Monday, August 22, 2016

Do "systemic" sexism or racism exist?

The modern feminist social justice narrative is that there is "systemic" sexism and racism in our western society, and that's one of the things that they are fighting to correct.

What do they mean by that word, "systemic"? They mean that sexism and/or racism is not just something that some individual people engage in, but that our very society is inherently sexist and racist, inherently biased to favor one gender over the other, or one race over the others.

But these claims always end up being really vague and without proper evidence.

At what level, exactly, is this sexism and racism entrenched in our society? At the legal level? Are there laws that favor one gender over the other, or one race over the others?

Most certainly not. Not only is equal treatment a core principle written in most, if not all, constitutions of all countries that have a constitution, but moreover almost invariably there exist laws that forbid and punish unequal treatment based on gender or race. The law of most countries quite explicitly criminalize discrimination based on those things.

(That's not to say that there exist no laws that might favor one gender over the other, in any country. However, when we look at the laws that are unbalanced in this manner, the trend seems to be to favor women over men, rather than the other way around. For example child custody, and child support, is almost invariably in favor of women, with men having a much harder time in getting the privileges granted by these laws. And that's just one example. It's actually very hard to find unbalanced laws where it's men who are favored by default. And if we are talking about races, I don't think you will find a single law that would favor one race over others, with the exception of laws that either explicitly or implicitly give more protection to "minority" groups, which in western countries usually means non-white people.)

So if it's not at the legal and governmental level, then where, exactly? Where is this "systemic" sexism and racism? A portion of the population being (truly) sexist or racist doesn't make it "systemic". (And that portion is probably a lot smaller than the social justice warriors love to claim, given that everything is sexist and racist to them, no matter how innocuous.)

The truth is that sexism and racism being "systemic" is nothing more than, effectively, a conspiracy theory invented by feminist academia. It's in essence not different from conspiracy theorists claiming that behind the scenes the government is run by the Illuminati, or reptilians. There is no proof of it, and you can't see it, but it certainly is there, looming behind the scenes, the invisible force pulling all the strings.

And, like with the latter type of conspiracy theorists, no amount of evidence of the contrary will ever convince them.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016


Modern progressive feminist social justice has all the hallmarks of a religious cult. And like all religious cults, it has its share of quasi-supernatural notions and ideas.

One of these is "privilege". This is like the original sin of Catholicism: If you are white, you have "privilege" for that sole reason. It's innate, and it stains you like a sin. It doesn't matter if you are completely broke, with literally zero money or property, living in a cardboard box under a bridge, dressed in rags, having to loot garbage cans in back alleys to find some thrown-away food to survive, and have been in this situation for decades, you are still "privileged" for the sole reason that your skin is white. (At the same time a multi-millionaire world-famous highly successful actor or businessman, with a humongous mansion and his own private jet, is "oppressed" if his skin happens to be darker.)

A related (and quite racist) concept is that of "whiteness".

This is an actual sentiment from progressive feminists, to white feminists (and white people in general): It's your responsibility, as a white person, not to use your whiteness to speak over people of color.

No, I'm not making that up. That's directly from feminist sources.

It seems that to progressive feminists "whiteness" is some kind of quasi-supernatural aura that white people possess, which by their mere presence will oppress non-white people. If you, as a white person, for example interrupt or talk over a non-white person, that's not just you talking over another person. No, that's "using your whiteness" to do so. As if "whiteness" were this kind of magical power you have to oppress other people, by just being white.

Obviously if a non-white person interrupts or talks over you, that's absolutely fine. In fact, if that happens, you must immediately shut up and just accept it. You wouldn't want to abuse your "whiteness", now would you?

