Misogyny/MRA is a sign of weakness

Post Reply New Topic

Which further proves my point that it's fairly easy to lose fat without starving yourself.



Because they don't have enough estrogen to be that attractive.

Most muscular men aren't "attractive" (in the modern sense) enough to play Wolverine or Ivan Drago either. Typically, most men who gain a large amount of muscle will look rather bulky and stocky, and because gaining muscle the natural way requires a lot of testosterone, many of them have receding hairlines and large sweat glands as well. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the more vain muscle men (Zyzz, Sylvester Stallone, etc.) have invested a small fortune in facial surgery.

For a woman to be attractive, she needs to have a high estrogen level, high degree of symmetry and so on. If a woman has genetics to become attractive, she doesn't need to exercise.

If a man has the genetics to become attractive, he still needs to be both very muscular (unless he's a sparkling vampire) and very shredded to be allowed to play in a movie with a shirtless scene.

No. Repeating the mantra that weight loss is due to a negative balance of calories in - calories out, does not reflect on the ease of achieving that negative balance.


By you. There are a lot of people out there who would consider them quite attractive, just like there are a lot of people out there who consider moderately-muscled men more attractive than over-built beefcakes.


Tautology.
You're basically saying, 'if I considere a woman attractive, she doesn't need to do anything else for her to be attractive to me.'


Even women that many people consider quite attractive, are still required to diet and/or work out to get into movies.

Swapping sweets, bread and all that for something that makes you feel full (eggs, fish, carrots, etc.), isn't hard.



Nobody becomes an over-built beefcake without the aid of steroids, so that's understandable.



Many men agree that a high estrogen level makes a woman more attractive. If a woman is feminine, no workout is needed to parttake in a lightly dressed Hollywood scene; just don't eat more calories than you burn.

A man who's highly masculine is still required to beef up 20 lbs and lose enough fat to have visible abs.



No. You can still be in a caloric equilibrium without dieting.

No, it isn't. Which statement brings up the question, then, why do you think that people aren't already doing so?


Again, in your not-so-humble opinion. I personally do not find the body-builder phisique all that attractive. I see someone who looks like he spends an hour a day in the gym, and I think, 'boring.'


Yes, many men do. And many men find fit women more attractive than that.


Caloric equilibrium is not the point. 'Thin enough to be attractive in daily life' is not the same as 'thin enough for the movies.' The latter is harder to maintain than the former, and few non-anorexic women do so unless they are actively in a role. That means that they need to diet when they take on a role. After they reach their goal weight, yes: they have caloric equilibrium. They still had to diet - often to an unhealthy degree - to get there. They have to eat significantly less than their body tells them to, to maintain it.

I leave this thread for a few days and come back to dieting and weight discussion...

Carry on.

Kurgen: You should change your tag from "always right" to "always gets the last word".

No, it isn't. Which statement brings up the question, then, why do you think that people aren't already doing so?
[/quote]

The very same reason people spend 1/4 of their worktime on Facebook or spend hours in front of the television every day: laziness.




Soccer players, sprinters and basically any muscular man spends hours in the gym every week. It won't make you look like a steroid junkie—it's about as tough for a man to get to 300 lbs bench press as it is for a woman to get to 150. How many of your female friends can do a 150 lb bench press?



Femininity and fitness is not an exlusive-OR function. If standards were fair, female actresses still needed to gain a lot of muscle for every lightly dressed role—which they don't.



Which is more absurd, a man with a 8% bodyfat level and a bench press that's twice as big as an average man's or a woman with a 20% bodyfat level and mediocre levels of muscle mass? The medical ideal, for men is 15-22% and for women 22-30%.



I know plenty of girls who stay on roughly 20% body fat all the year and do not starve themselves. Some even eat junkfood in the cafeteria at my university; they just don't eat more everyday than they need.



Dieting down to 20% bodyfat for a woman, is like dieting down to 12% for a man. Unless you're expected to be muscular at the same time, it's easy.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Jacoby had it right all the way back on page 17. He agreed things should be equal, but noticed some big discrepancies between people who said that, and what they said afterwards.

