Tube is a site where the most views means you’re the most popular in the sense that a lot of people know your name. How else did you think The Annoying Orange got his own god damn TV show?!

In closing: Laci, as a former subscriber who abandoned you due to your absurd comments, and your refusal to listen back to us; as you blindly believe your own nonsense. I’m glad your finally starting to turn a new leaf, and any direction change from where you were last year, yeah this will do.

Thank you for your time.

Ghostbusters (2016), destined to be a…bust and here’s why.

If Batman v Superman will go down as the film that got burned at the stake during the first week of release this year. Then Ghostbusters will go down as the film that collapsed before the reaching the starting line; let alone the first hurdle. “But why, wasn’t Ghostbusters three one of the most anticipated sequels to finally come out development hell?” You would be right random sentence of text that I clearly didn’t type, but this isn’t what we got. This new film is basically a remake of the original film…but with women. That is basically been the marketing so far.

You see while Ghostbusters three was talked about and planned, with multiple drafts and actors (with the exception of Bill Murray) keen to return….until Sony Pictures were fed up with the constant delays, and decided to do this without Murray. And they’ve doing this with the characters , while leaving the franchise legacy of Ghostbusters behind with him; in exchange for the four women we have now.

Which wouldn’t be a bad thing, I already like Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wigg, and at this point in the franchise new team mates were kinda the first thing needing to be sorted. Films like The Force Awakens have shown an old franchise with new characters can work. However it’s not them or the other actors who are to blame. But rather it was the fact that from the first two trailers, viewers and life long fans could tell it was a film made because Sony had the license to use the Ghostbusters brand. The fact that the film was a repeat of the original, but having flat jokes and characters, lack luster effects and a seemingly bland story (at least from what is seen in the two trailers). And the fact that Sony is clearly using the all female cast as a way to show the company as progressive is the least of the films problems. Hell i even tried to review the domestic trailer when i came out, but gave up as i had nothing new to say, even if i could phrase it properly.

All this and more has led the film’s first trailer to become the most disliked trailer on YouTube. Ghostbusters trailer.jpgKeep that in mind, trailers to some of the worst films ever made, were more well received than this one. However like most terrible things, where there’s decorators there’s also supporters. Mainly from feminist groups and online feminist. OK either you’ve been keeping up to date with these events, or this was inevitable; either way the lack of surprise in your face is showing.

“Well OK, but given how many failed adaptations there have been in the past, what’s making this one show infamous?” Good question someone who isn’t me, the news of this being a reboot was the ignition to the fuse of the bomb which will be this film. In between the time of filming, and the release of the first trailer; it was clear that the cast and decision to scrap the franchise’s past was the least of Sony’s problems. By the way I didn’t find this myself, and there’s a lot to talk about, if you want full details, go and watch this video by Midnight’s Edge; he explains probably better than I could, but I’ll try my best.

In 2015 Sony announced the cast of Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones as the new team for the film; with Bridesmaids director Paul Feig directing this film. Despite the Sony hacks of 2014 revealing emails from Fieg stating that would only do the film, unless he got final say on everything; along with arguing and flat out refusing to work series creator Ivan Reitman, the film was set to be made. Which was promising to the leads, as they were fans of the original, McCarthy stated that she was a fun of ‘The Real Ghostbusters’ cartoon series. So this must have been the time of their lives, right? Wrong! angry Ghostbusters cast.jpgAccording to a 4Chan user (who apparently worked on the set) McCarthy and other members of the cast would regularly argue with Feig over the “lame duck of a script”. It had gotten so bad that Sony took legal action, making the leads to keep quite about anything negative from the film. And given the performances  from the trailer it shows that the cast was miserable on set. What’s worse is the fact that, when Sony couldn’t get the original cast back; they legal pressured them into making cameo appearances; yeah.Ghostbuster poster.jpg