Feminists do not see people as individuals. They do not see people for their merits, personalities, achievements, qualifications or the content of their character. Instead, they only see people for the color of their skin and their genitalia. It doesn't matter who you are, or what you have done or achieved, or what the situation may be: If your skin tone happens to be too light, then you have "privilege" and "whiteness", and therefore you have less rights than other people and thus deserve to be treated as a lesser being. You deserve to be treated like an emasculated servant who has diminished human and social rights, and who should just submit quietly to any abuse by others. And if you dare to speak up and, heaven forbid, interrupt a non-white or non-male person, you are immediately castigated for abusing your "whiteness" superpower which you have but you don't deserve.

Monday, August 15, 2016

Masculinity stereotypes in media... is a myth

There is a quite common notion that the media at large, especially movies, TV series and video games, very often convey a very stereotypical notion of masculinity, ie. the message is that men are tough and stoic, and show no emotion, and they especially don't cry, and if some man cries, it's a sign of weakness, and shameful, and unmanly.

I would posit, however, that this is just a myth. One of those myths that has somehow formed, and that most people believe, even though nobody can cite examples or point to actual cases. It's just commonly believed to be true... mostly because everybody else believes it to be true, and nothing else.

After all, from the hundreds of thousands, even millions of movies, TV series and video games out there, can you name even one that conveys the above message? One single example from the millions?

There certainly exist a few such works where somebody expresses that sentiment, ie. castigates somebody for crying or showing emotional weakness. However, in the vast majority (if not all) of cases that character is depicted as being an unsympathetic and unlikeable bully, often somebody that the audience will hate and dislike, and who the audience will most probably disagree with.

Can you name even one single example where the message is conveyed in a positive manner, ie. in a manner that is supposed to be taken seriously, rather than as the act of a unlikeable bully or villain, who is bullying the person showing emotion?

From the thousands and thousands of movies, TV series and video games I have seen and played, I can't think of even one single example. On the contrary, a few counter-examples come to mind. For instance, the badass manly man who can mow down thousands of enemies by just flexing his muscles at them, the one and only John Rambo... shows emotional vulnerability in First Blood, and it's depicted very emotionally and tactfully. The message is quite clearly that even a tough man can be hurt by the horrors of war, and it's ok to show it. The audience feels sympathy for the character when he breaks down.

Where are the examples of the opposite? There probably are a few there, but I can't remember any.

I think this is just a myth. There is no message of "toxic masculinity" in art.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Correction to the SJW privilege stack

I wrote previously a blog post about the "SJW privilege stack", where I presented the phenomenon that feminist social justice warriors divide people into groups and give more or less privileges and protection to those people depending on which group they belong to. People higher on the stack can take advantage of, discriminate against, bully, harass and sometimes even commit violence and even murder against people lower on the stack, and the feminist SJWs will hurry to defend the perpetrators. Of course people lower on the stack cannot do that to people higher on the stack.

I posited that white men are at the very bottom of the barrel. The sub-human scum that has no rights and everybody else can discriminate against and do anything they want to them, and feminists will defend the perpetrator.

I was, however, slightly incorrect on this. White men are not, in fact at the very bottom. There is one group that's even lower: Jews.

That's right. To feminist social justice warriors, Jews are even lower in the protection stack than white men. Even white people can engage in blatant anti-semitism (as long as they do it in the name of feminism and social justice), and that's ok.

For example: Jewish student at Brooklyn college told to 'leave the school you Jew'.

Or consider the new Wonder Woman movie. Wonder Woman has classically been viewed as the most feminist superheroine from the classical era of comics. But feminists do not like this movie. Why? Because the actress is a Jew. Of course.

Has she committed any atrocities, said anything objectionable, or anything of the sorts? Of course not. It's enough that she's a Jew. No other reason needed.

Mind you, these are the same feminists who call Donald Trump "Hitler". They seem to have an astonishing lack of self awareness.

This would be a rough sketch of the SJW privilege stack. (As said, anybody higher on the stack can abuse anybody lower on the stack, and feminists will hurry to defend the perpetrators, but seldom the other way around.)

- Muslim men, but only if arabic. (And especially if immigrant.)
- Muslim women.
- Black people.
- Homosexuals, transsexuals.
- Asians.
- White women.
- White men.
- Jews.

