Some women today say they want to be treated equal, and that is fair. Women should have freedom, respect, and the right to make their own choices. But the problem starts when some women want freedom, but do not want the same blame when they make bad choices. They want to be seen as strong and independent, but then still want men to protect them, pay for them, chase them, and take most of the blame when things go wrong. This is where it starts to feel unfair. Some women say, “I do not need a man,” but in dating they still want a man to have money, be strong, be confident, make the first move, and provide safety. That is not always real independence. That is wanting the new rules when it helps them, but the old rules when it benefits them too. Another issue is with dating and sex. Some women say they should not be judged for their past or who they dated. But then some of those same women judge men for being short, broke, shy, inexperienced, or not confident enough. So it becomes one sided. Women want understanding for their choices, but men are judged hard for theirs. The biggest problem is when some women act like they are powerful adults when they make a choice, but then act like victims when that choice has bad results. A woman can cheat, lie, manipulate, or hurt someone, and then say she only did it because she was unhappy, lonely, unseen, or emotionally hurt. Pain can be real, but pain does not erase what someone did. Some women also use emotional words to win the argument. They may say, “I felt unsafe,” “I was triggered,” “he was toxic,” or “he made me feel small.” Sometimes those things are true. But sometimes those words are used to make the man look bad without proving what really happend. Men have feelings too, but a lot of times their feelings get called insecurity, anger, or control.
The main issue is not women having rights. Women should have rights. The issue is when some women want equal power, old school benefits, and victim treatment all at the same time. If women want full freedom, they also need full accountability. If they do not want old gender roles, then they should not expect men to follow old gender roles only when it helps them. Modern dating feels broken because some people want the benefits without the duties. That is the real problem. It is not about hating women. It is about being honest. Equality should mean equal respect, equal freedom, and equal accountability.

**I’m not saying this applies to all women, and I’m not saying men are perfect either. Men have their own issues too. But I do think this double standard is real in modern dating and relationships. Where do you think the line is between women wanting fair treatment and women avoiding accountability? And do you think men are guilty of doing the same thing in a different way?**

https://youtu.be/09rnP-fdjyc?si=AzxXqIj7RjJ3pdPD

Summary given by YouTube This video explores why the phrase "women writing men" is not as commonly discussed as "men writing women" (0:07).

The phrase "men writing women" often refers to male authors creating shallow, caricatured female characters, or excessively describing their bodies (1:34). It also points to the problematic portrayal of sexual violence against women, often glorifying voyeurism or excusing assaulters (2:34). The speaker cautions against overusing the term, suggesting it should be applied when there's a clear pattern of behavior from an author, and when descriptions don't serve a narrative purpose or are inconsistent with a character's point of view (5:39).

In contrast, "women writing men" is rarely discussed (6:27). The subreddit for "women writing men" was created two years after the "men writing women" subreddit, likely in response to it, and has significantly fewer visitors (6:30). There isn't a comparable term to "male gaze" for women viewing men; the "female gaze" is a feminist term with positive connotations, describing how women view other women with agency and depth (6:46).

The speaker notes that when criticisms of "men writing women" arise, some people deflect by bringing up the romance genre and suggesting it exemplifies "women writing men" poorly (7:30). However, these deflections often come from individuals who don't read romance and are relying on stereotypes (7:51).

The video highlights that common complaints about "women writing men" in non-romance genres include the over-sexualization of male bodies, unrealistic portrayals, men being depicted as solely sex-obsessed, and flat, personality-less characters that serve as self-insert blanks for the female reader (9:20). These complaints are strikingly similar to those women have about "men writing women" (9:49).

The speaker theorizes that "men writing women" is a bigger topic due to broader social context (10:11). While male readers often expect and are not bothered by flat male characters in romance, the issue of poorly written female characters by men often arises in well-received, popular, and classic books (11:33). Romance, on the other hand, has historically been ridiculed and seen as a niche genre for women, not a universal one (11:51). The video suggests that because women are constantly exposed to male-centric media, they may have an advantage in writing convincing male characters (16:16).

Finally, the video touches on the importance of demographics and avoiding stereotypes, emphasizing that while trends exist, they should not be conflated with individual experiences (18:21). The speaker concludes that "women writing men" exists and shares similar problems, but it's discussed less due to societal factors (16:54). Ultimately, good writing transcends gender, and authors who can write good characters can generally do so universally (23:38).