Feig isn’t of the hook here. Anyone who followed the man on Twitter will know he rants like a sailor with Tourette’s syndrome. The back lash of replacing the original cast and characters,  with four people who just so happened to be women, being one of his rambling topics. Yep joining the social justice feminist who were champing the film for its female cast, before the first trailer had any footage. Then some time later, a Redit user named “Stanz1984” (again works at Sony) wrote a post outlining the story of the film, and called it “a train wreck”. Again, it’s a bit long, so watch this video if you’re interested then come back here. Despite the majority of the comments agreeing with Stanz, many others debated whether this was serious or not. Then comes the first trailer, and many scenes are reflective of this leak. From the spray painted logo, the vomiting ghost, the Chinese restaurant used as a base and a possessed McCarthy. Those same people saw that this post is some what reflective of the finished project. So fan back lash met the trailer, and then two more trailers didn’t help….like at all.

 Finally I’ve mentioned how the film’s trailer has gotten major backing from SJW feminist, who’ve been leading the charge of: “if you hate this film, then you’re sexist!” However guess who else is playing that card; Sony. I recently found a video from  Youtuber Alachia Queen, she made a review of the first trailer of the film, to which multiple people in the comments had informed her, of how their comments and criticisms in the trailer’s comments had been removed by Sony….except for the ones with sexist or racist statements of course. Oh and remember that Stanz guy from Redit, yeah he mentioned how Sony is now in complete damage control after the disastrous response of the released trailers; claiming the sexist responses are the ones hurting the film. Nice try Sony,if there’s anything to be learned from Feminist Frequency, is that you can only play the misogyny card before people realize you’re trying to use newspaper to save a sinking ship.

This is quite possibly the most tiring blogs I’ve had to write yet; so let’s get this done. If some how you avoided the trailers for the film, and don’t know what the fuss is about. Well pick one of the many things I’ve talked about here, either way you’ll be right. Like with Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four back in 2015; this film will have serious effects on everyone involved. Sony the most, as they were planning to have this as their big flag-ship franchise, since they gave Spider man back to Marvel last year. I’m writing this in May, with the film coming out in July here in the UK; and unless Sony some how makes a movie better than the original Ghostbusters, this film will tank at the box office. Because believe or not Fantastic Four had its buzz killed due to director melt downs on Twitter, arguments on set, and the plot being mocked via leaks on the internet; and even those who haven’t seen the film know how badly that turned out.

Alright everyone, I’ll see you again with a less serious blog.

Thank you for your time.

Am i a Feminist?

“Some people’s idea of free speech is to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage”- Sir Winston Churchill.

Depending on who you here it from, you may be aware of how many people have turned against or refuse to label themselves as feminist. There are groups such Women Against Feminism and the Men’s Right Movement. Not to mention the low popularity of feminism is on sites like Twitter and YouTube. This has led to many people such as Christina Hoff Summers, Milo Yiannopoulos and Phil Mason to become well-known examples of people challenging modern feminism or adopting the term “anti feminist”.

 So why do people like myself decide to go against modern and third wave feminism? It’s simple really, like most people who came to their conclusion, I looked into many different feminist groups and spokes people; and i had to cringe at what i was hearing. With claims such as: how we live in a rape culture in the first world, how women are refused to be employed in different fields of work, how certain words can be emotionally scaring to women, how men need to be taught not rape etc. And then from there, my opinions became more negative given the tactics they’ve been pulling in the name of the cause. Censorship of critics, fear mongering their audience, redefining words and meanings to suit their arguments, exaggerated statistics on women’s harassment, false claims of discrimination such as the wage gap (if you want to see my views) the refusal to acknowledge serious issues towards men and the overall endless search of something new to be offended at.

This didn’t appeal to me as it mostly devolved into an emotional campaign over whatever idea said feminist had to say that week. And as a man of logic and show don’t tell reasoning, i didn’t want anything to do with these people, since the majority of them were self titleing themselves as glowing examples of their movement. With said statements and members being mostly made of white, middle class women living in first world countries like England and America. With their arguments mostly being built on the foundation of: “I’m offended, that’s sexist, ban this filth, please feel sorry for victims like me.”