You know, because feminism is about equality.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

"Top X something" videos that are just slideshows

I have noticed a strange, and strangely common, trend with many "top X something" videos on YouTube. In particular, where that "something" refers to events for which there exist video footage:

Rather than showing said video footage, instead they just present a slideshow of still images, while some dude tells you about the events. Oftentimes those images aren't even from event being described, but something else entirely.

I have watched by now like a dozen or so videos. For example, there was one named "10 epic summer olympic fails". Olympics is one of the most televised events in history, so obviously there exist video footage of most or all of such "fails". But the video instead just showed a slideshow of still images (often not even from said events), while some bloke narrated.

This seems to be becoming more and more common.

Show, don't tell! I'm not interested in hearing about it. I'm interested in seeing it! These videos really suck.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Wikipedia is becoming more and more a feminist propaganda machine

The role of an encyclopedia is to simply cite facts, and do so in a tone that is as neutral as possible. Encyclopedias should not have biases (especially not political biases) or agendas, and they should most definitely not engage in propaganda. They should simply document dry facts, with sources, and that's it. Moreover, encyclopedias are not newspapers or magazines: They shouldn't contain opinion pieces, or the opinions of the author's, or take stances.

So, what happens when an encyclopedia is editable by anybody, with no central authority or editorial staff, and it becomes immensely popular, the most read encyclopedia in the entire world? Well, quite inevitably, even with seemingly high standards of quality, many groups of people will try to use it for their own agendas, to use it for propaganda, trying to circumvent the rules of neutrality and standards by using faux-neutrality.

Now tell me if these are neutral, dry, fact-based, unbiased, non-propagandist articles with no agenda of any kind, that concentrate on relevant topics, or if they are opinion pieces that drive a certain agenda:

Misogyny and mass media.
Sexism in video games.
Exploitation of women in mass media.
Misogyny in hip hop culture.
Misogyny in horror films.
Male privilege.

The list could actually go on and on, but I'll stop here.

Do most of these really need their own article? And if you read them, many of them really are just opinion pieces thinly masquerading as encyclopedic articles.

Sunday, August 7, 2016

When will we reach a tipping point in social justice?

The new Suicide Squad movie has received criticism for being sexist. Because of course it is. After all, everything is sexist (and racist, and homophobic).

We are, literally, reaching a point where every single thing will cause an enormous backlash from social justice warriors. It's pretty much automatic: If something is popular enough, the social justice warriors will be there to either attack it, or try to appropriate it. We are reaching a point where nothing of any significance can be done without a mob of online SJWs attacking it. They have learned that if they make noise, people will listen to them; articles will be written about them, and producers will hurry to placate to them. It's essentially attention-seeking: Cry out loudly, and people will hurry to placate to your every whim.

How long will this last? When will we reach the tipping point where society will finally say that enough is enough? That this is getting completely ridiculous. When will we, as a society, tell these crybabies to just shut up and grow up?

My fear is that if we, as a society, actually don't do this, and allow them to get away with everything they want, it will be detrimental to our society. When these crybabies become politicians, law-makers, judges, lawyers and police officers, I can only imagine the totalitarian nightmare that would ensue. Orwell's 1984 in real life.

I also fear for our safety, given that to SJW's muslims are the most protected class, and nothing they do can ever be criticized or stopped. Imagine if our entire legal and police system would not stop criminals and terrorists if they are muslim, but instead would protect them.

Why am I so obsessed with VR?

I have been writing blog post after blog post about how disappointed I am in VR, and how much it sucks. I don't seem to get enough of it, and just let it be. You  might ask why.

The reason is pretty simple: This often happens when I'm really, really excited about something, anxiously waiting for it, or actively participating in it, and then it turns out to be a complete let-down, a complete disappointment. In other words, when my utter excitement turns into utter disappointment. It can be amazingly frustrating.