I really agree with this, because most men who CLAIM to be feminists actually hate their own gender and want to get into women's pants.....and then the women actually fall for the white knight BS, not knowing they're being duped. It's a common cycle. A true feminist wouldn't belittle either gender, nor would they throw their own gender under the bus (as so many "male feminists" do). But they do it and women see this and think that they have women's best interests at heart. Wake up and smell the coffee. Most of you ladies have been bamboozled by complete and utter hypocrites. That's why there are so many white knights these days and not enough actual decent guys. The decent guys see the BS on both sides. The white knights PRETEND to see BS on ONE side....just to get some play in bed. And they're quite unabashed in their display of hypocrisy as well.

It's funny because Tyri0n, one of the staunch white knights of these forums, actually recently made a thread talking about how men have it harder in the dating world (his words were "being the man is too stressful"). Now wait a minute. Didn't he say in this thread about how women have it harder than men in all categories? Hmmmmmmm...... then he turns around and says that?



It's just more hypocrisy, Jacoby. Why are you surprised? The funny thing is, by saying women "can't" victimize men, they're essentially being put on a pedestal or, even, the opposite, being made to seem weak and/or stupid. A woman can be cunning enough to pull something like this off, but not all of them do it. If how I worded it just now makes sense. Notice how damn near all the people in this thread who claim to be feminists actually skipped over this little point. Hmm. I wonder why?

It's like I always say, women's lib was a more healthy pursuit. It was more levelheaded, and all women wanted out of it was to be equal to men. For the most part, they got what they wanted. They didn't get everything they wanted unfortunately, but they got most of it. They didn't have to be relegated to housework and being stay-at-home moms anymore. They could work and get paid the same amount as men. And it was just a more equal pursuit all around. You didn't see many people back then talking about either gender having it harder or anything. Why? Because it was a calm, rational pursuit. It wasn't in-your-face and overly aggressive towards one or the other gender like feminism is now. That's part of the reason there are so many disgruntled people on both sides these days.

Men see some women talking about how all men should be neutralized. Women see men talking about how all women need to be in the kitchen. After that, everything falls apart and you have the morass of stupidity you see now. It's all due to miscommunication, I think. Even I got attacked and had words put into my mouth that never came out of it, for some stuff I said, but keep in mind I only talk about what I personally experience/observe. I acknowledge there's BS on both sides. But it all went to pot when Tyri0n attacked every man here, talking about how they're losers basically for having Asperger's (which is the real culprit, not anything about hating women or anything like that. Plenty of woman-haters are in relationships.) which is something they can't help. It's like telling a person with no legs that they're a loser 'cause they can't walk. The only reason people like me stood up is because the amount of hypocrisy that's stemmed from threads like these is astounding.

Another thing. I thought attacking people was against the rules. This thread shouldn't even exist anymore, because the VERY FIRST POST broke that rule. I have a feeling if it was about women instead of men, it'd have been locked/deleted right away. This is what I'm talking about. I can get behind this thread being locked if it attacked ANYONE and not just one side, but for it to attack men and still remain up and open says something to me. I've brought this up a few times and gotten told I was a misogynist or that I should suck it up. But every "faux armchair feminist" as I like to call them has STILL avoided my question as to why it's okay to attack men but not women. It shouldn't be all right to attack anyone unless provoked long enough.



And if I didn't say that Jacoby had it right before, well, he certainly does have it right.

Pulling a carrot out of the fridge does not require a single calorie of energy more than pulling a cupcake out of the fridge. Try again.



1)playing a game for an hour is a far cry from spending an hour at the gym doing endless repetitions or running on a treadmill. The former engages your brain and is fun; the latter does not and is not.
2)I neither know nor care. I know that I can pick up my 65-lb dog without much trouble, but that's what concerns me: function in the real world, not function at the gym. I don't give a damn if a man can, or looks like he can, bench press 300 lbs; I care if he's an intersting person who enjoys what he does with his life, and that he can function normally out in the world. If part of that involves sports, great! If part of that involves turning his brain off for an hour a day in order to achieve a certain 'look,' not so great.


You have, in prior posts, implied that you find very fit and muscular women as 'unfeminine.' In addition, look at the muscling on women who are in 'action' roles (what few of them there are) vs. the non-action roles that most women get in Hollywood. Uma Thurman notwithstanding, there's usually quite a difference there.


Way to miss the point.