It’s reasons like this why I and many others opposed the movement. “But wait” i hear you replying, “are you aware of the dictionary definition of the word feminism”? Indeed i am, in fact it’s even been used by multiple feminist as a get out of jail free card for their actions. “This isn’t a hate group where we pick on men, the dictionary says so.” Speaking of the dictionary definition; here it is.

“Feminism: The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes”. – Oxford Dictionary.

And i would support that,  but why would i support women’s rights and freedoms and be against a group designed to gain that one thing? Well you see a community is made of large amounts of people all of which having their own views on the matters the group supports. Which makes it all the more reasonable to voice your disagreement with any believe or person that can be or has identified with the group that is being spoken for. Most feminist groups don’t do that.

Watch the speech here.

Many well-known feminist like Anita Sarkessian and Zoe Quinn would support actions like censorship, to the point that they went to the UN in 2015 to promote laws against criticism…..uh, I mean “harassment and hate speech”. Hell Rebecca Watson and the website Free Thought Blogs are arguably the earliest examples of feminist labeling their critics of the movement as “pro rape misogynist” for critically analyzing claims or asking proof of said claims. With Free Thought Blog members even being shamed and kicked of the site for speaking out against the people who ran the site.

If I support the equality of the sexes, do i still consider myself a anti feminist; i do. In fact as far as i know you’ll never usually hear someone claim to be anti-feminist and be against the equality of men and women. And neither would i, i disagree with that 200%. I’m against discrimination in the same way I’m against the forceful thinking I’ve been describing so far. Two wrongs don’t make a right; and cruel behavior shouldn’t be a way of responding to cruel behavior such as sexism, harassment and gender discrimination. I don’t agree with using force to validate my beliefs in the eyes of others. I bring up the feminist definition because it’s still a valid ideology. I support the advocacy of rights and the equality of both genders. That includes freedom of opinions, ownership of property, the right to self defend ones self; i hope you get the picture.

I mentioned the Men’s Rights Activist Movement in the beginning, and while I’ve never identified as part of the group; i do support the idea of the cause. That being the rights of men and discussions on issues facing many men in the world such as: abuse victims, high suicide rates of men, gender bias of family courts etc.
So what’s the difference between them and feminist? I have more respect for that movement because they call for the freedom of rights for their gender and attention to issues effecting them. Meanwhile the more noticeable feminist online and in the media are more intent to push their agenda through force; through censoring critics, protesting to have things changed, insulting people they disagree with as misogynist or privileged scum. With this effecting many business and universities across America, the gaming industry being regularly bullied by Social Justice and Feminist groups for whole number of reasons. While members of the MRAM can be self-centered from my experience, they usually don’t beg or force the government to increase taxes in order to change the world to make things better for women.

So what’s my point? I support the individual freedom of everybody; because mandatory freedom in the name of one group is undoubtedly going to cause problems for everyone else, and it has. If you want to change minds allow them to be changed freely, and state we should do this because of this beneficial reason, not do so or else. But that’s just the way I see it; discussion would be a great thing in order to grow or fix the flaws of a movement, instead of sticking to what the group knows, change nothing and aspect everyone else to fit in with you.

Either way that’s it, I’ve said my piece and cleared my conscience. In the most basic form; I’m not a feminist, but i support the advocacy of rights and the equality of both genders. But that’s what think, what do you think. Am I onto something good and meaningful? is there a better way of doing things than that? Or am I just going to be called a patriarchal misogynist? If you found this interesting, you may enjoy the works of these individuals, that have rightly spoken out against the shameful acts of misandry and bigotry; all done in the name of equality and freedom of speech. And I’ll list them at the bottom.

Thank you for your time.