When plans for the Oculus Rift were first announced over three years ago, it really picked my curiosity. I was slightly skeptical at first because I didn't know back then how exactly the technology would work, and how it would be possible.

However, once I learned the technical details of how a VR headset works, and especially after I got to try the first Oculus Rift Development Kit, I got really excited about VR. The DK1 is, of course, extremely primitive compared to the final product (the resolution is very small, and the head-tracking is much more primitive, only tracking head orientation but not position) but it was still an excellent demonstration of the potential. A sneak peek at what VR will eventually be like.

I could just imagine how it would look like to play my all-time favorite games with a VR headset. It would be like being right there in the game. Not just the world of the game projected onto a flat screen, but I would literally be inside the game, with everything looking real and actually three-dimensional, with me able to look around freely, and examine everything up close, like it were a real object.

I could just imagine playing eg. Portal 2, Mirror's Edge and Skyrim with a VR headset, in stereo vision and head-tracking. It would be simply amazing. It would be like being in the world of the game, with everything surrounding me and looking actually three-dimensional, like the real world.

A year passed. Then another. Then another. It felt like the OR would never be released. I played new games, like Alien: Isolation, and could only imagine what it would be like to play them in VR. I semi-regularly followed the lists of games with planned VR support. While these lists were a bit worryingly short, they showed some promise. Half-Life 2 was there, Mirror's Edge was there, Alien Isolation was there, the upcoming Doom remake was there... all with existing, partial or planned support. I would have liked to see a lot more of my favorite games, but it wasn't a bad start.

I really planned to buy a VR headset almost immediately when they came out, although I was waiting to see what their launch prices would be. I think that at some point I read somewhere a rumor that the launch prices would possibly be in the 400-500€ range. That was a bit worrying for me because it would be a tad expensive, and I wasn't sure I could afford it. But since those would be just launch prices, perhaps they would come down soon after. I would also have to wait to see that games actually supported it before buying.

But disregarding that unconfirmed rumor, if we were to estimate my excitement about VR at this point, let's say it was 100%. I was really anxious to get my hands on it.

Then they launched. The launch price of the Oculus rift was 750€. The launch price of the HTC Vive was 900€.

This was the first let-down. Yes, sure, it's just a question of money, and that doesn't mean they aren't everything I expected them to be, but it was a let-down because it meant I wouldn't be buying either one any time soon. Probably not for years to come. Even if every single game in existence had VR support and it would be everything I dreamed of, that price... it's just pretty much out of my budget range. Maybe in a few years, if the price comes down a bit... But after anxiously waiting for over three years, the prospect of having to wait for a couple of years more wasn't really exhilarating.

Let's say my excitement level dropped to about 80%. The launch price was really a killer for me.

Then I started noticing a worrying trend in the whole VR scene. Remember those game lists with planned VR support? Well, game after game was being marked as "cancelled", and "abandoned". The new Doom? Forget about it. Mirror's Edge? Cancelled. Alien Isolation? Abandoned. And the list went on. Game after game, no VR support.

The launch title library for the Oculus Rift was rather pityable. The only existing game that was part of the launch was The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, and even that's just a walking simulator. It looks great, but it's not one of those games I was anxiously waiting to play in VR.

As for the launch lineup for the Vive... What launch lineup? There was like a couple of tech demos, and that's about it.

With all the cancellations of VR support in existing games, my excitement level started dropping like a lead balloon. Let's say it was at 60% at this point. I still had hope, though, because it was just a technology in its infancy.

Then I started reading articles and following discussions in VR forums. I had noticed that Valve was promoting the HTC Vive for "room scale VR". Moreover, they seemed to be promoting it only for that. There were entire promotional videos where no sit-down VR was showcased at all. (In fact, I don't remember a single promotional video from Valve where the Vive is being shown with a sit-down VR game. Every single one was a "room-scale VR" game.) I was interested in reading about this.