1)Listen to any interview with a normal-weight actress about what she had to go through when she got recruited for any role - modeling, acting, whatever - that required her to be seen, photographed, or filmed.
2)Look at those same young women a year or two after they've gotten to university. Then control for sports participation in your sample. It takes time to pack on weight, unless you're really working at it.


Your statement does not fit the data in two ways: first, I dispute the claim that "20%" is the standard for women in acting and modeling; it's more like 15-18%, on average. Second, if it were "easy," more people would do it, neh? The medical data suggest that achieving and maintaining a 'normal' weight is a huge problem in the west. FFS, people are willing to literally have large sections of their guts removed in an effort to get down to 'overweight' range, much less 'normal.'

relevant to the discussion:
http://www.businessinsider.com/extreme- ... 012-7?op=1
http://www.bodyfatguide.com/CelebrityBodyFat.html

To bring us back to the OP, I wonder why you have so much invested in the idea that women actors 'have it easy' and the idea that men 'have to' work out at the gym in order to be attractive.

a) "isn't hard" : That's is BS.
b) Dropping sweets and bread for eggs , fish and carrots is neither necessary nor sufficient for weight loss. Tons of people who follow ridiculous drastic dietary change suggestion also find it ineffective for long term weight loss.

I dropped half my weight and still eat sweets and bread.

c) LOSING WEIGHT IS A STUPID OBJECTIVE.

The one thing people should do is eat healthier and exercise more. But the objective should not be to lose weight, or keep a ridiculous goal such as the body mass index. It should be to BE healthy. The focus on weight loss, whether from stupid people or people that are still stupid but also sexist should be sent to hell. Weight loss should be a side effect of having more healthy habits. Not the objective.

False analogy. Cupcakes are more readily available at cafeterias, workplaces, schools and so on. It also tastes more than a carrot dies.



Working out in a gym (if you want results) actually puts your brain on trial. You need to progressively overload your intensity, adjust your diet to match the results you want and so on.



Two sides of the same coin. I managed to get a jammed garage door where I live loose because I lift.



There's more to it than just being at a gym for an hour per day. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the more buff Hollywood actors are highly intelligent (Sylvester Stallone is for instance a member of Mensa).



No.



You have a few that gain muscle for an action role, but those are few and there are commonly years between every time an actress gains a noteworthy amount of muscle for an action role. You're also missing the fact that even comedy or drama roles often require a man to gain a lot of muscle.



Typically, this is in cases where they're required to look emaciated or ill.



It doesn't take long time to become more muscular than an average person.



No, it's not. At 18% bf (the highest found in Hollywood, according to you), you can see the contours of a woman's abs and a clear separation between the muscles; at 15%, a woman is shredded and has veins visible in her arms. Definition is a far better indicator than dress size.



18% body fat is pretty much the lowest you'll find in most movies. While it's generally not recomended to be that lean all the year, it's no big deal for a few months of the year. At 15% body fat, a woman is ripped; this is pretty much the level the bikini fitness women are on for just a few days of the year.



This is because they ate too much in the first place. Contrary to what some believe, it's not natural for a woman to have a BF percentage of 50.

I went to the gym today. 95% of all the women I saw were just as lean as Hollywood's most popular actresses and everyone in the weight section were more muscular (I saw a petite girl lift 100 lbs for reps). Apart from a 280 lb powerlifter, none of the men were bigger than Hugh Jackman.



This just proves my point.



I call BS on this. The lowest meassured bodyfat levels meassured on a professional female bodybuilder was 9%; very rarely do you see female bodybuilders with less than 11% bodyfat, despite the use of steroids. Your link still claims that Teri Hatcher has a percentage of below 5; this is barely half of the essential bodyfat levels of a woman and she doesn't even do steroids.



Men don't look like Christian Bale or David Beckham by default. How many men who don't exercise are rated as attractive by magazines?

Let's face it, having 90% of your ideal bodyfat levels at mediocre lean mass levels (like a female actress) is less difficult than being as muscular as a middleweight UFC fighter at 60% of the ideal bodyfat levels (like a male actor).

My experience is that it's child's play. I haven't eaten bread for years.



The only secret to weight loss is eating less than you burn. People fail because they go on crash diets--not lifestyle changes.



When you're already healthy, many feel the need to advance. Many people who join a gym don't do so to look like everyone else (including those who do not workout), but to one day bench 330 lbs, run a marathon in just three hours or do pull-ups with 80 lbs attached to the weight belt.