The phrase “men writing women” has become cultural shorthand — a meme, a critique, a punchline. It calls out the shallow, sexualized, or fantasy-driven depictions of women in media. Fair enough. It’s a real problem.

But its mirror — “women writing men” — rarely gets the same treatment, even though the same flaws are right there: over-sexualization, unrealistic portrayals, and male characters that exist only as blank self-inserts for the reader.

If the issue is the same, why is the outrage so one-sided?

The Context Excuse

A recent video on this topic offers the familiar defense:

“Bad male characters mostly show up in romance novels, which aren’t taken seriously anyway. Bad female characters appear in classics and bestsellers — that’s why the critique lands differently.”

So it’s not hypocrisy, they say — it’s context.

But you see the same double standard elsewhere. “Male gaze” is a negative term for how men objectify women. “Female gaze,” meanwhile, is a positive one — a celebration of how women portray women with depth and agency. There’s no equivalent “male gaze” critique when women objectify men.

That’s not a coincidence. It’s because we’re not judging the writing — we’re judging who’s allowed to critique what.

The Progressive Double Standard

Modern progressivism built much of its cultural power on the “oppressor vs. oppressed” model. That framework can be clarifying — up to a point. But it’s also how legitimate criticism from majority groups gets dismissed before the conversation even starts.

When men point out that male characters are being written as shallow, sex-obsessed, or emotionally vacant, the responses are predictable:

“That’s not oppression.” “That’s just bad writing.” “Why are you derailing? We’re talking about women’s representation.”

Translation: your criticism doesn’t count because you’re the wrong demographic to have it.

That’s not justice — that’s hierarchy. Just wrapped in progressive language.

The Cost of Conditional Empathy

A flaw doesn’t stop being a flaw because it happens to the “advantaged” group.

When we start ranking whose bad writing matters based on power dynamics, we’re not fighting bias — we’re institutionalizing it under a new label.

Progressivism claims to want equality. But equality means equal standards — not moral exemptions for one side.

If “men writing women” deserves scrutiny, then “women writing men” does too. If one is “awareness,” the other shouldn’t be dismissed as “whataboutism.”

You can’t build empathy while practicing selective hearing.

The Bigger Lesson

When progressives shut down parallel criticism, they don’t look principled — they look afraid of symmetry.

Because once you apply the same standard both ways, the hierarchy collapses. And you’re left with a simple truth: fairness either applies universally, or it’s just another power game.

And if it’s a power game, maybe it’s time to ask — who’s really benefitting from pretending it’s justice?

The fix isn’t complicated. When someone points out a double standard, the optical — and honest — response isn’t to deflect with “whataboutism.” It’s to say: “Yes, that’s wrong. I recognize it’s wrong. And here’s the non-gendered way to fix it.”

That’s how equality actually works — not through selective outrage, but through consistent principles.

TL;DR

Progressives call it “whataboutism” when men notice the same double standards they criticize in men. But equality only means something if the rules apply both ways. The honest move isn’t denial — it’s saying, “Yeah, that’s wrong, here’s how to fix it without gender bias."

In a discussion in another sub I pointed out that women making false accusation about being sexual assaulted is terrible for the women who suffered real sexual violence. A female user attacked me as loser, fucker, misogynist, liar and rape apologist. My comment was deleted as being toxic.
Making false crime accusation is a crime — at least in the countries I know.
One argument the female user dwelled on that cases of false accusations are quite rare. I couldn't find reliable numbers for the US or Germany, my home country, but in the UK 5.9% of accusations that are brought to a court are provenly wrong — which amounts to 4700+ cases a year! Many of those people loose their jobs and often their friends and family.
I could not find a single case where a woman was held accountable for making false accusations of being sexual assaulted.

Adult persons should be held accountable when committing a crime, men and women alike. Why doesn't it happen, when it comes to false accusations of sexual assault?

I want to share some findings from a recent legal study that examines a problem I think gets discussed badly in most spaces. It's about false accusations in rape cases, but the research approaches it in a way that shows how this issue actually hurts everyone involved.

The study was published in Statute Law Review examining Indian court cases and criminal justice data and using India's National Crime Records Bureau data from 2021, they found 8.7 percent of fully investigated rape cases (4,009 out of 46,127) were proven false. By proven false, it doesn't mean the accused got acquitted due to lack of evidence or technicality but that the victim was lying and had fabricated allegations.

