Fuck Kelly Brook she is a bitch! She should be in jail! That cunt!

Kelly Brook's mind is a prime example of the creatures' minds whom were given power without any equal responsibilities. We knew better but male egos and orgasms won. Now we all lose. Play then, weep now: Play now, utterly wallow in misery later.

Stop the madness! Change men!

Why is this woman famous anyway? Is it a European thing?

She's a model and sometimes actress. That's about it.

More likely a British thing.
Her name doesn't seem to come up relevantly in non-English language websites.

Why isn't this cunt in jail? Seriously - she admitted to committing two second degree felonies
at the very least just in this video. Lock her up! Some time in jail and
a few million bucks taken by force from her and paid to her victims as
reparations should suffice as justice.

I mean... it's only fair!

She punches a dude...giggle giggle giggle. A dude were to punch her?....gasp gasp gasp. Old song. Old words.

Its not easy being a guy when it comes to this shit.

How have you been doing this "The Man Who Cried Misogyny" skit for over a year now.

Our situation will not improve until 1) we convince women how selfish and unacceptable it is to take over the world with their skewed feelings; objectivity has to prevail since we are making rules for more than just women, 2) convince men that they really need to do something which will take a rearranging of what they think is manhood attainment...because, poor things, won't find them a woman..., and 3) take to the streets to MAKE the world see our pain. There is enough fair people left on this planet for us to convince we are the ones being mistreated.

How come every time I suggest a march or protest that it falls on deaf ears here? Come on experts in men's movement rules, explain this to me please.

For a march you need to have enough people who live relatively close to each other or it will be practically impossible to organize. This community is scattered across the globe so naturally it will be very difficult for most of us to march with you.

Then we should have several marches. Why settle for only one? And we men can "march" in symbolism without ever having to step foot outside.

But just where are the real men? ...Probably cowering... afraid to take a stand until they see others do it...poor copy-cats. THAT is my point.

But thanks for your input. I genuinely appreciate when others find it worthy to respond to real questions that I believe will help males. However, I was hoping some of our leaders would respond.

On a final note, civil rights demonstrators came from all over, as did feminists. But men and the women who love us, can't? I believe we will HAVE to in order to make real progress.

The only problem with #3 is that people don't WANT to see male pain and will actively do whatever is required to avoid it or make it go away. There would be sound bites, video editing and expert commentary from the SPLC turning male pain into something more palatable.....hate hate hate.

Then there would be arrests, riot control action (riot not required) and then legislation to address the newly public hate.

Agreed. But still inevitable. The sooner we get it passed us, the better. Remember? First they ridicule you, ...then...we win.

That is true. Nothing will get done without loud and virtuous resistance in all arenas, all venues.

She had, in her custody, a va-jay-jay. Immunity supreme, so long as she is smackin' a man.

So belting someone in the face is a sign of your fiery passion? When will this never ending line of pathetic manginas masquerading as journalists or current affair experts come to an end? What the fuck is wrong with them? Why can't one of these men call a woman to account? They are sickening, craven cowards!

Go to a busy public place with a woman and do this experiment:
Call her stupid and then she slaps you - watch the reaction of people
She calls you stupid and then you slap her - watch the reaction of people
Enjoy the magic

Indeed. It is just magical. Predictable as hell, but still instructive.

You mean enjoy your ass kicking because that's what's going to happen when you slap that woman. All the men in the immediate vicinity will go into white knight mode and attack you.

My drunk ex-wife attempted to strangle me in public while she threatened to kill me. She was trying to get the car keys from me so that she could drive the car while she was drunk. I told her no. So, she started strangling me. I initially reached for her wrists to remove them from my throat but then I remembered a story I'd heard about a guy I knew who had been attacked by his wife, defended himself, and ended up in jail.

