Huh? When did I start hating the movie due to the gender swap? 

So what I'm getting is that some are outraged because they believe this movie's sole purpose is to be a platform for gender politics. If that's true I see why they don't want to see the movie, I guess. But just don't watch it then. If enough people ignore it a similar thing is less likely to happen again.

Though, I find it odd that many seem to be willing to give it a try when it releases on blu-ray and streaming services. If you're certain that it's nothing more than a platform for gender politics why would you even be interested in ever watching it? Because it actually may be more than just gender politics?

Some of you refuse to believe the reviewers even though they actually HAVE seen the movie and genuinely liked it.

I don't understand that but that's not a first. I'm often confused as to why some people seem to have a problem with everything.

Literally anyone.

"Movie reviews in the Tomatometer come from publications or individual critics that have been selected by the Rotten Tomatoes staff. The criteria for inclusion for both publications and critics are separated across three divisions; print, broadcast, and online, each with its own criteria for Tomatometer inclusion.

SOURCE APPROVAL

Print publications must achieve and maintain status as one of the following:

• - A top 100 daily US newspaper
• - A top 100 weekly US newspaper
• - A top 100 magazine
• - A top 10 entertainment-based publication

Sources used to determine national publication ranks include the Audit Bureau of Circulations, The Magazine Publishers of America, and the Association of Alternative Weeklies. Applications for international publications will be made on a case-by-case basis, with input from local Rotten Tomatoes editors when applicable.

Broadcast outlets must achieve and maintain status as a national TV or radio outlet (either via syndication or network broadcast) for Tomatometer consideration. Alternatively, a TV outlet must be broadcasting in one of the top ten DMAs, as listed by Nielsen Ratings. Radio outlets must be broadcasting in one of the top five DMAs, as listed by Arbitron. In almost all cases, an outlet's individual reviews must be available online, either as a segment transcript or an alternate, written review.

Online publications must achieve and maintain a minimum 500,000 unique monthly visitors according to comScore, Inc or Nielsen Net Ratings and reviews must have an average length of at least 300 words. Publications must also show a consistent standard of professionalism, writing quality, and editorial integrity across all reviews and articles. Lastly, site design and layout should also reflect a reasonable level of quality and must have a domain name specific to the property.

For all outlets, reviews should be readable within a standard browser; reviews that require users to download additional software or browser plugins (ie PDFs) are strongly discouraged. Applications for international outlets will be made on a case-by-case basis, with input from local Rotten Tomatoes editors when applicable."

Yet this shows how a publication the person is working for, and not the person itself is suited to make reviews that count toward the tomatometer. It's not HER credentials that allow her to be on the tomatometer.

Agrees with the Tomatometer 57% of the time.

Becky Suter's reviews only count toward the Tomatometer when published at the following Tomatometer-approved publication(s): TheShiznit.co.uk

bigtakilla said: Yet this shows how a publication the person is working for, and not the person itself is suited to make reviews that count toward the tomatometer. It's not HER credentials that allow her to be on the tomatometer. BECKY SUTER Agrees with the Tomatometer 57% of the time. Becky Suter's reviews only count toward the Tomatometer when published at the following Tomatometer-approved publication(s): TheShiznit.co.uk

What?

If the publication is accepted on Rotten Tomatoes and the publication chooses Becky Suter as a worthy author then she qualifies. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Lol, if you say so. You'll notice other critics don't have this little loophole, sorry stipulation. If it's good enough for you though, good.

She's probably not an expert, no. But maybe she genuinely enjoyed the movie and maybe moviegoers that have a similar taste will enjoy the movie as well. Some of you are certain that you won't enjoy the movie and that's fine. You don't have to watch it.

Yes, you're upset because one of your favorite movie franchises is destroyed by gender swapping but I don't know if the rumored Ghostbusters movie starring Chris Pratt and Channing Tatum would be of significant higher quality. Generally, remakes of classics tend to piss of the fanbases. Nothing new about that.

Usually, I like to call out tiresome and unfounded hatred that seems to be so popular nowadays but after finding out that the hatred in this instance is based on gender politics I think I'm done defending Ghostbusters reviewers.

I think there are far more important places to fight for gender equality than in Western countries where men and women are equal regarding almost everything. Yes, in the perfect world female workers would have the same salery as male but as long as there are women believing that men should be the ones paying for dinner and drinks and as long as there are women who refuse to marry a man who has a smaller salery than her, then naturally there will be men demanding higher saleries than their female colleges.

Regarding sexuality (which is more relevant when speaking games), I don't care if Tsubasa Oribe's cleavage is censored or not or if Tracer is posing with her butt or not as neither will affect my enjoyment of the games. I go to my gf for sex and porn when she's abroad. I don't go to games for sexy times. But I believe (my gf shares this view) that there are some groups that are being hypocritical when they claim that only women are victims of sexual objectification as men often act as sex objects as well.

In Denmark this ad was heavily criticized for objectifying women:

While this one wasn't criticized for objectifying men:

In my opinion that's the definition of hypocrisy as the ads are just as guilty in using sexual objectification.

Well, see this is the reason I don't want to participate in any discussions of gender politics XD

lol, Denmark has some weird ads. 

I will say the one with the women is considerably more sexual, the girls are touching themselves like they're getting off and their ass is thrust up into the camera screen or squatting down like they're giving a BJ like a porn shoot. It's like a softcore porno, lol, I'm not surprised it got some complaints. 

The male version just has the typical muscular guy with his shirt off. 

Bolded: And trousers off showing nothing but dick shape in speedos.

The point is both ads are guilty of sexual objectification while one was heavily critiziced and the other was completely fine apparently.

Besides, you could argue that the JBS ad discriminates certain males by stating that the underwear is for real men only.