He probably could have stayed if he simply told them he's actually a woman. You can't assume somebody is a man simply because they're clearly a man.

Or maybe putting on shows and only allowing people of certain groups is a thing of the past in our progressive world. You cant have it both ways liberals.

No one in current Western society can have the impact that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King had, because there aren't any groups of people that are heavily discriminated anymore.

lol true

Well it depends. Was he there because he genuinely wanted to be there, or was he just there because it was "ladies night" and he just wanted to bully his way in on some faux grounds of "equality"?

Looking at his history, I'd say it's the latter, so no, he is not the next Rosa Parks.

There was some hubbub when Wonder Woman released and some theater had a woman's only showing.

I'm not going to research and try and find more. Reason being I don't really care if some place decides to become exclusive to one sex/race/ect or not. The way the world is now, I can't see any place that is publicly discriminatory succeeding financially, so if they want to try let them. It will just ruin them financially.

"Your own example of men going to war is already no longer as big of a factor because women wanted the right to fight for their country just the same."

really? wanted? so why aren't they fighting to desegregate men's and women's sports?

or did you really mean to say that its not that women wanted the chance to fight alongside men in the past, its that now that the emphasis in combat has moved more to the use of machines women are coming forward

yeah... you're resorting to some type of slight of hand there, so i think i corrected it a bit there

"only that the male patriarchy refuses to acknowledge and take corrective action on those that women have. When women didn't have the right to vote, who made that decision?  Men or women?"

men... gloria steinem for example was a CIA agent.. she didn't rise up and push this movement, she was following orders and anyone who has done their research knows that

and come on dude isn't your narrative that men had all the power before? so... wouldn't men have to decide that they wanted women to have more rights and change society? you can't have it both ways

"Also, anybody that thinks feminism ignores the plights of men doesn't understand feminism. "

well as far as i know the goal feminism has always been to achieve equal rights between men and women... what are you saying the goals of feminism are from your perspective?

The trouble with most all movement today is that the most obnoxious, loudest, crudest idiots in every group are those that end up on the front cover of those movements.

So whether 99% of feminists may be reasonable people, most people associate feminists as the woman who is calling for the extinction of man, swearing profusely, dressed like a male biker, overweight, screams at all times, ect.

Same as how the media always shows the worst people possible when talking about Trump supporters. It is always some fat white supremacists or something that they are trying to associate as ALL trump supporters.

I'm an avid supporter of mens rights, but only if we are talking about legitimate issues.
This guy reveales himself to be a butthurt and petty looser and instantly disqualifies himself from being helpful to any mens rights when he has a westite that describes the Mee Too movement as "the current sexual abuse hysteria".

Trying to delegimize horrible issues in order to prop up your own little crusade is not ok.

You can't be American..

checks profile..

Ok, you're not. 

Look, I'm fine with men being booted from establishments on account of "laides nights" or special events or whatever. Just as long as it can do it the other way, too. But of course that will never happen. Either both are acceptable or neither are. You don't get to pick and choose, that's not how this works..

One of my biggest pet peeves is double standards, and this just reeks of it..