I let her strangle me. I was not going to end up in jail. I knew if I touched her in defense or otherwise, I'd go to jail. Fortunately, I had my cell phone in my hand. I called the police while she was strangling me. The tape from that conversation is funny/not-funny because you can hear me trying to talk to the dispatcher while my throat is being closed off by my ex-wife strangling me.

She broke off the attack shortly after I completed the phone call to the police. She ran behind a neighbor's house. The police showed up, found her behind the house, and arrested her. Two weeks in jail for her. Felony assault. The police took pictures of my neck and I had scratches all over it.

Interesting aside: shortly after being released from jail for this incident, she went to rehab. At the first family day, my ex-wife, her new rehab friends, and counselors blamed me for her getting beat up in jail by one of the guards (she mouthed off and refused to obey their orders) because I had called the police when she strangled me. Would that ever happen were the gender roles reversed?

It's a sad state of affairs when men have to allow women to try to kill them lest they face jail time.

Excellent reasoning on their part: if you let her kill you by strangulation then all's well, because she would not have ended up in jail. Sounds legit.

Is this a taste of things to come? Will beating up your man be the new "finding Jesus"? The last ditch effort to gain some, any recognition in order to save a dying career?

Also: Isn't she supposed to be hot? She seems like she is racing towards the wall and rapidly gaining body fat to cushion the impact.

Kelly 'Lard Ass' Brook. Less of a snow flake, more of an avalanche. ;-)

She a great example of a woman who despite her physical appeal, is repulsive as an individual.

Well put.

three morons sitting on sofas talking nonsense. tabloid crap. watched by the unemployed and single mothers. no one else watches this crap.

at least she admits her mother was as violent and destructive as her father.

First of all what a perfectly dreadful woman and it is little wonder she is still single because pity help the naive man that winds up with her. If you want a see a true big red flag female there is one sitting right there.

You can take the girl out of the slum but you cannot take the slummy out of the girl as is very much exemplified here.

The message to all woman now is that society will tolerate, up to a point, a significant level of violence woman wish to perpetrate on men. Essentially, woman are free to slap, punch and kick men and men just have to wear it. Under no circumstances whatsoever are men entitled to hit back at these perpetrators or there will be serious consequences for them.

What a sick society we have that tolerates and in fact implicitly advocates these woeful behaviour standards and it seems the vast majority of men (including all the male enablers of these standards from the politicians to the bureaucrats, the lawyers, the prosecutors and legal systems, the White Ribbon brigade etc etc ) are perfectly OK with this until of course they are attacked and hit back and then charged.

How men should handle violence:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Ironically enough, "Defending a woman" has a pretty feminist message. It's meant to portray how women suffer the most when men cling to outdated "masculine" concepts of honor and the like. Including a jab at how women do the most suffering while men do the most complaining over minor injuries and injustices in the end.

Just saying. [/smartass]

Lard of the Swings - episode 2 "A Tale of Two Tits" Golum and Frodo
would be impressed. Put on two tits and you become invisible. I guess
"closure" is when you can't offer harlequin spandex bullshit as a story.
Your kind of committed to your narrative especially when you write it
in a book, but apparently she's just as happy to lie through her teeth.
Caught again in the web of "closure" and "empowerment". What a worm.

The normalization of female-perpetrated violence against men is an expression of feminist triumphalism. Patriarchy theory insists that all females are oppressed by all males. Therefore, any female-perpetrated violence against males, however egregious, is perceived as a justified reaction to their oppressors which deserves to be lauded and encouraged as an act of strength and defiance. After all, a victim is never in the wrong because she's just fighting back - you go girl.

As many MHRAs have commented in the past, most of today's films and television programmes - from prestigious BBC dramas to crappy reality shows - are barely watchable. For me, this is mainly due to the prevalence of females and female characters slapping, kicking, punching and shoving males at the slightest provocation. This physical violence, plus the endless anti-male ridicule, bullying, shaming, harassment, the hurling of insults, accusations and missiles and gleeful responses to male pain leaves one in no doubt that gratuitous misandry has become normalized.

