Roger Ebert is better than women

According to film-critic Roger Ebert[1]: “Women are nicer than men. There are exceptions. Most people of both sexes are probably fairly nice, given the nature of their upbringing and opportunities. But in terms of their lifelong natures, women are kinder, more empathetic, more generous. And the sooner more of them take positions of power, the better our chances as a species.”

That is the beginning of Ebert’s 1500 word pean to women, published on Mother’s Day, and yes, it’s another one of those articles. Men are bad, women are good, men are worse, women are better, men are the worst thing ever, and women are just the best, squee!!!

The top rated comment on the movie reviewer’s tedious recitation of gender feminist dogma is:

“Bravo, Roger! :) Now *this* is a column that took balls to write! I hope you get lovely comments from your readers. Bollocks to the ones who don’t like it”

Considering that Ebert is a professional reviewer of commercial entertainment, the principal consumers of which are women, I can certainly see that it really did take big brass balls to devote an entire column to flattering his audience. Well done Roger, you brave, brave soul.

It is also just a coincidence that the movie reviewer’s view on the relative merits of women as better, smarter, more nurturing, more human, and just generally superior is a perfect reflection of the common thread of female flattery and disdain for men prevalent in all commercial entertainment. Coincidentally, one of the reasons men are a minority of the consumers of such entertainment, is it’s not-quite-so entertaining to be told over and over that due to owning external genitalia, you’re worthless.

Ebert, in his attempt to ingratiate himself to a mostly female audience has done what countless other approval seeking men have done. Simply, to metaphorically prostrate himself – declaring – look, I’m a good man, not like those other bad men, you see how I heap scorn on them and flatter you? Approve of me!

Interestingly, this is where Ebert inadvertently reveals his contempt for his audience. How debased must women be, how small minded, selfish and weak; that to feel better about themselves – they must degrade their brothers, fathers, sons and other men around them? What’s worse, is how stupidly childish must we think women are to heap them with such degrading sexist flattery – assuming they will not notice our assumptions of their vain and venal character. Surely, we can hold women in higher regard than this. Not Roger, but if he is not rejected in his sycophantic pseudo flattery, his assumptions of his audience’s character might even be right.

Aside from notation that his attitude mirrors the standard trope of movie and television that women are superior in every way, Ebert’s male-abasing and false esteem is a tired and monotonous repetition of standard gender ideology.

Sing along with me, you all know the words!

Women are better then men!
Boom boom boom!
They do everything better than them!
Boom boom boom!

Ladies are generally nicer!
Quack quack quack!
Their thoughts and feelings are higher!
Quack quack quack!

Girls and women are smarter!
Bing! Bang! Smash!
To keep up, men must try harder!
Clang! Bang! Bash!

Et Cetera.

Ebert actually admits that his view of the “superior sex” is based on too many hours immersed in the fantasy world of produced entertainment, although he doesn’t seem to notice his own admission.

According to Ebert: “This occurred to me while watching a forthcoming movie named “Where Do We Go Now?” It could have occurred during dozens or hundreds of movies.”

Women in movies generally are superior to men, because they’re written that way, to flatter the sensibilities of the intended audience. The failure to notice that fiction reflects the assumptions and intentions of its authors rather than objective reality being a common thread in women-are-better social commentary from other writers, which base those assumptions on movie and television reality rather than, **ahem** real reality.

The sycophant notes the trend of women’s rapid displacement of men in higher education, but fails to connect that to decades of overhaul of the educational system, rendering it hostile to men.

Referring again to Ebert’s words: “I could bore you with more statistics, but I doubt you need convincing. Most of these things are intuitively true.”

This, by the way is how bigotry works. Facts? We don’t need no stinkin facts! I know Whites are smarter than Blacks because it feels right!

Whoops, not blacks, I meant women are better than men, Ha, silly me, putting one demographic above another based on biological characteristic of identity would be racist, which is just stupid bigotry with no place in a modern, enlightened society.

Oh, dear me, how embarrassing that I almost suggested something so bigoted. Anyway, back to Ebert’s astute observations of superiority of one biological group over another.

Ebert repeats the endlessly debunked wage gap myth, and also lies about the social science showing fatherlessness as the largest predictor of negative outcomes for children. Ebert skips entirely over the champion position mothers hold in the Olympic sport of infanticide and child killing. He also notes that fathers are more likely to be missing from their children’s lives, but fails totally to examine a monetized family court system and cultural norms which forcibly sever men from their families. Ebert goes on to predictably characterize men’s attraction to strippers as childish mommy-seeking. The point of his piece is, after all, not to enlighten, but to vilify one group and flatter another.

However, throughout all this naked sucking up to women, Roger Ebert depends on those superior beings to never notice that if compliment or admiration depends on the rhetorical degradation of men, his view of women is of infants lacking self reflection or empathy. Ebert depends on his preferred sex being cruel and cowardly, and never noticing this assumption he makes of them. Interestingly, he steers close to self parody in a few places. One such is in naming the superior sex’s inclination to nurture the defenceless.

This ignores the entirety of human history in which men have killed and died in the defence of women, and that in all our eagerness to vilify men, calling them lesser humans, and calling women superior, more ethical, more empathic, we demonstrate a failure of the vaunted womanly empathy and ethical supremacy we lay a claim to.


  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • Skeptic

    Roger Ebert?

    Shouldn’t that read – Roger Dilbert?

    • John the Other

      I pronounce it Rotten Shitbird

      • Skeptic

        Sorry I’m a bit deaf.
        Did you say Rogered Eatdirt?

        • Dr. F


          He said, and I heard quite clearly, “This guy stinks.”

      • Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

        Roger Ebert? Two thumbs down.

        Way down.

        • BeijaFlor

          Pardon me for disagreeing.

          One thumb up – Roger’s thumb.

          I will stop short of saying “up what.”

      • jms5762

        Gaaawd damn John! On fire as usual brother. Paul has been pretty hot lately too. Shit like Ebert oz Phil revolution its all about you the view makes me want to puke in my hat. My mother eats that crap up…and shes in her sixties. Needless to say she and I have been locking horns lately. Seems like the pandering from the media has become much worse since the current administration moved into the whitehouse. Good grief!!