It turned out that according to Valve, VR "doesn't work" in traditional games, and that "room-scale VR" is, apparently, the only way to play VR games. With "doesn't work" what they mean is that many people get nausea in sit-down VR games that are controlled with keyboard+mouse or a gamepad.

I had always expected the nausea thing, from the very start. But I had also expected that one gets used to it. Searching for videos of people playing traditional first-person shooters with a VR headset confirmed this: You really can get used to it. Many of these people could play such games without any problems.

But slowly and surely, article after article, forum post after forum post, it became clear that the gaming industry seemed to have taken this as gospel. VR "doesn't work" in traditional games, because of the nausea problem, and thus they wouldn't be either adding VR support to any of their existing games, or even to any new games of the traditional genres.

This means that I would never, ever get to experience my all-time favorite games in VR, as I had been expecting for so long and with so much excitement. At least not from the original developers. (There are third-party drivers that allow a limited VR playing experience with some games, but compatibility is limited and sometimes glitchy. There's only so much that can be done from outside of the game.)

So what kind of games do "work" in VR, then? Apparently gallery shooters (where you just stand still, shooting around), and Myst-like games, where you stand still, looking around, and "teleport" from place to place. On the OR side you are limited almost exclusively to vehicle simulators, and some third-person perspective games (where the camera stays mostly still). Basically anything where you just stand still looking at something. In other words, basically anything where you don't move, except a few steps. Oh, the joy.

My excitement for VR started plummeting. It's like 1% now.

And it's amazingly frustrating. I had so much hope and so much excitement for VR, but I'm probably not going to ever experience it. The devices are way too expensive for a gimmick (at least for years to come), and game developers are refusing to add support. At this moment VR looks like a complete failure. As they say, it "doesn't work".

Thursday, August 4, 2016

New blog: A gamer's guide to the galaxy

I created this blog to vent steam, and to rant about things, sometimes seriously, sometimes just for the fun of it. However, during the years I have kind of been using this as my generic blog, and found myself from time to time writing posts that are not rants nor complaints, but just random interesting things, most often about video games and technology. I have usually prepended such posts with "this isn't something that grinds my gears", and wondered several times if I should just create a new blog for these neutral and positive posts.

Well, I finally got around doing that. You can find the introductory blog post here.

I copied most of my neutral and positive blog posts there, so don't be surprised by the repetition. There are already a few new posts, though.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Windows really sucks for software development

One thing I have always loved about modern Linux distros is how laughably easy it is to install any program or library available for said distro.

As an example, suppose I want to write some C++ code and want to use gcc (or more precisely g++) to compile it. Suppose it's not already installed in the system. What to do?

Well, it's pretty simple. Just write "apt-get install g++" in a terminal, and that's it (at least in most linux distros; others have similar package managers, eg. zypper.) But maybe it needs a bunch of other programs and libraries that are not installed in the system? You don't need to worry because it automatically checks all these dependencies and will also install anything that g++ needs to work.

But perhaps you don't like writing commands on a terminal, and instead would like a more graphical solution? Again, not a problem, in most distros. For example in OpenSuse you just launch the graphical package manager, write "g++" in its search field, and tick "g++" from the results, and install. It works the same as the command-line version in that it will automatically check dependencies and install everything that's needed (telling you beforehand, if you so desire).

And then it just works. You are ready to compile your C++ program.

And this is the same for almost anything that's available for that Linux distro (and repositories tend to be quite complete.)

But how about Windows? No such luck. There are no software package management systems, there are no repositories, there are no easy ways to install and maintain such packages.

For example, if you would want to use g++ in Windows, you need to find out some Windows port of it, such as mingw, and manually download an installer and run it, jumping through several hoops to do so. (In this particular case the authors have tried to make it as easy as possible, thankfully.)

Then you need to manually add a search path to the mingw binary directory, because there are no standard binary directories in Windows. (In some sense this can be a good thing, especially since Windows is not really a command-line oriented operating system, but in other senses it can be a nuisance, like here.)