Of course, such double standards have always existed, but at least there used to be a sense of decorum about them. Nowadays, the likes of Kelly Brook feel entitled to proudly parade their hypocritical bigotry without a shred of conscience or self-awareness, convinced that they are demonstrating their empowerment as strong, independent women. Feminists have ensured that Kelly Brook can spew her offensively ignorant views without fear of criticism or accountability. They have turned her, and women like her, into an ill-managed child whose worst instincts have been pandered to and rewarded.

Well done feminists - you must be so proud of yourselves.

Excellent comment and observations.

This is the manifestation of skewed-feelings overpowering and attempting to control absolutely everything everywhere for everybody. This is what it looks like when the big cave-in done many years ago finally manifested.

>As many MHRAs have commented in the past, most of today's films and
television programmes - from prestigious BBC dramas to crappy reality
shows - are barely watchable. For me, this is mainly due to the
prevalence of females and female characters slapping, kicking, punching
and shoving males at the slightest provocation. This physical violence,
plus the endless anti-male ridicule, bullying, shaming, harassment, the
hurling of insults, accusations and missiles and gleeful responses to
male pain leaves one in no doubt that gratuitous misandry has become
normalized.<

Well now I'm just confused, though. How is that a problem? One thing when it's done in reporting, as it clearly often is, but in movies and TV series? I mean, we're still talking about fiction.

Isn't that the main line of defense when someone like Anita Sarkeesian brings up the "rampant misandry in video gaming"? Sorry, I don't accept that kind of reasoning from feminists, so it does make me cringe when I read it here. Tropes are misandry now?

Nah. I don't buy it. I'll use that as a way to mock and counter the "media objectifies women" argument, but I'd never actually say that with a straight face. Flip the genders and it could've been the script for the next Anita video. Meh.

Sanguifer.. your objection is understandable. Many newcomers to the MRM say the same thing.
Firstly.. this is not just the MRM position. Have you heard of an academic called Paul Nathanson? He has written 3 books on Misandry, and in one he covers the pervasive misandry in the media. He catalogs each of the instances. And so does Barbara Kay (xref: her recent speech at ICMI), and numerous other Right-leaning pundit-types. for e.g instapundit, womenformen founder suzanne venker.
Secondly.. check out a YTer called 'theignoredgender' who has listed the lop-sidedness of "sexism" in media (advertisements, music, etc).

The core argument is that it is no longer a level-playing field. You can mock, slap, etc men.. but you cant do the same to women. We want a level playing field. Either you can do it to both, or you can do it to neither. And the way it is currently structured, it has gone way beyond simple humor. The only way for you to be convinced of this.. is to see the detailed evidence.

I viewed the evidence, but I didn't find it very convincing. I have a quite detailed description of my stance regarding that in my response to AndyBob, sorry to redirect You there but I didn't want to post another wall of text.

I agree with the notion of wanting a level field, and if I had my way, it would be permissible to say and depict the same things (done) to women by men as vice versa. I always try to argue for more creative freedom, not less. However, I'm of the view that this is one field where we just won't achieve parity. We can and should demand it in reporting and similar real-life content (as I said, a woman basically boasting how she assaulted a man should NOT be met with laughter), but with fiction, be it music, shows, books or films? Raising awareness is all one should ever do. Trying to dictate anything is like SJWs insisting there's "not enough diversity" in whatever. It is, to a huge extent, a demand/supply thing. At least in my opinion.

For me, seeing another idiot husband in a sitcom is frustrating, grating, tiring, sure enough. But then I just don't watch it if the show doesn't have any other redeeming qualities. And it's the same when I see another chainmail bikini next to the full-plate male counterpart, I do roll my eyes at that every now and again, but I won't stop playing just because of that. I might suggest to future developers that not all dudes have to have, or actually enjoy seeing, scantily-clad female characters, I might download a mod or develop one myself, but that's pretty much it.