  • Shrek6

    And of course I guess it’s a waste of time mentioning that everything on this earth from the knickers these women wear on their fat buts, all the way through to just about every single thing they touch in their day, up to and including homes, buildings, cars, trains, rockets, and the food they stuff down their throats, has all been either invented or produced by those useless ‘less than’ human, men. What a waste of space those men are!

    Yep, I can feel a man strike coming on.

    If all the men and boys in this world pulled the pin and sat on their buts for a month, the world would come to a grinding halt and anarchy would reign. All the women would be seen crying, screeching at men with gnashing teeth. Then they would eventually come begging.

    Yep, that day is coming to these over indulged women. That day is coming!

    • StarsDie

      But you don’t understand. Women have been held back by patriarchal dominance… That’s why they haven’t done a damn thing in terms of advancement of society!

      There can be no other explanation for it, because women have the same capabilities you see… Except for when it’s convenient for me to say that women aren’t as physically strong as men. Then I’ll use that to defend VAWA. But otherwise, women are the exact same in every way!

      • paddleship

        Women have made quite a bit of progress in the relatively short amount of time they’ve been a part of the workforce. Throughout history the majority of women were told from birth that they were incapable of doing the things that men were doing, and in a world where they had little or no access to alternate viewpoints and were generally saddled with the responsibilities of childbearing from a young age, it’s no surprise that very few of them were able to contribute as much to society as men who were able to spend their entire lives devoted to educating themselves and acquiring experience. People will oftentimes become what other people tell them that they are, especially if they can’t even conceive of a role-model figure similar to themselves who might do things differently.

        Expressing viewpoints like yours only works to discredit the entire MRA movement, I think. We should work towards justice and true equality for everyone, regardless of race, gender, or creed. Most real-world men and women can get behind that. What we *shouldn’t* do is use a group’s perceived privilege as an excuse to insult members of that group, especially when those privileges are imposed by an impersonal government that most people, including women, have very little power to influence. Doing so only turns this into an Us vs. Them situation. Most women in the real world have sons and fathers and brothers and have no real desire to see men treated unfairly (some do, but evil women shouldn’t be viewed as representative of their gender any more than evil men should be viewed as representative of theirs). Use logic to persuade them to join you and fight for justice alongside you, not insults to exclude them and ensure that they’ll want to fight against you. Because if you don’t like feminists’ derogatory remarks towards men, you shouldn’t make similarly derogatory remarks towards women, unless you want this whole thing to turn into a giant jerk off session of two special interest groups mindlessly trading attacks while the majority of people simply go about their business and no real change ever takes place.

        • HurleyHacker

          I would suggest Angry Harry as your first lesson.

        • Astro

          Most women in the real world have sons and fathers and brothers and have no real desire to see men treated unfairly (some do, but evil women shouldn’t be viewed as representative of their gender any more than evil men should be viewed as representative of theirs). Use logic to persuade them to join you and fight for justice alongside you, not insults to exclude them and ensure that they’ll want to fight against you.
          LOL.. Man.. that was fun. Just what we needed.. possibly newbie concern, NAWALT, and to cap it all off, “use logic to persuade women”. Dude.. there’s at least 2 decades of facts/logical arguments thrown at feminists and for all women to see, and the response has been crickets at best.
          Here.. please read this summary from Paul Nathanson’s book on spreading misandry

        • Stu

          Well firstly, I think your whole train of thought is bullshit. Take us all back in time two hundred years, with conditions exactly as they were back then, exchanging everybody’s jobs etc for the typical jobs that were available back then, and I’ll bet that the vast majority of women would CHOOSE not to turn up at work. You would see empowered independent feminists demanding their RIGHT to stay at home, and keep house and raise kids.

          The other thing is that this whole notion that women have been this or that for thousands of years, it’s total bullshit. Modern feminism has existed and been a powerful force in society all of my life, and certainly all of my adult life. So any woman my age or younger has lived their life in a time when they could do anything they wanted. To claim you are held back by what your ancestors may or may not have been held back by is exactly the same as me saying that I can not walk because my great-grandfather was in a wheel chair.

          You are not restrained by any conditions that your ancestors suffered under, and neither are women. In fact, women are advantaged above men now in many areas. It’s high time people like you stopped claiming some past victimhood on some past woman is crippling some current woman’s ability to walk.

          Oh…..I can’t walk properly because 200 years ago my ancestor sprained her ankle…….it really hurts….somebody give me a wheelchair.

          It’s fucking ridiculous.

        • StarsDie

          Don’t over-value “encouragement” and “role models”. Sometimes women either don’t have the same abilities as men, or just don’t have the same interests as men. Nature or nurture is an irrelevant argument, especially since in the vast majority of things in life, it’s both.

          If women are ever going to do as men do, it’s going to be because men demand it from women and will have nothing to do with them if they don’t live up to it. No amount of coddling and encouraging will do it.

          Expectation, like what men endure, is the only thing that will bring forth female innovation and progress in the hard sciences and other fields. In this sense, it’s important for the progress of females for men to go their own way… However, I wouldn’t suggest that men go their own way for that reason. Their own personal reasons is adequate enough. Even if it doesn’t help in female progression it’s a worthwhile pursuit.

          I don’t think that a satirical comment about feminist bullshit is enough to “discredit” the MRM. Sure, I won’t be making any feminist friends, but I think I can handle that.

          • Shrek6

            StarsDie, I agree with most of what you say. However, you make assumptions that women are INDEED as capable as men are, but simply cannot prove this because they are held back by “patriarchal dominance”.
            I’m sorry, but I simply cannot agree with that at all. There may be some instances of this, but throughout all history of Mankind, women have consistently shown their expertise to exist in one area and men have shown their expertise to be consistent in another area.

            Women (and I am deliberately using a general statement here) have not, do not and will not, ever be or do the same as men!

            Yes, yes, I know there are many instances to prove my above statement to be totally incorrect. But I am not talking about specifics, I am referring to life and society in general.

