Misogyny/MRA is a sign of weakness

Post Reply New Topic

Good point, even if one concedes every single point of the original poster; that is... that Misogyny and MRA are the same thing, that the complainers are a minority, that they are losers and that they are weak, then so what? Weak misogynistic losers have the same right to speak and to be heard as everyone else. If a weak misogynistic loser speaks a truth it doesn't make it any less true then if a strong philanthropic winner said it.

Way to miss my point or completely ignore it for the sake of your asinine argument.

marshall,, are you seriously telling me that you considere this picture a 'middle' point between the one I posted? Because it seems to me that it's almost the same that the right one.

[img][800:900]http://i40.tinypic.com/331zuxj.jpg[/img]

Exactly.

It is harder for men (than women) to get the ideal "hollywood body" that LKL/puddingmouse are referring to. I don't know why so many claim it's the opposite, it is not, check the typical gym programs for each gender and compare: it's harder for the guys, and that's why they are far more prone to fall into nasty things like steroids and GH injections.

I'd rather go with my 8 years of professional experience that tells me that women have to do a lot more than sit around on the couch to get to "ideal body fat."

He's not talking about the 'ideal body fat', but the 'ideal hot fitness level'. To say it otherwise: the level that can get you laid because you're hot.

And it takes a lot more for women to reach an "ideal hotness level" than sitting on the couch.

I know this because I spent eight years training myself and many other women, and men, to reach minimum military fitness levels.

I'm not impressed by celebrity gossip rags and assertions supported by "Because I say so."

Well, taking into account that only a few percentage of man reach this 'level', while most of women do, and since you say it that takes even more for women... what you're doing right now is telling lazy and indolent to most of men.

Zooey Deschanel or Kristen Stewart do not workout at all—they just stay lean, by not eating more than they need to.

The fact that you've worked as a PT in the military doesn't put you above the laws of thermodynamics. If you want to physically be on par with Allison Stokke: workout. If you want the same level of fat as a Hollywood actress: do nothing, just lose a couple of punds and don't gain them back. The latter can be done by just cutting calories from your diet; no exercise is needed.

Minimum military fitness levels are fairly easy (for both genders).

You should have googled before making that claim (which any woman will know is incorrect). Both actresses work out because diet alone is not enough to achieve such bodies.

http://www.stylebistro.com/Health+Diet+ ... ice+Health



http://getmascular.blogspot.com/2012/04 ... -diet.html



It may be that you don't consider ballet exercises (Zooey Deschanel) or horse riding, swimming and dancing (Kristin Stewart) to be work outs as they don't take place in a gym and aren't called a formal workout plan (at least not by the article writer in Stewart's case). Nevertheless, they are work outs. They are hard exercise and neither woman would have the body she does without them. Merely cutting calories is never enough.

When I was in my teens and early twenties I had a body similar to Deschanel's (but without such an adorkable face, darn the luck) because I went to nightclubs several times a week and danced without drinking for 2-4 hours at a time. I also played basketball and swam. I never called these activities "work outs" but unsurprisingly when I stopped doing them (because of increasing work commitments) in my late 20's and in my 30's I gained weight and became flabby despite eating less than I previously had in an unsuccesful attempt to lose weight without exercising. In my 40's I both joined a gym and bought a bunch of home gym equipment. Although the firmness of youth is gone forever, I did at least regain some muscle I previously lost.

The body doesn't care what you label your exercise. Whether you call it a "work out" and do it with gym equipment or call it an "active lifestyle" and do it in a pool, beach, horse farm or dance club, the body responds to exercise. The type of body discussed in this thread can't be achieved for anybody without it, women as well as men.

Yay for anecdotes vs anecdotes.

I never said it was a 'middle' point. I'm just saying arms bigger than that might not add any additional points for women.

How about Andrew Roddick...



My arms would probably be about that size in proportion to my arm length if I was in better shape and didn't have a layer of fat over everything.

Yeap, I see what you say.

Anyway, to be as defined as Andrew Roddick is bloody difficult. The muscles has little volume, you need to have almost no fat and, besides that, a less muscled metabolism is burning less calories... unless you're doing exercising the whole day, no way to look like Roddick.