Raising awareness is all one should ever do. Trying to dictate anything is like SJWs insisting there's "not enough diversity" in whatever.

And who is dictating anything here? Do you see MRAs going after these people time and again, like feminists do? Nope. We do have our priorities.

The MRM approach could have been equated or likened to the Anita Sarkeesian approach if we had objected to "male objectification as success object".. i.e men being cast in the role of superhero protectors who bail out the damsel in distress. The MRM doesnt do that. We recognize that all cultures have used 'the male hero' archetype (xref Dr Joseph Campbell's The Hero with the thousand faces, aka the monomyth) to progress civilization, and live with that. Sometimes life imitates art, and sometimes not. The MRM personal gender-transition solution has been to individually drop the protector and provider roles. Art continues to put men in these roles, but we dont demand that Art change there, do we?

Paul Nathanson defines misandry as contempt for men, and lays out the case in his book that the current lop-sidedness in media portrayals meets this definition. It starts with human nature of course.. of women being more sensitive to criticism aimed at them, and men playing the fool if it will get a laugh from women, esp when their ultimate goal is to make out with them. And thats the base situation that is equivalent to the sluts-and-studs "doube standard".

A confluence of capitalism and advertisers pandering to women (who control purse strings), feminist opposition to anything that hurts their sensibilities, and male nonchalance has dialled this base situation to 11.
Life imitates Art sometimes, and sometimes not. Listen to an ex-feminist.
http://www.mhro.ca/losing-f...

Because of mixed messages from family, friends, school, and media, as a young feminist I believed I had the right to strike males without recourse, and I’m extremely ashamed to admit that I have, on several occasions. Only once was I reprimanded and the punishment was pathetic; the other assaults took place at school and I was congratulated.

The MRM doesnt object to the base lopsided scenario. We object to the dialling it up to 11. Your particular value-system may not care for that. That doesnt mean its not misandry (as in contempt for men), or that we are like the SJWs.

"Well now I'm just confused, though."

No need to be confused, Mr Sanguifer.

Consider the fact that representations of female-perpetrated violence against males have become so prevalent that widespread acceptance of it has become normalized, whereas male-perpetrated violence against women - despite Anita Sarkeesian's spurious claims - is not, nor has it ever been, either widespread or accepted, and certainly not normalized.

Perhaps my contention is a sex-flipped mirroring of Anita Sarkeesian's, but the all-important difference is that my contention is demonstrably true, while Ms Sarkeesian's is not. She has yet to offer a single example of how the alleged misogyny in video games has normalized violence against women - despite the absurd amount of time and money she has had at her disposal to do so. In contrast, my contention can be proven just by switching on the television and waiting a few moments.

I am not a 'gamer', but my understanding is that the cartoon world of monsters, aliens, elves and superheroes is not to be taken as real - I thought that was the attraction, and, indeed, the whole point. On the other hand, TV programmes, where even reality shows are essentially fictitious, feature people and characters that are usually intended to be reflections of flesh and blood people experiencing realistic - if not actually real - situations.

You may not think this makes much difference - and there are many examples when it doesn't - but overall, I believe that it makes a considerable difference.

Representations of female-perpetrated violence and misandry in the widely-seen MSM is going to have considerably more influence and impact than whatever occasional disrespect some scantily-clad woodland nymph may experience in some obscure Hobbit rip-off in the relatively small world of 'gamers'. This is why Kelly Brook can say what she did without fear of censure, while a man who voiced such an opinion about male violence against women could not. One attitude has become normalized, the other has not - and nor should it.

I admit to being confused myself by what seems to be your failure to understand why the ready acceptance of female-on-male violence is a problem. Have I misinterpreted your comment? If so, please clarify it because I think it is a massive problem for everyone - especially for men and boys.

For me, there is little point distinguishing between films/TV shows and reportage on news programmes because they all work hand-in-hand to produce the same outcome: normalizing unacceptable attitudes towards female-perpetrated violence against males.