            Most women have not and will never have the physiological ability to perform the vast majority of duties men do, most especially when it comes to physical labour.
            There is also a belief around that the man’s brain is superior to that of women, which is why innovation comes more from men than women.

            And as for men and why we have women in our lives. Well, it is my firm belief that God made sure men would engage with women to create family and procreate, by making us sexually driven, even to the brink of killing another suitor, just so we can breed and get the relief from the torment of sexual frustration.
            Because I also firmly believe, that because God made men to be totally independent and have no need whatsoever for women, this was the only way He could guarantee that the human species would survive.

            So if we men were not driven to procreate, then we would have absolutely nothing to do with a moody, indecisive, hormonal, emotionally driven, and often expensive woman.

            Women have only got 2 things to offer men. Sex, then children/family. Outside of that, women have nothing to offer men that men cannot furnish themselves with!

        • JinnBottle

          Oh yeah. I used my awesome male privilege to have used 50% of my working lifetime in menial, backbreaking, mindnumbing, ballbusting jobs. The reason I use the term “ballbusting” is that the gender possessing them is identical with the gender possessing the aforesaid job type.

          Paddle, do you honestly believe that if women had been “allowed” to be garbage lumpers, presstenders, roofers and coalminers they would have been? Why aren’t they now?

        • andybob

          “Most women in the real world have sons and fathers and brothers and have no real desire to see men treated unfairly…” Mr Paddleship

          Mate, take a seat. I’m afraid I have some bad news.

          They don’t care.

          There are four main categories of women:

          1) Women who care about the men in their lives, but never make the connection that their naked misandry contributes to the misery of these men. Most of those women who whooped and cackled when RegisterHer lifer, Sharon Osborne, expressed delight when an innocent man was genitally mutilated belong in this category. They would not have cackled quite so much if someone had brutalised their sons. Other women’s sons? No problem. It has ever been thus: white feather campaign in WWI.

          2) Women who may pay lip service to caring about the men in their lives, but in reality, see them in the same way they see all other men – as utility objects to be manipulated and exploited. Such women don’t think of the men in their lives at all, except when they want something from them.

          3) Feminists. These range from the mild (man-hating bigots), to the radical (man-hating bigots who advocate genocide and eugenics).

          4) Women MRAs. These are rare women (I’ve never seen one, even in captivity), who regard men as actual people with collective and innate value. I can count them on two hands with fingers to spare.

          Men have been struggling for many decades now with nary a peep from women. There is a reason for this.

          They don’t care.

          Feminism has provided today’s pampered princesses with the privilege-stuffed, consequence-free Nirvana that they believe they’re entitled to. Do you really think they can be swayed with reason and logic? Have you ever tried to discuss men’s rights with women? They will show concern for some imaginary, hypothetical female from some Third World country before they give two shits about the son, brother or friend standing in front of them. It literally knocks the breath out of me when I experience it first hand.

          “Doing so only turns this into an Us vs. Them situation.”

          This is an “Us vs. Them situation”. Peruse some feminist blogs. You may think these women are just lunatics, but many of them are influential, well-placed lunatics. Guess what? They hate our penis-swinging patriarchal guts and write widely-read screeds planning and celebrating our destruction. Our relation to them is adversarial, whether we like it or not.

          We are in a battle against a powerful, well-financed and establishment-supported entity which has succeeded in stealing our rights in every sphere. This has been done with the silent collusion of vast numbers of women. As such, a few “derogatory remarks” are the least they deserve.

          I agree that we should not go out of our way to alienate potential allies. However, your belief that we will succeed by approaching women with reason and logic – and being nice to them – demonstrates a stunning naivete about our predicament. You need a little tete-a-tete with Pamela O’Shaughnessy.

          Your approach makes you sound like a sane person who wants to be fair and do the right thing. You sound like a typical man. Feminists see this as a failing to be used against us – and they have done so with devastating results. It’s time to re-think your strategy.

        • yurlungur

          Hmm and who invented the pill that liberated women from the responsibility of child rearing in order to pursue education and a career?
          Who was it that supported women when they give birth?
          It used to be that if you farthered a child you where damm well going to support that child, but now of course it’s up to society to support those women for their choices; If you don’t support those women then your are oppressing them.

          Feminism is not the alternative view point it is the main view point.
          how many people on the mainstream media are confessing sympathy or highlighting the problems that men are facing in today’s society?
          When was the last time you saw someone like Paul Elam On TV?
          When was the last time you saw a magazine aimed at the concerns of men?
          For some kind of alternative movement it damm well quickly became mainstream.

        • ThoughtCriminal

          Throughout history the majority of women were told from birth that they were incapable of doing the things that men were doing, and in a world where they had little or no access to alternate viewpoints and were generally saddled with the responsibilities of childbearing from a young age, it’s no surprise that very few of them were able to contribute as much to society as men who were able to spend their entire lives devoted to educating themselves and acquiring experience. People will oftentimes become what other people tell them that they are, especially if they can’t even conceive of a role-model figure similar to themselves who might do things differently.

          Throughout most of history,women had no access to their own brains. Powerful men, at the highest echelons of learning, stood between natural phenomena and the neuro-chemical processes of women’s brains and kept them from making observations and then testing them for use in solving practical problems.

          You see,there was no way a woman could have figured out if she took the sticks she was making baskets out of and the fabric she was weaving and put them together correctly,she could turn that into a wing and make an airplane from it. She just didn’t have access to all the same things men did,like wood,or eyes to watch birds fly.

          It’s not that they didn’t have any interest in doing it,it’s that somebody told them they couldn’t do it,and naturally,they took word of the first person who said that to them,just like Tucker or DaVinci or the Wright Brothers would have done had somebody accused them of being incapable of following through on their fantastical ideas.

        • Shadow7057

          The problem isn’t in women achieving equality and having the same choices as men, its what is happening in order for them to GET those choices.

          When men held most of the work force, he used those opportunities to TAKE CARE of women. Now that women are reaching places of power, they are using that power to destroy men in return.

          This article is a perfect example of how most woman are lifted up by pushing men down, not by co-existing equally.