With guys in fitness, there's pretty much a tradeoff. You get bigger muscles, you'll generally gain said muscles with some fat. Basically the tradeoff is, look good in a tshirt and look like crap shirtless, or look cool shirtless and have abs and veins popping out but look like nothing with a tshirt on. Most ectomorph 130lb guys look really ripped and stuff shirtless, but they look like twigs in regular clothes. To look cool with and without a tshirt is where it takes lots of muscle mass and low bodyfat.

I did Google it. Guess the only conclusion I can make, is that they work out on-and-off.



Recreational activity like horseback riding is not the same as tormenting yourself in the gym. That article you linked to stated that Kristen Stewart didn't start exercising before after she got famous, btw.

Even if we stretch it as far as calling it exercise, it isn't nearly as heavy as what Hugh Jackman, Gerard Butler or Christian Bale goes through. Six months of serious exercise will make a woman as muscular as Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2 (cut that time in half if she's been muscular before).



Cutting calories and dancing has the same effect. It's all about calories inn vs calories out. As long as you stay below the caloric intake required to maintain your body temperature + what's burned in daily activities, you have no other choice but to lose fat.



It means that you didn't adjust your caloric intake properly; cutting more calories would reduce your body fat percentage. Dancing for an hour a day, allows you to eat 200-250 calories more per day, but that's about all it does.



The firmness of youth isn't lost just like that if you exercise. This woman is 76 years old (which further proves that most Hollywood actresses don't workout heavily):



This man is 80:





Like I said: Anyone who burns enough fat, can have a body fat percentage like Kristen Stewart. She's not particularly muscular, so she clearly doesn't worry about muscle waste.

If you go below the basal metabolic rate + whatever energy is lost during daily activities, the body will take what energy it need from muscle and fat tissue. For a 45 year old 5'4" woman at 125 lbs, this is 1300 calories + activity levels.

Dancing every now and then is no more physically demanding than soccer practice once per week, like many out of shape men still do.

For a trained eye, it's child's play to see who works out and who's slim merely because of diet:

No/low intensity exercise:





Serious exercise (i.e. This is how Hollywood actresses would look if they had the same pressure on them as male actors with shirtless scenes):

Regarding the tennis player, he probably does lift. Here's sprinter Ben Johnson, for example, weighing 170lbs at probably 10% bodyfat. http://assets.vice.com/content-images/c ... ba52a6.jpg He had a 400lb bench press at 170lbs and could squat 600lbs off a bench. He was not training for bodybuilding, probably didn't eat 200g protein blah blah a day, etc, but most people would agree that he's a nice "average" look for a guy. Well, that "average" look took extreme work. Mind you, he wasn't training for looks, but still.

I don't know if it's a really fruitful discussion to compare Hollywood crap, but I'll join in.

http://www.motleyhealth.com/celeb/chris ... ark-knight
Christian Bale's supposed workout routine.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/01/25/jen ... -anderson/
Jennifer Lopez's supposed workout routine.

No contest, J-Lo's is easier.

I don't know how much Hollywood=real world, though. But the only fun thing about Hollywood thing as a comparison body image-wise is it's less anecdotal than "yeah I know this hot guy with an ugly girlfriend" or vice versa.

But I do think Kurgan does win this one in that for men to be PERFECT, they have to work harder. Now, you can debate whether or not a slobby looking dude is more acceptable than a slobby looking girl, etc, but the standards for perfection are way harder for guys. Also, for guys, in some ways there's much more acceptance going on as far as their body image, etc. As in they realize they have control over it. For example, I don't think I've ever heard stories of guys declining to be weighed at the doctor's office. As far as hormonal issues, guess what, guys have those, too! Guys can have low thyroid, insulin problems, high estrogen, low testosterone, etc. Women aren't the only ones with hormonal issues.

I mean, I'm sure women have it tough regarding the weight/size thing, for example, my sister when trying to lose weight can only eat 1200 calories a day. I can eat 1800 with no activity and still lose. I don't know who has it tougher. Since I'm a guy and am in guy shoes, I'll probably just argue guys do because I cannot empathize with a woman because I'm not one. In the end that's probably all these arguments come down to.

Whatever.