Then you go and try to compile your first C++ program using g++... only to find out that no executable is created. For a completely mysterious reason. If you try to compile a C program with gcc, it creates the executable just fine, but if you try a C++ program... nothing. It compiles (and will eg. give proper compiler error messages if there are errors in the source code), but no executable appears. And, of course, Google is of no help whatsoever on this.

Also, you try to compile some C++11 code. g++ itself supports it just fine, but you get a million error messages from the standard libraries which, apparently, have no C++11 support in mingw, or are completely broken in C++11 mode, for reasons only known to the authors.

mingw seems to be completely useless. I just can't get it to work, and not even extensive Googling is helping.

And then people can't understand why so many developers prefer Linux.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

How Much of a Feminist Are You?

There's yet again a feminist article at buzzfeed making the rounds, called "How Much of a Feminist Are You?" with 50 claims that allegedly help answering that question. I'm not interested in any kind of score or results, but I'll respond to the claims verbally here, just for the fun of it.

1: I would be willing to give up some of my salary if I had to, so that equal pay in my workplace could be a reality.

Absolutely not. Every person ought to be paid based on merit, not based on their genitals.

2: I believe that men and women should be equal.

Equal in what? This question is too non-specific to answer.
3: I can’t help but be bothered when a song includes misogynistic lyrics, even when I otherwise like the song.

Knowing the broad feminist definition of "misogynist", I have to answer in the negative.
4: I know who Bell Hooks is.

Never heard.

5: I can define intersectional feminism.

I have seen enough anti-feminist videos to know what the regressive left means with that term. Unfortunately.
6: I don’t use the phrase “hey guys” when referring to a group of people that includes men and women. 

I don't live in an English speaking environment, so that's technically right.
7: I have taken a women’s and/or gender studies class. 

No, and I would shoot myself before I would do that.  

8: I think it’s important to encourage girls to pursue science and math as a career.

Replace "girls" with "people" and I'll agree.  

9: Women should be allowed to apply for a job if they fulfill 60% of the job requirements. 

What? I don't understand the question. It's too non-specific, and makes little sense.

Replace "women" with "people" and explain what you mean, and we might have a conversation.

10: I think we should change women’s bathroom symbols to not include traditionally “feminine” clothing (skirts, dresses, etc). 

Why should I care? It's a symbol. If you get offended by a symbol you are a retard.

11: I believe trans people should be able to use whichever bathroom they identify with. 

I don't care what bathroom you want to use. Knock yourself out.

12: I believe it’s important to encourage women to negotiate. 

To negotiate what? And, again, substitute "women" with "people" and we might have a conversation.  
13: I believe Jennifer Lawrence should earn as much as her male costars.

Who is Jennifer Lawrence? And earnings should be based on merit, not on genitals.

14: I do not think a movie should be released unless it passes the Bechdel test.

It's a complete bullshit test and I absolutely disagree.

15: I believe all genders are entitled to the same social and political rights.

I believe all people are entitled to the same rights.

16: I can explain why “78 cents to the dollar” is not a fully accurate description of the gender wage gap.

Yes. There is no such gap.

17: I believe that women who possess certain types of privilege are responsible for advocating for women who don’t have their level of privilege.

What? I don't understand the question. Be more specific.

And, once again, substitute "women" with "people" and see if it makes more sense. And no, people aren't responsible for such things.

18: If I had a daughter, I would encourage her to be anything she wanted to be.

That requires encouragement?

19: I would make it clear to my daughter from an early age that her identity should never be defined by her relationship status.

I don't understand the question.

20: I believe it’s important to compliment a woman’s intelligence over her looks.

Again, not "woman", but "person". And if someone complimented my intelligence, I would suspect they were making fun of me. Compliment people for their actions, if the situation warrants it.

21: I believe that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body.

Too vague to be answered.

22: In an instance of sexual assault against a female, I am inclined to believe the assaulted person is telling the truth until proven otherwise.