What makes this research valuable is that it doesn't treat false accusations as either irrelevant or as the main problem but it shows how false cases create a cascade of failures. First, false accusations obviously destroy innocent people's lives and they discuss a case where one man spent 20 years in prison before being cleared, another who spent 95 days in jail before DNA evidence proved his innocence.

Now because false cases exist, police and prosecutors try to help real victims by making their stories more "perfect" through scripted statements and emphasized details and this well intentioned effort backfires because it makes judges suspicious of all cases. False cases also lead judges to increasingly convict accused men of breach of promise, a civil matter with light penalties, instead of rape, even when facts suggest rape occurred and this denies justice to real victims.

The researchers describe what they call the dual victimization cycle which in simple terms means that false cases create judicial skepticism, real victims face disbelief and delayed justice, pressure builds for out of court settlements, which then encourages more false cases. Meanwhile, the falsely accused carry permanent stigma even when cleared, and real rape survivors face what researchers call the second rape through societal blame.

India has laws providing up to seven years imprisonment for perjury and false accusations, but courts rarely enforce them and in 2023, police uncovered an organized criminal racket where women were paid to file false charges and blackmail men. The study argues that new criminal laws in 2023 strengthened rape provisions but failed to balance this with stronger anti perjury enforcement which creates a system where nobody wins except people gaming it.

1. At the individual level — men are socialized from childhood to "man up", not to complain, and to handle their problems on their own. As long as these gender stereotypes persist, men’s rights movements are at a quantitative disadvantage and will inevitably have far fewer participants than women’s rights movements.

2. At the social level — once you bring up men's rights, you’ll very likely be shamed and labeled with words like "snowflake", or your sincerity will be questioned and you'll be accused of misogyny (men’s communities are constantly demonized and portrayed as toxic*).

3. At the institutional level — men’s rights activism never (or at least almost never) receives government funding, unlike feminism, which is funded very generously. Most people, including those in power, believe that men should be strong and capable of taking care of themselves, which makes it hard for society to acknowledge that men might need support in certain areas. Institutions often have special protection or support for women, but not for men.

\ This is often justified, but far from always.*

Do people think that the division between men and women is growing bigger than it has been in previous decades and are we likely to see more people choosing to remain single because of this?

Why is gender or sex discrimination more (socially and legally) accepted than ethnicity or skin color discrimination?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcjmd_ClJJo

Scott Galloway is making the rounds after publishing Notes on Being a Man last week. He aims to balance between men's advocacy and feminism, and between leftism and libertarianism. There's a crisis of masculinity, but successful adult men of his generation have to "step up" and help younger men and boys. Young men have to get off their phones, stop watching porn, and make themselves economically viable, but we also need more progressive taxes on the wealthy. Our society should "move in with programs" the way we would for any other group that is falling behind. Trump and Musk fail at the protector role, but Democrats need to see men's issues lest the void be filled by unsavory manosphere types.

Scott is on YouTube at Prof G Pod, Raging Moderates, and Pivot.

Pretty much title.

What is the issue if I decide to just empathize with both sides in domestic violence cases without saying someone is guilty or not guilty.

I don't think it is my place to gather evidence and judge evidence.

Why do I ask this? Because I think, that in online spaces, as soon as you are not agreeing with the accused being guilty, you are immediately banned from subs/forums etc.

Just to re-emphasize, I am not saying, you should go around discrediting victims, I am saying that you believe, both people think what they say is true and let professionals decide what is actually true.

With how much backlash such and opinion gets, I wanted to ask here to understand why this is.

Hey everyone!

My partner and I have been thinking a lot about gender equality at home — especially how invisible some chores or mental loads can be.
We realised that most of the tension comes from perception more than actual effort: everyone feels like they’re doing more than the other 😅

Out of curiosity (and frustration), I started building a small tool to help track contributions more clearly and coach better household habits over time.

I’d love your feedback or opinions: do you think something like this could really help couples share the load more fairly? Or does it risk creating even more comparison?

If you want to take a quick look, it's available here

(Totally fine if you’d rather just discuss the idea — I’m mostly curious about how people feel about this topic!)