I agree that the MHRM should be very wary of aping feminist reasoning, and it should be pointed out whenever we make this mistake, but I'm still convinced that I have not done so. My argument is grounded in reality, whereas Anita Sarkeesian's sorry excuse for an argument got lost in the foggy fantasy world into which she so unceremoniously barged - and where, I might add, it belongs.

Ah, Andy, Your comments always make me smile. You're no easy target, and I mean it as a compliment.

Apologies in advance for the late - and quite long - reply, Your points just aren't ones to dismiss without thinking a lot about them.

I won't hold not being a gamer against You, but I think You underestimate the impact and importance of gaming as a new medium. Something about the way You talk about "scantily-clad woodland nymphs [...] in obscure Hobbit-Ripoffs" just gives me the impression. Gaming has become rather diverse - at least as diverse as the world of Film and TV series, and many games tackle serious issues, often not exactly in "cartoon worlds". If You want to see how much gaming has progressed, check out P.T (here - https://www.youtube.com/wat.... This is not quite a random example - the game that P.T. is a Playable Trailer of is co-written by Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth, Pacific Rim) and is starring Norman Reedus (Boondock Saints, The Walking Dead). The Silent Hill series, while clearly being fiction, is famous for its rather adult, dark tone. It's certainly not cartoonish, and I'm not sure if it makes as much difference as You think it does. And even in mainstream media, we experience a bit of a shift - look at the popularity of Game of Thrones and Doctor Who, or The Walking Dead. Dungeons & Dragons, Resident Evil and Sci-Fi in mainstream media, oh my.

Sure, I'd agree that we don't really have the equivalents of sitcoms and reality shows quite yet - though then again, games like The Sims could be argued to have exactly the kind of impact a reality show might have. The developer's decision to include or exclude same-sex marriages in this "life-simulator" may indeed help shape the mind of the player. But that's just a minor point.

I disagree that the representation of males or females in the media has a really profound effect on the perception of people watching or playing. I don't accept the argument that, for example, playing first-person shooters makes You more likely to be violent. Anita's argument of "Games having misogynist, or women-patronizing tropes affect the way young (male) gamers will view women in real life" does not fly with gamers. In a similar vein, I don't think watching arguably misandric acts is likely to make You more misandric. So even from a purely strategic point of view, complaining about negative representation of males in media is opening the door wide open for feminists, since it implies their cries of "sexualization of women in the media" and "perpetuating rape culture" have any validity in them.

Which brings me to one point: Yes, You can argue that violence against men is normalized, but then You'll have to conclude that sexual objectification and, arguably rape, is also normalized. Oh, not in the same way, sure. But consider this: How often do You watch an action movie where a female protagonist gets captured or disarmed by some bad guy, then immediately gets groped or otherwise sexually assaulted, with the clear intention of rape - until someone either swoops in to save the day, or the protagonist manages to escape somehow on her own? I see that quite a lot. Doesn't this normalize the idea that, if You can overpower a female, You can rape her?

I'll anticipate Your response - Yes, those are the antagonists doing that. I know. Doesn't really matter for the argument. I could just as well argue that the current media doesn't normalize violence against men, but instead normalizes women being violent bitches who attack men for no reason. That's the thing - it's easy to find offense, and I don't think it's prudent to take that route.

As for why it's rarely depicted as negative when a woman strikes a man, I think a different explanation is in order. First of all: Because that sells. The "misandric" stereotype of a bubbling clumsy socially inept male is - quite unfortunately, one might argue - considered funny. Those shows are getting watched, presumably not only by women, and approved of. A guy getting kicked in the balls is funny. Violence against men is funny. Violence against women is not. You can complain about the double standard, but that's like complaining about sandwich jokes. It won't make them less of a staple.