          Women refuse to take care of men the way that men once took care of women. They push their way into the school, jobs, board meetings, while pushing men out at the same time.

          No MRA has a problem with women gaining power, they have a problem with women destroying men in order to get it.

  • lensman

    In the movies the woman manages to kick alien butt, destroy the alien database, save the innocent little girl and throw the alien queen off the the space shute.

    In the movies it’s the woman that defeats the witch-king screaming “I am no man” (arguably, this scene is also in the book which was written long before second wave feminism emerged-see how sexist people were back then?).

    In the movies, the little 5-foot girl always manages to beat the raging 7-foot bulking hulk using Kung-Fu. Or show the boys that “she can do it as good as the men do”. Or manage to lead the company out of financial ruin using her female savviness.

    The thing is, the reason things always work out this way in the movies is that they are fucking movies! They are figments of somebody’s imagination. Real life doesn’t quite work this way.

    For example…

    MOVIE: Tomb Raider
    PREMISE: Young woman archailogist.
    REEL: She goes on plenty of Indiana Jones adventures, defeating supernatural dangers and wiping the floor with the men that get on their way.
    REAL: She discovers that archaiology entails lots of boring and complicated shit that she can’t possibly deal with herself. She chooses to bone the locals instead in order to pass her ennui, and gets an antibiotic-resistant case of sipphilis.

    MOVIE: Charlie’s Angels
    PREMISE: Women secret agents get on various missions guided by a mysterious voice.
    REEL: The women manage to do things that normal men do better, and always manage to defeat the villain and save the day.
    REAL: They can’t fight or shoot for shit and the mysterious voice decides to bother a bunch of more competent guys instead.

    MOVIE: Don’t tell mom the babysitter is dead.
    PREMISE: Underage girl gets a job at a fashion company and embezzles some money from it in order to feed her brothers.
    REEL: She gets away with it by saving the company using her youthfull female savviness.
    REAL: The company goes under due to her mishandling, plenty of people lose their jobs, and she gets away with the embezzling by suing someone for sexual harassment.

    MOVIE: Eat, Pray, Love
    PREMISE: Woman dumps her boring husband in order to go on a journey of self-discovery.
    REEL: She meets a pretty young man who manages to make her “feel again” and lives happily ever after.
    REAL: Yeah, it’s “based on a true story”. They just left out the “ever after” part where the young guy cheated on her, dumped her and she ended up as an aging spinster. Meanwhile her ex thrived without her constant nagging and found someone better.

    MOVIE: Mrs Doubtfire
    PREMISE: Guy disguises himself as an aging nanny in order to get close to his kids. He gets discovered in the end.
    REEL: The ex-wife, being the better person, decides to forgive him and let him be a part of the children’s life once more.
    REAL: The ex-wife is a vindictive uncaring bitch who only cares about herself and uses this incident in order to get full custody and milk her husband for all he’s worth, now that he is a TV star. The kids’ life become fucked up beyond all repair without the love and presense of the father, but she has the whole society to back her up, so nobody cares.

    MOVIE: Barbie’s Three Musketeers (Yeah, a direct-to-dvd kid’s movie)
    PREMISE: A young girl goes to Paris in the 18th century in order to become a musketeer. She meets three other girls with the same dream.
    REEL: She manages to co-operate with three other girls, overcomes the inherent sexism of the ages, learns to use a sword effectively, saves the prince, and manages to fullfil her dream, along with her friends.
    REAL: They can’t stop bickering and their incompetence leads to the prince getting assasinated. They get relocated to a royal brothel (yes, these existed in the 18 century) where their excesses become one of the reasons the French Revolution occurs. They wind up getting their heads chopped off along with their aristocrat boyfriends.

    MOVIES: Uhm… Pretty much any sports movie where a woman secretly or openly gets into a male team or male sport.
    REEL: The woman manages to become as good as the guys and occasionaly manages to save the team she is on through her skill.
    REAL: Don’t you find it odd that these types of sports movies don’t have any female stuntsmen? The woman winds up being constantly protected and coddled by the guys, while the team loses its edge, and the season.

    (Feel free to add more of your own examples from other movies)

    • Kimski

      Don’t get me started..
      I used to love movies, but nowadays it’s like finding a rare gemstone in your cereals, when you finally come across something of substance or entertaining value.
      It’s all bullshit to some degree now.

    • Zarathos022

      The Resident Evil film series (Based on the video game series).

      PREMISE: A woman (Milla Jovovich) becomes a bona-fide zombie-killer over the course of 4 movies.

      REEL: Over the course of each film, this woman supposedly cuts, shoots, and kung-fu’s her way through hordes of zombies and mutant freaks.

      REAL: She pisses her pants at the sight of a horde of flesh-hungry zombies and runs into the night screaming for her mother (not that I would blame her however).

    • paddleship

      I think it’s pretty much expected that movies are going to portray their protagonists doing unlikely or impossible things, whether they’re male or female. A feminist could easily compose a similar list using sexist stereotypes against men to say that a male protagonist would most likely in real life instead of saving the day be masturbating or watching football or hitting on his secretary or whatever sitcom crap.

      • lensman

        Of course that hypothetical feminist would have a problem actually finding any movies that actually portray men in any kind of positive way, especially recent ones (i.e. made after 1990). The thing is that while hollywood is all too eager to present the flaws of any male protagonist, it’s very reluctant to portay women in any other light other than an overly positive one, even when their actions are abhorrent.

        There is a reason that the trope for the boringly perfect protagonist is called “The Mary Sue”.

      • Free Human Being

        Paddleship, I can on some level see what you are trying to say in a “let’s all hold hands and get along” sort of way.

        Some of us are kinda pragmatic realists though.

        Roger Sheepert has done what most knights in vaginy armor do and that is put down men and elevate women.

        Now been that most of us here would be what you would consider men’s rights activists and as such, well, that shit just aint gonna fly, or conversely the shit is gonna fly as it hits the fan, that’s to be expected from such feculence.

        Now your viewpoint seems to align itself rather suspiciously with patriarchal theory, which is really the bowel movement of historical revision, again being men and being activists for men, we probably are not en masse going to lend credibility to the idea that being a man a couple of hundred years ago wasn’t just a giant shit fest.