I am inclined to support our fundamental judiciary principle that accused people should be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I am not going to reverse that principle with certain types of crimes.

23: I can explain Marlene Dietrich’s influence on women’s fashion. 

Never heard.

24: I know what a “Bad Feminist” is.

Yes. Basically every single third-wave feminist. Some second-wave feminists are ok (such as Christina Hoff Sommers).

25: I believe that women should be able to dress however they want without it dictating how they are treated by society. 

Substitute "women" with "people" and we may have an interesting sociopolitical discussion. In principle people should be able to wear whatever they want, but some cases may require special consideration due to practical reasons.

26: I have never said that a woman “asked for it.” 

That's correct.

27 I am offended by catcalling.

Knowing what feminists mean by "catcalling", I cannot give an all-encompassing answer. It depends on the situation.

28: I don’t think women should get VIP treatment at nightclubs and bars, just for being women.

I don't care if they get VIP treatment in such private establishments.

29: I think police brutality and its correlation with race is a feminist issue.

No, it's not.

30: I think we should stop promoting models as the ideal female body type.

Depends on the model. In general, I disagree. The "ideal female body type" requires you to watch your weight, exercise, eat healthily, and take care of your skin. If done right, I fail to see the problem.  
31 I think we should stop photoshopping women’s bodies in the media.

Depends on the amount of photoshopping.

32: I have never called a woman bossy.

I don't live in an English-speaking country, so that would be technically correct.

33: I think companies should offer more child-friendly time and programs to women who are having children.

So, special treatment? It depends on what kind of "time and programs" you mean.

34: I believe that a woman should be offered the same opportunities for promotion as her male co-workers.

I think people should be offered the same opportunities, based on merit.

35: I believe that if a woman wants to pay on a date, her date should let her. 

That's up to them. I'm not in the business of dictating how couples should live their lives.

36: I believe that women should have easy access to birth control. 

I don't know enough about the medical and health aspects of birth control to give an answer.

37: I believe that in a relationship the domestic duties should be shared.

That's up to them. I'm not in the business of dictating how couples should live their lives.

38: I think that a couple should have equal responsibility over the aesthetic and cleanliness of their home. 

That's up to them. I'm not in the business of dictating how couples should live their lives.

39: I believe that men should be encouraged to be involved and make choices in the wedding planning process. 

That's up to them. I'm not in the business of dictating how couples should live their lives.

40: I believe that men and women have the same emotional strength.

Biology might disagree with this.

41: I do not think that it is the responsibility of a man to protect a woman physically.

If a friend or family member is in danger, I will try to protect them to the best of my abilities, and I think that should be true for everybody.

42: I believe that men and women should be equally encouraged to express their emotions. 

No, that's up to every individual's choices and innate personality. It's not other people's business. Most especially it's none of your business.

43: I have never asked a woman why she does not have children. 


44: I would be equally excited to have a son or a daughter.

Correct. Although I don't understand what this has to do with feminism.

45: I think American workplace culture is often not structured in a way that is helpful or encouraging to women succeeding.

I don't know enough about the American workplace culture to give an answer.

46: I think women have a responsibility to help and encourage other women to pursue their goals. 

People don't have such responsibilities. So no. (Of course if they want to encourage other people, great! But it's not a responsibility.)

47: I think women are equally capable to men to be the President of the United States.

Yes. But presidency is up to the voters. The best candidate should become president.

48: I believe that women have no responsibility to make a conscious effort to always be friendly and polite.

I think people should at least try to be friendly and polite by default, unless there's a good reason not to be. Just some basic manners.

49: I have never criticized a woman for not wearing makeup or wearing too much makeup.

Correct. I don't care.

50: I believe a woman is a woman if that is what she calls herself, regardless of her physical attributes and makeup.

If you want to call yourself a woman even if you are not, then call yourself a woman. Don't expect me to do the same, if you clearly are not.