I think people on both sides are likely to forget a few factors. We all acknowledge sexual dimorphism where it suits our arguments - why not here? Women beating up men are considered heroes, men beating up women are considered villains. True. But! Women who sleep around are sluts, and men with multiple sex partners are studs. Also true! I think that has more to do with actual real-life power dynamics rather than misogyny or misandry. Females hold all the sexual power, so a male who shows MORE sexual power than a female would have is considered a hero. On the other hand, a female abusing her sexual power is a villain of sorts. Inversely, men hold all the physical power, so a woman beating up a man is overcoming the odds and therefore, in a way, heroic, whereas a man beating up a woman is just stomping down on the weaker one, therefore an abuser and scum.

Now, is it fair? No, not really. Also, do men get misrepresented more often, or more severely, than women? Quite possibly. But first, it kind of reflects the society as a whole, a thing I wouldn't necessary blame producers for. Thanks to feminists efforts, being a slut is not quite viewed as bad as being a woman beater is anymore (and frankly, might be it never has been quite on par, but we ARE a gynocentric species, after all), while narratives on patriarchy and female empowerment encouraged more depictions of female-on-male violence. Conversely, the whining about "rape culture" has pushed the "stud" stereotype into the shadows, while MRA voices aren't heard loud enough (yet) that beating up men is considered insensitive.

The question here is: Do we employ feminists methods, i.e. cry misandry because we don't like what people evidently like to watch and read, and accuse the media of propagating rap... I'm sorry, misandric culture? Because then, we tacitly admit they have a point complaining about chainmail bikinis, depictions of sexual harassment in the workplace or whathavenot - I'm not a feminist, I don't know their catalogue of grievances by heart.

Kelly Brooks shouldn't be able to say what she said without harsh criticism. But I do think it's important to distinguish between talk shows and reports and tv shows and film. It's attributing an agenda to a hugely reflective medium. I don't think there's a huge anti-male conspiracy in film and media, just like I don't see a huge anti-female conspiracy in gaming - all in all, the market dictates. I would admit You have more of a point than the feminists in this one, just because there IS a powerful, influential Feminist lobby influencing gaming, whereas there is not equivalent thing on the male side influencing, well, anything. Question being, do we want our own feminist-style inquisition going around and labeling every uncharitable representation as misandric? Well, I for one do not.

Thanks for your long and thoughtful reply, Mr Sanguifer. There is much to think about, and I always appreciate other perspectives from intelligent commenters like you.

Does this include Doctor Who?

Because, and this is actually worrying me, I can't stand the female sidekicks. Amy Pond was cute as a little girl with her cute little backstory, but oh god so grating as a grown up assistant. The way she treats her doormat boyfriend (and the way he never does anything but lick her bootheel) has really made it a chore at times to work my way through the Matt Smith seasons, and the new one seems even more annoying, if anything.

This really sucks, because Peter Capaldi looks interesting as the new Doctor.

It would certainly include 'Dr Who' if the assistant's boyfriend were as much of a doormat as all the other hapless and incompetent TV boyfriends seem to be. It would also include "Dr Who' if the boyfriend were portrayed as a violent, loutish and insensitive psycho, because nearly all TV boyfriends fall into one of these two categories.

That's not to say that these types don't exist in real life - look at David Futrelle and Hugo Schwyzer. It's just that their prevalence creates the unrelentingly negative impression of men that must thrill feminists to their core, and give people like Kelly Brook the license to spew her misandric drivel.

All I ask is for some balance, so that fatherless boys who switch on their televisions looking for male role models can see that being someone's boyfriend does not mean choosing between becoming either a lickspittle doormat or a psycho bastard. More importantly, they should never be given the impression that being the punching bag for the physical and verbal abuse of disgruntled women is in any way acceptable, let alone an integral part of their male identities.

I wear out many batteries in my remote control due to the constant flipping of channels to escape offensive portrayals of men, gratuitous acts of violence committed against males and male characters and the endless demonization and vilification of men by talking heads like Kelly Brook.