        Life sucked.

        To be a man was to be born into a life of indentured

        In response to your comment that feminists could make a similar list about men, they don’t have to buddy, the majority of tv shows and films with men in them do it for them.

        The “men are stupid – women are perfect” formula doesn’t need any reworking for dramatic effect, it is the rule not the exception.

        In a perfect world we could all eat ice cream in the sunshine, heck, I love ice cream, I probably like it more than anyone, in fact I’m probably one of the world’s biggest ice cream fans, but that doesn’t mean I’m fat.

        Okay, so that’s the old ice cream derail cliche, but I’m sure you have our best interests at heart and I have cholesterol in mine.

      • Malestrom

        The difference being that is isn’t at all hard to find men who do do those things in real life. Fairly unremarkable men are capable of heroism, think of the three hundred odd fireMEN who died on 9/11 trying to rescue perfect strangers from burning skyscrapers, just ordinary men doing their jobs, heroes one and all.

        By contrast, the greatest and bravest women scarcely measure up to this standard set by normal men, which is why it’s a massive deal if one is found can almost manage it.

        The idea of the female hero is fundamentally ridiculous.

        • Shrek6


        • lensman

          Actually, the idea of female heroes and female sacrifice for the good of the country is not something completely unheard of here. Bear in mind though, that this is a country where there is a popular song about women commiting mass suicide in order to not become chattel, poems about women holding rifles, shooting and dying in the Greek Revolution, and history records of a famous Greek Noblewoman who actually gave up all her riches and fortune in order to help the rebellion. They aren’t as prominent as the ones where the male heroes get honored but they are much more popular for some reason.

          I recall that the year when I was doing my compulsory military service was the year that a woman soldier actually got the highest possible military honor in the Greek Army for the first time in history. What did she do? She basically saved a group of soldiers who got drunk on leave and stumbled behind enemy borders and wound up under fire in enemy territory. She basically run in there with her civilian clothes (she was on her short leave for the evening) and carried them one by one, for over 50 meters each. She got wounded on the second one, but came back for the third one and carried him out as well.

          Would all women soldiers be able to do what this woman did? No. Eight other women soldiers were with her on that night and they were too scared and shocked to do a thing. They weren’t punished, but they weren’t honored either. And of course, the fact that a woman actually managed to do such a thing got way more publicity than what would happen if a man actually did this.

          A fellow squad member of mine said that this means, one in nine women can be a hero… I told him that it’s an overestimation based on “non-repeatable-data” (scientific jargon for “being worth doodley-squat”). He looked at me as if I was from another planet. I guess the scientific method is not very popular here.

          The point of the past few paragraphs in this: female heroes can and do exist, but they are way too few, and receive much more publicity and praise than their male counterparts. Even in non-feminized countries, people love the idea of a female hero.

  • Dr. F

    What kind of a person would sell out their very own gender ?

    What a disgusting and repugnant little toad of a man.

  • napocapo69

    Roger Ebert is partially right. Women are better than “one man”, him!

  • AntZ

    Another feminist bigot bites the dust. What a disgusting toady. Lets make sure this vile pice of human filth is remembered.

    • Shrek6

      Place him in the name and shame file!

  • Codebuster

    It’s an idiot like this that reminds me why I have a problem with a men’s-only men’s movement. Defend this piece of shit’s rights, just because he’s a dude? Fuck no.

  • Kimski

    Roger Ebert should stick to doing what he gets payed for: Revieving movies.

    As his job basically demands nothing else from a person, than sitting on their fat ass and write: ‘I liked it’ or ‘I didn’t like it’, he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt with this article, that that also happens to be the extend of what he is mentally capable of.

    Opinions are like assholes.-Everybody’s got one. But Roger Ebert’s is in a league of it’s own, and it fits quite nicely with the rest of him.
    -And what a load of crap he delivers.

    • JinnBottle

      Ebert shouldn’t even stick to what he gets paid for. Because he invariably thumbs up shallow, cheesy – and let’s not forget, female chauvinist – movies.

      I knew there was something about the little pudge I didn’t trust.

      • yurlungur

        Could you give us some examples?

  • Merlin

    What a complete dick!

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy self flagellates with a cat of nine tails whilst reciting feminist dogma from front to back, and back to front.

    Balls are something he doesn’t have because otherwise he wouldn’t be sucking up to his target audience like a male slut.

    To represent male rights as MRA’s do on a day to day basis is what really takes balls.

    • ThoughtCriminal

      Goddamn right,my brother.

  • ThoughtCriminal


    “Sing along with me, you all know the words!

    Women are better then men!
    Boom boom boom!
    They do everything better than them!
    Boom boom boom!

    Ladies are generally nicer!
    Quack quack quack!
    Their thoughts and feelings are higher!
    Quack quack quack!

    Girls and women are smarter!
    Bing! Bang! Smash!
    To keep up, men must try harder!
    Clang! Bang! Bash!”

    Doubleplusgood duckspeak,comrade.

    “It’s an idiot like this that reminds me why I have a problem with a men’s-only men’s movement. Defend this piece of shit’s rights, just because he’s a dude? Fuck no.”

    I would defend his rights,the same rights I would like to have, and then pillory him for his compliance in denying me the same,the lousy fucker. I bet Siskel was the one with the balls in that partnership.

    “But in terms of their lifelong natures, women are kinder, more empathetic, more generous.”

    I still don’t understand how someone could look at something like the reproductive rights controversy and come to this conclusion. Look how “generous” women were there. They were so generous that they effectively negated the role of father legally. It was a pre-emptive strike. Nowhere in history can you find examples of men in the aggregate claiming motherhood means absolutely nothing and that the mother is a useless appendage in the family dynamic. Not even the most misogynistic man alive would claim children don’t need mothers,they just need their money,or just their breast milk,or they just need to borrow a woman’s womb for a while until the REAL parent,the man,can step in and take over.