Fine individuals:

Phil Mason (Thunderf00t)

Christina Hoff Summers

Sargon of Akkad

Ceara McCord



Cheshire Cat Studios

Alpha Omega Sin

Shoe on Head

The Rageaholic


Sugar Tits

That Guy T

Girl Does Rant


Jordan Owen 42



The gender wage gap: must be funny in a rich man’s world:

wage gapNote: Before we start I’d like to mention that i’m  a supporter of women’s rights, equality and i feel that the issues of both genders are important. However just because i said this , it doesn’t mean i agree with everything said by all feminist; this isn’t a black or white right or wrong subject. I’m simply pointing out the large holes and flat out incorrect data in this particular feminist belief. With that said here we go.
If you listen to a debate about feminism, you’re bound to hear the mentioning of the “gender wage gap” between men and women at some point. For those who don’t know what this is; the argument is a long and boring song with many cover artist, but the basic tune is this: according to most studies, women in countries like England and America will make 75 cents, for every dollar a man earns in a day. Depending on the currency and the country, but it’s basically: Most women make around 75% of what men do per day in the work force.
You may be thinking “how the hell is this possible?! This is a society where women can drive, vote and choose what ever career they want to. In a political correct society such as England, how is there not one law preventing this? Calm down. There are many laws and bills preventing this; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 in the US being one of them. The Equal pay act of 1970 in UK being another; along with pay discrimination is an arrest-able offence world-wide.
Even then that “women make 75 cents of every dollar men do” myth. That’s simply not true. Studies show that if you take all of the total yearly earnings of every man in countries like America, and do the same for all working women; you’ll find that the total amount for women is 15% lower than the total amount of money of all those men.
Well there’s clearly a gap there ;surely that should proof that this is a serious issue right that is caused by discrimination as one set of figures is higher than another right? Wrong.
Mainly because studies used by people who believe in the wage gap idea don’t take many elements of the working lives of people into a count. For example, as pointed out by the BBC, more men work in full-time (9-5) jobs, while the majority of women work in part-time jobs. Full time ranging from: doctors, construction workers, scientist etc. While some of the lower paying and part time job roles include: nurses, teachers, child care, cleaning work have a higher percentage of female workers, and don’t pay as highly due to short work hours. So basically men are working longer than most women do; in more difficult task.
Women don’t make less money, they earn less money because the amount from a wide range and quantity of jobs are bound to end up creating different end results. The job market is a very diverse one, with many different requirements needed, along with working hours and of course different wages.There are other factors not mentioned here. Such as which gender works the longest hours (again men), time taken off work (women, with 43% of women leaving to have children), over time (men) multiple jobs and how much what jobs pay. Do you think a woman working in McDonald’s earns as much if not more money than a rocket scientist?
In short the whole reason there’s any sort of gap, is because of the career choices women make, and taking time to raise children can also have an effect on how much they earn and the position of their job. And yet that argument is thrown back as sexist because “it’s labeling women as the problem” because why wouldn’t working women effect their own wages in any way? In fact their percent on the graph I linked earlier is low because of the choices they made, for the same reason male percentage is so high.
So you’d think the best way to fix the “problem” is to get more women in typically male roles, enroll them into colleges and classes that specialize in said jobs. Maybe but studies have shown that classes that specializes in said subjects say otherwise, less than half of the students were female; with even fewer students graduating the courses. While classes that deal with child care, hair dressing and animal work has higher female student rates. I guess some stereotypes exist for a reason.
Source: Why Do People Hate Feminism #3 by Sargon of Akkad:

While I’m all for women making whatever choices that they want to do, even if it involves construction or plumbing. The fact is that this demographic of women wanting those jobs is a very small and very niche market. Hence why you see more men in those jobs, it makes more sense to look for the highest amount of people when seeking new workers. Back to the point. Even when controlling these factors, the result is still woman earning less. With a man and a woman in the same education and career path; you’ll find the woman making 98% of what the man earns at minimal. So that gap starts getting smaller.
Given how many people online and in the media such as: Laci Green, Steve Shives, John Oliver and Barack Obama and many others like to promote this idea; what do they suggest, in terms of fixing the problem? Short answer nothing. From what I’ve seen, most people who believe in the wage gap, don’t seem to have any suggestions let alone ideas to solve the issue, nor explanations of why this has become a problem in the first place. The most I’ve seen is just suggesting how it’s fueled by misogyny, sexism and patriarchy; as if we are living in the world of They Live, and they all have the special sun glasses and now see the world for what it is. Because suggesting that all business owners, managers or anyone in the financial business are sexist for the pure hell of it, is totally not offensive at all.
Other than that, you’ll find articles and blogs expressing displeasure over “too few women in stem fields”. Which would help, but this is the case due to not many women eating that position; and not because people in these jobs are telling them to sling their hook. It is all the more annoying, given how reversing the numbers and put women before men would be the only way the numbers of the yearly earnings for women would increase. Promote all nurse to doctors, forcing women into a manual labor job they may not want. And to pay women more than men, no more matter the job. Because that seems fair.
To think how this is promoted as issue of female inequality; and yet the only way to solve it, is to treat one gender higher than the other….or to flat-out say how women in child care, nursing and raising their own kids and families are holding all women back. I would’ve sworn that feminism was about women getting the right to do as they please, not suggesting how they’re the problem.
Actually I take it back. While i mentioned how a lot of women aren’t doing jobs like engineering and similar jobs. I do feel that if there are women who want to take a career path in that sort of work; let them. The same encourage meant should be given to men who want to leave the work force to raise children. In fairness if we take the factors of how men and women live and switch it around; maybe the yearly amount will start evening out. But really i can’t take the people who believe this stuff seriously, because of how simplistic a world view it is. They’ll simply preach about how women are suffering under the male dominated corporations that need to be replaced with women because of their lack of inclusion; without explaining how this is a thing, why it’s a thing, nor do they suggest ways to make things better. I know business managers will only allow a plan to go through if it saves them some money, but blocking out 50% of the job market does not sound like a viable plan to make more money.
In fact if women are the lowest paid demographic, wouldn’t the male percentage be in the damn toilet; because if all women are paid less, wouldn’t bosses hire an all female staff to save on money? Just saying. This is a very destructive world view, as the women who fall for this, are now growing up believing they live in a world that hates them; without even knowing why. That they are fine individuals that live in a world where a large group of people (in this case men) are holding them back from their full potential; or as other people may know this method as propaganda.
So what have we learned? Well that while there is a small gap between the money men and women earn; and it’s in the amount each gender makes in a year. Secondly is how said small gap is the result of the choices in career paths both genders make. I’m all for what ever career path people want to take; it’s just that with a variety of jobs that both genders operate in; the total daily wage is going to be different depending on the work and duration. And finally it has nothing to do with sexism; nor is the government creating the gap to hold women back, and their certainly not doing this on purpose.
But hey, disagree with me all you like, and say how what like. Call my a sexist pig all you want; i can take criticism. But if you’re going to judge my points. Think about what version of the world seems likely to you. Do you believe that: we live in a fair and gender balanced society, that gives both genders the same opportunities and means to get the jobs they want; and let the amount of money earned at the end of the day, be reflected by their career path. Or do you think that: all bankers and business owners everywhere secretly hate women, and are paying women less, because all men who aren’t feminist are sexist by default, even if she works the exact same hours and work as a male co-worker.
Which version of reality seems the most plausible to you?
Before i sign off, I’d like to share some sources that might interest you
The first video: Learn Liberty
The full video i showed earlier by Sargon of Akkad:
And finally, a video by Christina Hoff Summers; a feminist Youtuber i highly recommend listening to.
Thank you for your time.