Oh, so it's not "easy"? Which is it?


*snort* you're changing the goalposts, now. It's not just 'working out at the gym,' it's body sculpting. Which, during the actual exercise, is still just as repulsively boring as compared to an actual sport.


Because you're physically active, not because you lift. You would still be strong if you engaged in some sort of actual sport that required upper body strength - gymnastics, for example. You might not look like a muscle-bound thug, though, which apparently is what you want.


I'll avoid Stallone, then. I have been unimpressed with MENSA in the past: it's the mental equivalent of a lifting gym, people strutting around trying to impress other people rather than living their lives in the real world. I'll stick with the scientists and the sports-active people I currently hang with.


Yes. However, I'll keep it in mind that you have said so and refer you back to this statement the next time it comes up.


Evidence, please, for both statements?


Which is most roles these days.


You were talking about women who were gorging on snack food but still staying thin. I was suggesting that those women will not remain thin after a year or two of that kind of lifestyle. Your response is a non-sequitur.



No. As you can see from the statement that you actually quoted me in above, I said that ~18% is the high end of standard for an actress on the job. That's not the same as "the highest found in Hollywood." The fact that you misquoted me directly after an in-text citation makes me question your reading comprehension.


You are incorrect. Definition has more to do with muscling than body fat.

Both women above have 15% body fat. One is a body builder; the other is not.


Well, duh, thank you for that information. FYI, it is far easier to drop pounds when one is far above one's setpoint than when one is close to it.


Oh, you were trying to prove that women lose and gain huge amounts of fat and muscle for roles too? I must have missed that in your arguments somewhere...


Eeeyeahhh. That's one of the reasons I find bodybuilding stupid: it's not even healthy, for men or for women. It's not uncommon for professional female builders to be completely infertile, or even to suffer neurological damage due to a lack of fat in their diets.
The fact that you don't think it makes sense, doesn't make it untrue.


Again, we're not talking about "exercise." We're talking about grinding out mindless repetitions at a gym.


You are simply in denial of the reality of what body fat % female actors have to maintain on the job.

It's easy, but still not as easy as eating cupcakes. It all boils down to whether you're lazy and weakminded or not.



Who made you the judge of what's boring? Karate blackbelts, soccer players and even pro ballet dancers supplement with weight lifting.



Wouldn't be able to do that heavy lifting if I didn't go to the gym.



Many muscleheads are good st science as well. Dolph Lindgren has a master's degree in chemistry, for instance.



I've said bodybuilder women were masculine, not that fit women were.



Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, Taylor Lautner and Charlie Sheen have all gained mucle for non-action rules. Check up on the most popular action movies with female leads today; very few gained any muscle.



Nobody looks ill at 20% bodyfat.



They still are thin, because they don't eat more than they burn.




18% is the low-end standard. This is why Kristen Stewart has no muscle definition.



The woen on the left is not a bodybuilder. The woan on the right still has defined boned, muscle separation in her upper arms, but almost no muscle. Few actresses are that slim.

This is what a lot of muscle look like at low 20-something bf:



Notice the lack of definition.




There are no set points.



So in other words his physique is harder to obtain for a man than the actress look is for a woman.

[

It pretty much proves that muscle gaining roles for women are the exception and not the rule.



Prove that Teri Hatcher actually has 5% bf. Any PT who knew what she was doing would tell you that's BS.



[No, that would be you.

Last edited by Kurgan on 07 Jun 2013, 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

That picture actually is more illustrating the effect of hydration levels. One is fully hydrated and the bodybuilder one is dehydrated because of said silly bodybuilding contest. At least that's what the article the picture is from said anyway.

Carry on.

Kurgan, you are in denial of both the evidence of what female actress have to go through in order to maintain their appearances, as well as the scientific data about what it takes an average person to lose more weight than their body wants them to. Go to the pubmed.com and do a search on 'weight loss' if you want to be educated - hell, I'll even help you to interpret the abstracts if they're too sciency for you.

As for 'proving' that a certain person has 5% body fat, I do not have to do so; what I have to do, and what I have done, is present you with evidence that 1)you are incorrect about the bodyfat that actresses have to achieve during their roles, and 2)that your understanding of what different body fats looks like is wrong.

Also, note that there is a difference between 'body building' and 'weight lifting,' although there are people who do both.