    Chicks share more stuff with each other,big deal. That just means that they give stuff to people in order to get stuff from people. I got news for you,that’s not generosity, that’s called business. If men did it, they’d call it an old boy’s club and oppression. Fuck,we do the opposite of that and they STILL accuse us of doing it, and call us oppressors anyway because they can’t figure out how to save or invest all those freebies we give people.

    It’s not just women,either. The examples are ubiquitous,orphanages,welfare,social security,etc,etc. We’re not going to benefit in any significant way from most of that shit,but we make sure people have it anyway.

    That’s generosity.

    If Ebert wasn’t old,pussy-whipped,and mentally retarded,I believe I would strike him.

  • Skeptic

    Whilst Ebert sells his brothers down the river with his stupid gender self flagellation it’s great to see at least some university study of males that apparently doesn’t involve any slutwalking, take back the night, white ribbon campaigning or other dumb femalist hystrionics.

  • StarsDie

    The sad thing is this kind of stuff doesn’t even get you laid. So he’s just chopping his nuts off for the fun of it.

  • Eye in the Sky

    While we’re discussing popular lies – women are now openly conspiring against men and proud of it:

    Keep fighting for the truth – it always trumps ideology in the end.

    • yurlungur

      When men work together it’s called patriarchy and it oppress women. Only men can’t work together according to feminists, figure that one out. in fact we need more women to work together for the good of women.


    Good putdown.

    Obviously Ebert doesnt do reviews on reality tv shows, or he would have arrived at the opposite conclusion.

  • Rog

    this reminds me of the feminist who said there would be no seal hunts if there wernt men hunting them,,, and i think there would be no men hunting them if women didnt want fur coats….
    good article JTO

    • Dr. F

      Great point.

      The feminists of course would then say, “Yes, but those fur companies are owned by men and men alone.”

      The reply of course will then be, “Yes, men who have wives that have a blood soaked hand held out for gobs of money in order to buy a couple of brand new fur coats.”

      • Rog

        thats the difference isnt it men will hunt to make a living or out of necessity(i know its not the same) i wear leather out of necessity myself(welding be hot!) but its only a womans vanity that makes the seal hunt continue(even by extension men who wear fur are doing it to impress women i would guess…) its wars for their freedoms and entitlements, for their healthcare, for their education, for their safety, i personally have not seen many men who need much in the way of money, entitlements,living accommodations ect , most guys i know would be more than happy to live in a loft above their shop not needing marble floors and fancy woodwork and other men i know would be alot happier spending on their fishing boat than their house or new clothing(heres where the need to provide pops up) vanity will be womens downfall i guarantee it….

  • Zarathos022

    Women are nicer than men, eh, Mr. Critic?

    Do us all a big favor. The next time you’re on the internet, look up a few websites :
    Wikipedia’s list of female murderers

    Hopefully that should wake you up to the sad reality that not ALL women are the innocent creatures you fawn over in your little article.

    Have a nice day now, Mr. Critic. :)

  • keyster

    It takes real balls to admit women are actually the ones with balls.

    WARNING! Not for the faint of heart:

    Obama does ALL FEMALE Barnard College.
    Talks about discrimination against women!

  • dejour

    You know, I’d be okay with a column that praises women. A column that praises men is always welcome, and it would be hypocritical to deny similar tributes to women. And certainly there are many women who do show many positive attributes.

    The first problem for me is that he frames it as “Women are better than men”. The second is that almost everything he says is based almost exclusively on feelings (bigotry). He should have written about a few exceptional women and provided concrete examples of them doing something positive.

    • Paul Elam

      It’s a good thing you don’t mind a column that praises women. It is all you are going to get.

      • dejour

        Obviously it’s a problem if there is no balance. Columns praising women should be roughly as common as columns praising men.

        A column highlighting a few great moms on Mother’s Day is fine. Ideally with a similar column about dads on Father’s Day.

        What Ebert wrote though, is anti-male bigotry.

  • Dennis

    Roger Ebert’s movie reviews aren’t worth reading. Maybe that’s why he’s a sycophant to women: sucking up to them in hopes they’ll continue to read his shallow dim witted commentary.

  • paddleship

    Morally, men and women are pretty much even. Men have simply, historically, more often been in positions where their evil is more notable, more extreme, and more memorable, simply because they’ve usually been the leaders and have had more power. And men are bigger than women, so of course, being human, they’re going to have used that power to hurt women and to hurt other men who were smaller than them, because when humans have power, in whatever form, they tend to use it against other people. Pretty basic. Given the same power, though, I think that men and women will usually behave very similarly, and it’s pretty ignorant and thoughtless to act as though women have a moral high ground simply because they have/had less ability to use power against men in overt ways. It’s like congratulating a rabbit for eating a vegetarian diet.

    • HurleyHacker

      I am heartened that you “think” about men and women. I am going to re-think all the facts and figures about men and women presented on this blog. Thank you for educating me in my errant reasoning.

    • Free Human Being

      Hi Padds,

      If Mr Bunny could chew his way through a 3 pound steak then I’d be congratulating him all the way to a nice spicy paella, but unfortunately you just can’t fatten a Wabbit like you can a chicken, so you just don’t see them on the menu that often.

      No one is congratulating men on all their achievements, especially not the feminists, but there certainly is a lot of back slapping and high fives during women’s history month.

      It’s a simple matter of questioning should we celebrate any inventions, or just women’s and if we do, why not give a dog a bone and give men a little bit of credit for inventing almost everything.

      Do you think coming here and arguing that women were akin to prisoners and were unable to invent is going to be well received.

      It’s an invalid argument, if necessity is the mother of invention and women were oppressed then they would have invented advanced weaponry out of …wait for it,


      If not, why not?

      …and why does does the saying go necessity is the “mother” of invention.

      If we were akin to feminists we’d be moaning that it should father of invention, but I’m pretty sure not one of us gives a crap. (that’s poo reference 7 if you’re counting)

      It’s what I do

      • lensman

        Necessity is not the mother of invention. It might be the mother of new ideas, but ideas by themselves hardly amount to anything. It was necessity that probably gave birth to the idea that man could fly (probably the necessity to get the fuck out of dodge and move to greener pastures when things get tough), and it existed since the start of recorded history, but it wasn’t until recent times that somebody was able to actually make a machine that could fly.