The Bechdal test: Follow these three easy steps, and still fail:

 You’d think that a simple guide like the Bechdel test, would help movie studios create more interesting and well written female characters. Given how simple the test sounds, it’d seems like a no brainer. In a perfect world yes; but here in reality this isn’t the case.
For those who don’t know, the Bechdel test (named after comic writer Alison Bechdal) is a simple three-step program used to see if a film represents women well; in order to promote more complex female characters. And it’s even been used in countries like Sweden, in the same way as the PG rating is being used in places like here in England. Said test has been promoted by many feminist, female activist and rights groups.
Here the three steps.
1) Your film must have at least two female characters.
2) Said characters will need to speak with each other at some point.
3) Their conversation must be about something other than a man.
So what exactly is the issue here? Well firstly is how unclear the test is with these factors. It doesn’t state whether these characters would need to be important to the plot; a villain, supporting roles or the protagonist. Nor does it state that the conversation needs to be a plot point, a twist reveal, or even relevant to the plot at all. The Unusual Suspect on YouTube mentioned this in his ‘ten things Star Wars episodes 4-6 did wrong’ video. In which he stated that episode two Attack of the Clones passed the test; with an example being how Padme (the love interest of the lead character Anakin Skywalker) spoke with the current queen of the planet Naboo…and then deducted said perfect three out of three score after joking about how that scene was “so short” he wouldn’t count it.
In theory, it only takes a one minute scene between two irrelevant characters to gain your film the feminist seal of approval.
Secondly is how unfair the thing is. This is for multiple reasons; such as films and shows having too few female characters, or just have a mostly male cast. Many films such as Goodfellas, 2001, Citizen Kane and Inception failing the test for that reason. Even if a film features a handful of women in their cast, it means nothing as they’re still able to fail if said characters don’t speak with each other. Some examples include: Avatar, The Social Network and the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Even films and TV shows with female leads have been known to fail the test. Examples being Sex in the City, as the characters talk about their relationships with male characters…..did I forget to mention you would need to get a full three out of three mark to pass.
So basically it doesn’t matter how well written your female character is, if the film gets a two out of three; your movie is considered as sexist for a being unrepresentative of women. Let’s look at examples of movies that proof what I’m talking about. Star Wars Episode five features the well written character of Princess Leela; fails. Terminator two features Sarah Connor another good female character; failed. Captain America one and two feature Peggy Carter and Black Widow; two highly positive feminist characters; and neither film passed the test.
In fact while we’re talking about the Marvel films; twelve films in the current line up of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and only three of films passed. Those being Thor, Thor the Dark World and Iron Man 3.
You see what movie studios have to work with here? So you’re probably asking: What films have passed the Bechdel test? Well here are some examples: Attack of the 50 Cheerleader, Debbie Does Dallas, The Human Centipede, 50 Shades of Grey, Bratz: The Movie and (hear me out) Two Girls One Cup……you laugh but think about it. It features two women (obviously) they both interact with other, and they speak about something other than a man; don’t ask what they discuss about, because if you’ve been living under a rock for so long you haven’t heard about this video…’s probably a rock worth living under.
So what have we learned? Mainly how filling in three check boxes doesn’t make your movie a milestone in feminist media, mainly due to most films fail by playing the rigged rules of a very flawed game. While supporters of the test like to mention how good films like Frozen and Mad Max Fury Road have passed; it doesn’t mean anything when The Room (said to be one of the worst films ever made) also passes the same test for literally (again literally) the same reasons. And as someone who supports good and well written female characters like: Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley, Lisa Simpson, Donna Noble and many others; all I really ask is one of two things. One figure out a better way to create more feminist positive characters. Or two just get rid of this rigged system. As much as movie studios like to think that the right cast, visual effects and brand name equals profit; art can’t be created with maths in the same way a positive role model for women can be created with an instruction guide.
 All female characters are different, and are beloved by the fans of their franchises for different reasons; and a simple step by step guide won’t reflect that in any way. And I feel that movie writers and directors should create what characters they want; and let the audience judge them as they see fit. And if you feel that the test is effective in some way, I really want to know because I just can’t see it.
Thank you for your time.