I usually retreat to science and nature programme, where some self-satisfied lion patriarch is chowing down on Bambi's mother. It may be nauseating to watch, but at least feminists haven't found a way to personally blame me for it - not yet, anyway.

"I wear out many batteries in my remote control due to the constant flipping of channels to escape offensive portrayals of men, gratuitous acts of violence committed against males and male characters and the endless demonization and vilification of men by talking heads like Kelly Brook."

Me too.

Even if I see it with some friends over, I do not tolerate BS like that in my house. I have pissed off more than a few but for the most part, people give me the respect to decide what will air in my own home. I don't have many feminists in my home anyway. Once they find out they are not alpha, they do not stick around.

I do not care.

If we care, we lose. That is why the world is slipping deeper past the point of no return. Everything revolves around women but all we hear is how bad things are for them.

Andybob,

What they cannot hide, they normalize: they hide female-on-male DV by flooding the airwaves and presses non-stop with stories of male-on-female DV, following the Duluth script precisely.

http://www.nbcnews.com/heal...

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

The normalization is so successful that after the Jezebel discussion showing forum members proudly compared notes on how they beat up their partners was made public, it did not dent the standing of feminists one iota.

Regarding Jason Statham (and his skills in combat): I strongly suspect that the stronger a man is, physically, the more willing his partner is to initiate violence; an earlier case involving Ross Kemp was very similar. In each case both parties were aware that as soon as the man raises a hand to block a punch from the woman, he's truly done for. This gives the woman free rein to initiate violence; the stronger the man, the freer she is. After all, she would never be seen as a violent person, and everyone would give her that "you go girl", and men would still desire her regardless.

I have always been suspicious of women who seek men who are big and strong because "he is to protect me"; by that I always think it's a euphemism for "he is to do my bidding, to do my proxy violence". And of course there is the aforementioned extra dimension to it, not to mention being the designated dogsbody. For well-built men who're happy that they are desired by women, the hard-earned physique is actually a sucker bet.

Not only that, but men who keep themselves fit and are athletically built (even if they are not martial arts experts or film stars) are objectified simply because of their looks - regardless of the fact that physical appearance ("good" or "bad") has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the character of the person. This flies in the face of the cornerstone feminist arguments about "stare rape" and about how men are pigs simply because they wolf whistle or because they openly acknowledge a woman's beauty.

Like the late Robin Williams, Jason Stratham is actually an extremely sensitive soul with a very big heart, regardless of the characters that they portray in their films, and you can see the hurt and suffering in their eyes.

I have often asked the rabid feminists that I have encountered why they don't stay single if they hate men so much - and not one of them was able to give me an answer - NOT ONE. Feminists are actually MORE likely to flirt or play the field because they enjoy male attention - even if they hate men.

Not surprisingly, when they do eventually 'commit' to a serious relationship (after playing and leading guys on for extended periods of time) they tend to pick men who are easy to manipulate and control because they are gentlemen - especially if that gentle male happens to make them look good in public.

There is an old saying: "Alpha plays; Beta pays". That's a bit of truth in that.

Yes, there is a bit of truth in that saying. However, just because a man happens to be physically fit and in good shape does not automatically make him an ALPHA male anymore than it makes him a BETA. Those concepts are tied to his behaviour, not his physical appearance.

That's expected; it is not realistic to sum up something this complex, with so many variables, in a mere four words. At least the term alpha and beta here are used very loosely.

Agreed; especially when you take into consideration that the very types of women who complain that gentlemen are disappearing are usually the same types of women who chase after "bad boys" because they find nice guys boring. I have seen this happen so many times and without any clear pattern attached to the outward appearance of either the "nice guy" or the "bad boy".

Certainly, a man in good physical shape will make a better initial impression on a woman than a man who is not - at least in the first few minutes of meeting her. However, as you say, there are too many variables involved to make summary generalizations. Having said that, some factors tend to carry more weight than others - for example a man's material wealth and social status.