        The problem is that we mostly think of inventions as those magical “Eureka Moments” where something inside someone suddenly clicks and he manages to make a working car, or a steam engine. And because the inventor becomes famous, we never get to find out about the tremendous amount of history that his invention involved…

        …about the people who tried and failed, to make something that would make the idea (you know the one that necessity gave birth to) a reality…

        …we never get to find out about the inventors whose projects just didn’t work out.

        But those failures, no matter how big or small were essential towards giving an invention its final, most influential form. For example, the first steam engine existed in Ancient Greece, but it was nothing more than a pretty toy. The idea of a steam engine was certainly born there, but it wasn’t perfected yet. In the 17th and 18th century, people tried to make their own steam engines with various degrees of success and failure. And then James Watt came up with his own perfected version of the steam-Engine and he became acknowledged as the inventor of the Steam engine, because all versions of the steam engine that followed were basically just modified versions of his own. But the success of his invention was based on the failures of those that came before it, which allowed him to do research see what was wrong up until now and come up with solutions of his own (which is why he ultimately deserves the title of the inventor of the Steam Engine).

        The point I am trying to make is this: In order to succeed in something, to make something that works, you have to be willing to invest yourself, to immerse yourself, to research and ultimately, allow yourself for the possibility of failure, -which may allow somebody else to succeed in the future. As things stand, the vast majority of women AND men just aren’t willing to make that investment in time, effort, and (very probable) futility -most of us are quite content just living our lives in relative comfort. It just so happens that the few who do happen to be male, because, lets face it, women very rarely put their very own livelihood on the line. Call it genetic predisposition, call it social evolution, it’s just the way it is.

      • scatmaster

        It’s a simple matter of questioning should we celebrate any inventions, or just women’s

        Women and “inventions” in the same sentence does not compute.

    • jms5762

      In the workplace women now have the opportunity to do anything. They are choosing the safe and easy jobs just like before their liberation. Men are still the majority by far in the back breaking ball busting jobs that keep this nation relatively safe and comfortable. Its expected of men to use their body and mind for societies benefit. It is clear to me you have never had a physically demanding job. If you had you would be wiser. Stick around… you will learn so much from avfm.

    • Skeptic

      If men and women were as you say morally pretty much even, there’d be no need for a Men’s Rights Movement.
      When women en-masse de-pedestalize themselves and think about the men in their lives as fellow human beings I might begin to agree with you there.
      Until such time it’s business as usual.

  • Ethical

    Great article. More people are discovering that because any ranking of entertainment is greatly subjective, having someone with a completely different world view decide on your entertainment is ridiculous. This is why as reviews and reviewers further cater towards their pet interests in women’s and gay empowerment themes they’re proving themselves more and more useless to the rest of us. By all means rank those films 10 out of 10 if they turned your crank, but I’m not even going to read the review.

  • Zorro

    Everyone says I have to be Jimmy Stewart, but I don’t get Donna Reed.

    That’s such a total rip-off.

  • Watcher

    Kimski – Please watch ’13 Assassins’ by Takashi Miike, truly a gem.

    • Kimski

      Thanks, Watcher, but I’ve already been there. :)

      -And you’re right. It’s a great movie, and I’d like to change my first statement:
      Hollywood movies generally suck, while there’s a lot of great movies coming out of the East, and some european countries, at the moment.

      • scatmaster

        Damn. I really liked Beetlejuice.

    • Zorro

      13 Assassins is EPIC!!!!!!!

  • Promoman

    “Women are nicer than men. There are exceptions. Most people of both sexes are probably fairly nice, given the nature of their upbringing and opportunities. But in terms of their lifelong natures, women are kinder, more empathetic, more generous. And the sooner more of them take positions of power, the better our chances as a species.”

    If you’re near & dear to a woman’s heart or if it’s to her benefit to be, then Roger’s assessment has some degree of validity. ” You can judge a woman by how she treats a man who will do nothing for her” would be the only backup you need to prove that. It’s true that humanity has failings but men don’t engage in fuckery because of enablement and reward to the extent that women do. It takes women at least 30 or so years to mature and there’s no guarantee that they ever will either.

  • Raven01

    I guess the idiot did not check the news.
    Happy fuckin’ Mothers Day, superior gender.
    Here is the real kicker….”Goodyear said police had been called to the house on several occasions in the past and the 15-year-old child, a boy, was arrested last month for domestic violence against his mother.”
    Arrest the male child, and protect none of the children from the real monster in the house.

    • yurlungur

      Yep because obviously it the boys fault that his mother went on a killing spree.

      Goodyear said police do not have a motive.

      He said authorities have received previous calls from Thomas’ home pertaining to domestic violence.

      Goodyear said he was having a hard time trying to understand how a mother could commit such a grisly act. He said she remained very calm when she called the children back to their house.

  • MRA.

    Is not the first time Elbert comes arguing and proclaiming something he says as absolute true, on 2010 he got the gamer community which is male dominated angry because according to him “Video games can never be art”

    • lensman

      Somebody should force this guy to play Okami, Katawa Shoujo, the Persona, or the Phoenix Wright series – games that immerse you in their story and make you feel like you are part of something special.

  • Eye in the Sky

    Slightly off topic, but I was just thinking:

    It’s time to stop people from using the bullshit words “women’s intuition,” “male pride,” etc.

    The media perpetuates these lies until they become clichés – George Orwell taught us that whoever controls language controls thought.

    • Lee

      Of course. Both genders have both things. And yes, the media is always doing that.

  • amoeba

    I love women. I just wish the media could praise them without putting men down. (and perhaps give us a little praise for once.) I prefer to see men and women build each other up. By the way, has Roger Ebert ever heard of Erin Pizzey!?

  • DarkByke

    I’m glad you called it out, he lives in the movie world and believes the Cinderella princess lies.

  • yurlungur

    I apologize for the higgly piggly nature of this post.


    Watching and media one can not help notice that certain patterns begin to emerge in particular genres.