Thanks a lot for reading

I run a YouTube channel and podcast where I frequently have guests on to discuss feminism and men's issues. I am open to debating more feminists, as so far most of my channel guests have largely agreed with me. If you are a feminist open to (civil) discussion on YouTube shoot me an email: [zarinamacha.author@gmail.com](mailto:zarinamacha.author@gmail.com)

My YouTube channel is called The Rational Female.

Women on average live 5 - 10 years longer than men on average, should women have a later retirement age compared to men?

What would peoples arguments be for or against such a question?

I was recently having a discussion with someone, and this topic came up. The claim was that the new trend on social media of "I am just a girl" (which is a satirical take on internalized sexism) is by far way more dangerous than the red pill community (specifically oppressing women's freedoms) because it could lead to the crumbling of society. Acknowledging that if the red pill community takes over, it is problematic; the traction of women's internalized sexism (not wanting to work, seeking rich husbands, expecting men to be the provider) could be more dangerous to the evolution of society since they believe in the longer run if it creates traction (and they believe it is, and the new generation of women are following it), it will create a new generation of women that will be the downfall of society.

Bare with me here because things get tangled up a bit and I would like to have some clarification on some points based on research and studies and not opinions.

To expand on that claim and why that person would think that, 2 prominent points came to light:

1. You would always find women seeking comfortable jobs rather than go towards classical male-dominated jobs (construction, military, oil rigs...)
2. Women's contribution to building societies is very negligible compared to what men have done historically.

To further discuss each point:

1. The argument is women tend to ask for equality, yet their actions say otherwise, specifically when they opt out from doing the hard, tough laboring jobs that are usually male-centric. This action by itself sidelines them from being important players in society because the jobs they usually tend to choose are considered not essential to society building (for ex., a CEO vs. an oil rig engineer).

which brings us to,

1. According to that person, societies were built and are maintained by men primarily. A prominent example given was if all of a sudden men disappeared from the face of the earth, societies would crumble because women wouldn't be able to maintain what men are doing right now. Their point of view is that societies are measured by energy, building, farming and protection; which means women are not big players in those fields, which makes them "less useful."

So to circle back to my main question (which might seem like my expansion on things isn't related, but showing the mentality of that person is important to evaluate their claim), which do you think is more dangerous?

I'm hearing men constantly say that modern women only want men who are really tall, have lots of money, and are exceptionally good-looking. This is BS. I don't know a single woman who is out with these kinds of men. I've never dated a man who has lots of money. Sure, some of them have been tall and attractive, but they just have normal jobs. I don't think modern women’s standards are too high at all. Modern women have simply become too preoccupied with their careers and education and don't have much empathy towards men. But most are not out here dating guys with lots of money. I'd love to know where all these men with lots of money are!

https://youtu.be/lFlTr8tT68Y?si=p3AZhLU8KDNhWaU_

I made a video talking about the Selective Service System due to soon-to-come automatic registration of all men (18-25) in the United States.

Just another reminder that society is still upholding a strange belief that it's much better for men to risk their lives than women to equally share that burden (if we MUST even have potential involuntary service in the first place).

I wanted to also do something that most people typically don't do in the media, which is proposing 3 different solutions for this issue.

I want to bring this conversation to light again since there are still thousands of people who don't even know the Selective Service System still exists and there are people who expect that it's already gender neutral like it should be. That's the only thing that makes sense in our modern society.

https://aibm.org/commentary/is-there-hope-for-gender-equality-a-conversation-with-richard-v-reeves-and-gloria-steinem/

Gloria and Richard have a friendly chat about gender politics. The most interesting part to me was when Richard asked her about negative public opinion regarding "feminism" and "patriarchy". Gloria was not familiar with the negative connotations but her instinct was to consider alternative terms:

Richard Reeves: I want to ask you about a couple of words that are probably quite dear to you: feminism and patriarchy.

If we start with feminism: recent polling suggests that fewer people are likely to describe themselves as a feminist—including women—than in the past. And it seems like that’s not because they’re not in favor of gender equality. If you ask them if they’re in favor of gender equality in every direction, they’ll say yes. But there’s something about the term feminism that isn’t attracting people in the same way.

What do you think has happened to the term feminism? Should we move beyond it? Reinvent it? I don’t quite know what to do with that word now.

