@RIFA
Also, liberal feminism is/should not be the middle ground as the quiz is a test for feminism itself. If it was the middle ground then it would have simply been a test for traditionalism or what type of feminist you are (already assuming you are one in the first place).
The proof is in the overwhelming number of scripts and movies that come out of Hollywood featuring male protagonists. Besides, I was only using that to show the issues with the poll.
No it doesn't work that way. How can you be neutral and still score 50% in all the categories of feminism?There is. Score 50% in all of them and you're right in the middle. Supporting everything and nothing.
Of course it is a bit extreme as traditionalism as it stands is a bit anti-feminism. The more middle ground if you really wanna go there is liberal feminism. That's kind of the center.
Prove me that's a factual thing and then we can talk about it. Until then, this is all but an assumption.
Also, liberal feminism is/should not be the middle ground as the quiz is a test for feminism itself. If it was the middle ground then it would have simply been a test for traditionalism or what type of feminist you are (already assuming you are one in the first place).
The proof is in the overwhelming number of scripts and movies that come out of Hollywood featuring male protagonists. Besides, I was only using that to show the issues with the poll.
No one is denying the physiological differences between men and women and why such differences can favor one gender over the other in certain works of life. The problem is you were making an excuse for thousands of years of oppression and blaming it on "natural traits" and that does not hold up. I mentioned a few instances in my response.Of course not lol. But the idea that men and women can participate in all activities in equal manner is a bit far-fetched from the actual reality. There are just certain things that a specific gender is better at.
In practice they do not, except if you're referring to the few you've met and using that to generalize an entire group in which case that's on you. Now at this point I'm going to be careful because I don't know whether you truly believe the things you say or are simply trying to be argumentative. It seems to me that you're suggesting that oppressed people should just accept their position (or not) and wait patiently for those in authority to change their mind? How many times in history has such a passive approach to change ever worked? Also "Soooooo sooner or later bad shit will happen. Enforcing quotas can create repercussions from men in the future." Is this even a real argument? You are also talking about "earn your job" as if the people who will benefit are under-qualified as compared to their counterparts when they only want the opportunity to do the job.In theory they don't do such things. In practice they do. It's never necessary to enforce thing nor does it make any sense because it is counter-productive in the long-term. It's like saying it's necessary to enforce democracy in middle-east. As long as something is enforced then it's not going to be part of a natural process of evolution. Soooooo sooner or later bad shit will happen. Enforcing quotas can create repercussions from men in the future. Enforcing quotas also betrays the very core beliefs of a free society. Like I said. Earn your job. Earn your position. Earn your money. Earn your shit. You shouldn't be given something for free because of your sex, race, etc. That leads to destabilization.
The writing does not justify it which is the issue. It's not as if the majority of roles could only be played by men. Having more female writers also won't be a bad step.And if the writing justifies it? What's wrong with that? You need more data than just a look at the general population like I said. I doubt writers go into every piece of material. Yeah this will be a guy because I don't like women. If it fits the material then he's going to be a guy. It's that simple.