    My idea is to record certain incidents that we see or read on a separate website or a section of this site, so that we can begin to build up a picture with actual data; Then present that data in the form of graphs beginning to build up a picture of how bad it is or isn’t.

    The trouble will be choosing the right categories and recording the data in the right category.
    Certain stats could obviously be broken down farther into sub categories as well

    Certain categories and points of data presentation for example could be:

    Ratio of abusive father to abusive mother
    Victim By sex and age
    Was the crime justified in some way
    He made me do it
    Cannon fodder
    Types of violence
    Relationship of the perpetrator to the victim
    Aliens on TV ratio to incidents of females lying about rape.
    How are Dads vs Mothers treated

    When reporting an incident you would create a report card using the site where you would choose the correct category.
    For an example an incident report card could produced could look like this:

    Program\Movie Name: Dexter
    Episode Number: Season 4 episode 12
    Producer: Showtime
    Episode Name (optional): The Gateway
    Victim of perpetrator(s) Names: Rita Morgan
    Victim of perpetrator(s) sex: Female
    Perpetrator Relationship to their victim : None
    Crime(s): Murder
    Responsible parties: Dexter(husband), Arthur(none)
    Perpetrator: Arthur
    Synopsis of incident: Dexter befriends Trinity Killer Arthur hoping to learn from him. Arthur finds out who Dexter is (after Dexter tries to kill him)
    A clip\expert from the show or book: cliplink

    The trouble is making to so people can easily report an incident and making it both easy to report and accurate so that it can be sorted correctly.
    As you can see from the above report crime things can get quite complicated.

    Obviously not all incident report cards will be as complicated as the one chosen, but I thought it prudent to choose an example where we can hammer out any problems that may arise.

    I think it would be a good way for guys like me who think that their not contributing enough.
    If we can get enough people contributing then I think the site would begin to look quite good maybe even become a valuable resource in the future.

    Anyway guys what do you think? Is it a good idea?
    Please feel free to offer suggestions.

  • Eye in the Sky

    Yes, it’s a good idea. The numbers will add up really quickly, giving us a mountain of evidence.

  • JinnBottle

    Just got thru watching “The Thing 2012″ or whateverthehell it’s officially called, for as much as I could stand of the 2nd time thru.

    It was very educational. The American girl, Kate, is like 29 years old, the best in her field (in 1982!). She goes to Antarctica for her first time, questions the Arrogant Authority Male Asshole almost right away; is proved almost immediately right in her wise female caution. But that doesn’t stop her from takin up a flamethrower when the goin gets tough, and torchin every manifestation of The Thing she can find…and, Mister, is she *good* at finding. She intuits the existence of the nearby American base while all the Dumb Male Norwegian vets who have been there for more than 2 years forgot about it; and manages to survive over all of them. When we leave her, she’s driving off for parts unknown in -75o F weather, but knowing her by now, we know she’ll be a-okay.

    …And so it was that I learned that Americans are smarter, less racist and sexist, more resourceful, braver and far better leaders than Norwegians.

    …Uh…that *was* the Lesson, wasn’t it?…

  • 4thtroika

    Speaking of movies, this looks interesting. What happens when Daddy’s little princess can’t get a date for the prom?

    Wonder what Ebert will think of this one?

    • Lee

      Looks interesting, may watch.

  • Sheldonshells

    Oh pfffffff, what else is new? Ebert’s (and his old crony Siskel too for that matter) have always been the mangina type, so at least this is nothing new at all coming from him. Check out their review for Predator 2 for instance (as one of many examples) on youtube and note one of them saying someting like the movie “finds new ways to insult women”. I was taken aback by that because there really isn’t a single instance in the movie of finding “new ways” to insult women. That accusation was simply absurd, and might I say want ridiculously poor observational and viewing skills by what are supposedly ivy league educated film critics *rolls eyes*. Actually, as a matter of fact, and maybe some of you who have seen Predator 2 can recall, I do remember one scene where the female officer in the movie brutally grabs a male officer’s testes because he *gasp* made a pass at her or made some *gasp* comment (you know using mere words)! Which would officially, to any one who can see past their eyelids that is, make the movie FAR more insulting towards men. Of course their classically tailored self-hating male syndrome and need to cater to a female audience for their money, status, etc, wouldn’t allow their deluded, pea brains to see that.

    I wouldn’t put much stock in this guy. I don’t mean to sound mean, but he’s a goner anyway, a has been (just exactly like his silly pinheaded notions about gender, men/women). And again, this crap’s nothing new from him. But it’s still a shame that someone, at the end of their life, couldn’t arrive at a greater wisdom then to shamelessly spout plain-as-day, self-defeating (because he’s a man himself) gender bigotry and stupidly declare one gender better than the next, calling women “kinder” and more “generous” when we here have all seen just how extremely unkind and ungenerous women can be: the so-called prime minister of Austrailia comes to mind right at this second, the corrupt, degraded assholes that want to make a children’s play out of S.C.U.M., the women on countless feminist blogs that reveal how sexist, hateful, bigoted, and scummy (you know, kinder, more generous, etc) women can be, the scumbag The Talk panel and the scumbag female audience that laughs, applauds, and advocates genital mutilation of men, the so-called woman who started a facebook page to support so-called women like that, that no-count singer who had that song called “Kill Your Boyfriend, jesus I mean you all know there’s a hundred million other examples and I could go on for literally days so I’ll stop there.

    Don’t worry my friends, Ebert isn’t exactly considered the cool, hip and happening thing these days lol, and never was, so I don’t think many people are going to take him seriously except the typical, long established choir of fanboys and girls he preaches too.

    Final note: anyone else find it not a coincidence that how after viewing 25 some odd years of overt misandry in the movies, this is the incredibly embarassing and unwise conclusion he arrives at? This guy watches fiction all day. He is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY out of touch with reality! I mean, why would you even begin to take this person who’s spent most of his life looking at ficticious stories seriously? How are you even qualified to make any claims about events and goings-on in the real world when you’re staring at unreality all day? Lol, like I said, no worries here friends. It’s actually incredibly and laughably easy to dismiss this!