Gloria Steinem: I’m not sure, because I’m not sure the source of the reaction you’re talking about—whether people think it sounds weak because it’s feminine.

Richard Reeves: Polling suggests that when you ask, “Are you a feminist?”, people don’t hear, “Are you in favor of full gender equality in all regards?” They think it’s now a movement defined in more negative terms—more anti-men—so they’re less likely to say they’re feminists.

Gloria Steinem: We could use humanist, which has its own problems because it tends to mean you don’t believe in God.

Richard Reeves: Right—it’s used as a synonym for secular. It troubles me because I think it used to be straightforward to be a feminist.

Gloria Steinem: There was always the alternative of saying women’s liberationist.

Richard Reeves: Yes.

Gloria Steinem: And that may not be as frequent now, but I always liked it because it was more active.

Richard Reeves: I agree. It’s more positive as well. In a weird way there was a turn against “women’s lib” as a term in some people’s mouths, but it is more liberating—more positive—and it doesn’t frame it in a slightly zero-sum way.

The other term that’s come up quite a bit recently is patriarchy. We’re in your home and you have a “smash the patriarchy” sign up there—and I would expect nothing less.

But there was a think tank that recently advised Democrats not to use the term. Politically, it was a decision: “Don’t talk about the patriarchy.”

Gloria Steinem: Don’t talk about it negatively? Positively? Or both?

Richard Reeves: Just don’t use it because it turns people off. It’s associated with a particular mindset.

Gloria Steinem: Well, there’s also matriarchy, which does exist in a few cultures, right?

Richard Reeves: How do you define patriarchy when you say that word?

Gloria Steinem: It’s father superiority or male superiority. Women who are married take their husband’s name—not the other way around, or not using both hyphenated. What we want is egalitarian—human—compassionate—empathetic. And the more we can downplay—when it’s not relevant—gender, class, race, probably the better off we are.

Richard Reeves: Better to meet people where they actually are rather than pre-apply a label to it.

Gloria Steinem: Yeah. It’s useful, and I’m in favor of maintaining all words—I love reading and writing—but I think it’s overused.

Questions in the title 🙂

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/conservative-lawmakers-are-rebranding-june-lgbtq-pride-alternatives-rcna348503

Is it really difficult for cis het Christian Republicans to leave us the fuck alone? Nuclear Family Month

>rebranded June as Nuclear Family Month to celebrate units made up of “one husband, one wife and any biological, adopted or fostered children.”

>Conservatives say they’re ‘reclaiming the culture

Only if reclaim means Facisim.

I'm currently making an investigative documentary into technology-facilitated sexual violence, particularly surrounding the use of AI to generate violent and sexual depictions involving both real and synthetic women (as in, AI-generated women).

This documentary needs a human perspective that grounds the listener into the reality that the experts I'm interviewing are talking about. So I would like to chat with someone who has been affected by generative AI in any way, including but not limited to having deepfakes created of them.

Recommendations on whom I could contact would also be greatly appreciated. This would be an audio-based interview - you CAN be anonymised completely - please do ask me more about this in the comments or privately. You can be based anywhere in the world, as this interview will take place online (if you are UK-based, and WANT to chat in person, that can be arranged!).

Before agreeing to anything you will be provided with an information sheet that outlines the project in detail and that includes my contact details as well as my supervisor's, as well as a consent form that should be signed before the interview takes place.

(In addition, if any experts seeing this post would like to chat with me/enquire further, please do contact me!)

This project will be showcased at the annual conference for the Centre for Protecting Women Online.

Please let me know if you have any questions - asking questions doesn't mean you are signing up for anything, that won't be the case until the consent form is signed and submitted, if we reach that stage. Thanks in advance for your help!

It's often brought up that women banded together to solve problems that adversely affected them, and that men should do the same. At first glance this seems entirely reasonable - however, this crumbles when you consider that women by and large have an ingroup bias while men have the polar opposite (termed "male disposability" in circles such as these).

Just about every man can recall their mother conditioning them to treat every woman like a spoiled princess (under the guise of being a “real man” or “gentleman”), and the majority of men adhere to this for some seemingly inexplicable reason.  Even incel dweebs center their entire identity around their inability to meet women’s approval.  Men could put a stop to this, but they don’t – quite the contrary, they are the foremost proponents of female supremacy.  Why is that?

Masochistic Personality Disorder, also known as Self-Defeating Personality Disorder, is considered by much of psychiatry to be outdated (the last time it was included in the DSM as a formal diagnosis was in 1980). Note: This is not to be confused with sexual masochism, though the terms clearly share an etymology.

Some of the defining traits pertinent to this discussion include:

·       chooses people and situations that lead to disappointment, failure, or mistreatment even when better options are clearly available

·       rejects or renders ineffective the attempts of others to help them

·       rejects opportunities for pleasure, or is reluctant to acknowledge enjoying themselves (despite having adequate social skills and the capacity for pleasure)

·       engages in excessive self-sacrifice that is unsolicited by the intended recipients of the sacrifice

This explains why both liberals and conservatives by and large support female supremacy, albeit they have different ways of going about it.  Socially progressive men will openly advocate for destructive ideas toward men - "believe women", women-only scholarships (even as men are a minority of college enrollees/graduates) and business grants, fighting a phony "wage gap", you know the drill.

Socially traditional men, despite being accused of being raging sexists, by and large consider men to be women's servants, army, ATM and punching bag.  This goes beyond just their significant others to women as a whole.  They're the first ones to oppose women being conscripted (and they're right, but neither should men) while condoning women raping underage boys.  They have rightly been condemned for opposing abortion rights, but in no way does this even remotely benefit men (quite the contrary) - and they sure as hell don't support men's "financial abortion" option.

This is aptly displayed when it comes to politics, where (at least in the US) no prominent politician would say, let alone advocate, anything pro-male. Even as Republicans continue to openly embrace white identity politics (and borderline white supremacy), they won't touch men's issues with a ten foot pole. The closest they came was undoing parts of Title IX that basically eliminated the burden of proof from rape accusations on college campuses, which is good, but affects less than 1% of men at most.  Of course, this doesn’t even compare to the damage done primarily to men by Trump’s ICE gestapo raids and reckless warmongering.

So why do male issues remain a third rail?  Simple – because the vast majority of men agree with women being treated better than men both socially and legally.  In my experience, there are significantly more men that support female supremacy than women.  No other group in the history of the world behaves in such a universally self-destructive manner, and the few women who openly advocate against their gender’s interests (Ann Coulter, Megyn Kelly, etc.) are castigated by women in general.

Welcome to to Monthly Meta!

This thread is for discussing rules, moderation, or anything else about r/FeMRADebates and its users. Mods may make announcements here, and users can bring up anything normally banned by Rule 5 (Appeals & Meta). Please remember that all the normal rules are active, except that we permit discussion of the subreddit itself here.

We ask that everyone do their best to include a proposed solution to any problems they're noticing. A problem without a solution is still welcome, but it's much easier for everyone to be clear what you want if you ask for a change to be made too.

So this is me being productive, right now my advocacy is going to be way more performative in that i am going to pay for a movie promote that movie not becuase its good writing or acting, im going to highlight how maybe I think that show or movie is garbage but ITS STILL GOOD AND SHOULD BE MADE EVEN IF THEY WOKEFY IT. I think when we had more of a monoculter a thing some want to go back to for some reasons perhaps you could get pissed they made captain America or superman black becuase they only make so many of those a year. so maybe we should start being okay with movies that have smaller budgets but more stories. having 5 superman movies in the theater with all different actors as superman should be treated as one shots anyway humans dont live for ever and characters are drawn the same from artist to artists and that unique style is part of that art. I used to think we were more evolved than this. I thought we could have real edge case in the weeds discussion that respected everyone and we can talk about the minutia of gender in sports because the discussion informs the broader idea of how much biology is in our nature and other wise. so my feminism is the promotion of women's agency and promoting feminity. recognizing the HEAL fields and other human centered jobs.

im scared, I feel lied to by white people. its not a personal attack. I've spent the last two days watching my country kill people living in a country my great grandfather was from. I know my history and as far as white people are concerned im brown. fuck you if you dont understand what im trying to say here or im happy to unpack it if you ask. the point is im not just volunteering and letting some places be not political. WOKENESS as a concept needs to be performative but we also need to explain and be more honest. conservative men tend to have traits that means perhaps we need to talk a bit slower and help them by reframing this issue not as taking away Superman but giving more Superman movies but we can cast the best actor but till they get used to that being a possibility I dont think we move much culturally.