Nope, not in a million years.

Considering it's IMDb, I'm not sure if this is satire but I completely agree with you. Edward was originally a warm and sensitive person (he reminded me of my own boyfriend), and it's really unfortunate that he felt the need to harden or to become less "weak".

Kill yourself. Please.

docstar - You are a toxic, vulgar, agenda biased, neophyte who has taken way too many Women's Study classes. This is why this millennial movement will go the way of the trash heap. You project your own poisonous outlook on human beings and spew it out there in the internet world trying to persuade new followers. The agenda is clear.

The film is pretty anti-feminist, it shows the difference between men and women. Men are risk takers who would jeopardize their future for a greater goal while woman seek security and stability above everything.

The most retarded thread of the year . . .
Not really - he made a good point. OTOH your comment . . .

The most retarded thread of the year gratz @docstar84 you are crowned CUCK Of the year .

Men don't need feminism.

On the contrary, this is why we need masculism. He should have pulled out a gun and blew all 3 away.
There will always be psychopaths in this world; man and woman. It has nothing to do with patriarchy but it sometimes does take masculine strength to deal with it.
Femininity serves a purpose; and so does masculinity. I don't mean 'man enough to show your emotions', but man enough to break someone's jaw when the situation calls for it, which is what Tony lacked.

Yes, but couldn't you argue the fact that Tony was so incredibly weak that he couldn't even bring himself to attempt to fight for his family? I mean, after all, they did end up getting
raped and murdered.

• and yes, I get that the whole novel is a visualization of Susan reading Edwards book so therefore Tony is a personification of Edward in the past, but you could argue that if Edward had fought for his relationship in a more masculine way instead of letting Susan walk all over him, that things could have been different.

The most feminine people in this film were not Tony/Edward, but the rapists. They're the ultimate feminine types. They act impulsively on their emotional impulses like anger.
I can't agree with this statement - anger and the desire to rape aren't generally understood to be feminine traits. And neither is impulsiveness - especially in single mothers who can be especially resilient and courageous.
Edward is just a struggling writer. There was nothing in the film to suggest he was really sensitive and weak.
OTOH I do agree with this point. There are a number of lamebrain posters on this board - most notably FartyKat - who yammer on endlessly about Edward being "weak". They watch the scene where Susan dines with her mother, find the woman repulsive, but then parrot her opinion of Edward as if it were fact. If you're not mentally deficient, it's very obvious what Susan's mother meant by "weak" - Edward hadn't inherited sufficient wealth.

The most feminine people in this film were not Tony/Edward, but the rapists. They're the ultimate feminine types. They act impulsively on their emotional impulses like anger.
Statistically these rapists would have most likely been raised by single mothers (over 70% chance) and would have lacked a strong father figure in the household.
Edward is just a struggling writer. There was nothing in the film to suggest he was really sensitive and weak. It would have made sense if he broke down crying a lot or punched walls in anger or became an alcoholic or something the types of things that emasculating men tends to encourage. It would have made sense if he was a manipulative and passive-aggressive type of person in the relationship with insecurities and tendencies towards emotional abuse.

I am not sure a feminist would have helped. Unless she had a loaded gun.

Feminists would blame Tony for he and Susan's failed marriage. Most of them are blind and completely unhinged and bigoted man-haters.
The Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

your post shows how you didin't get the movie she called him ''weak'' and he told her at the point they were arguing that she was the one running away , that's the only reason he wrote the book to show her that she was the ''weak'' one , Tony and Ed are only portraid as ''weak'' men to deliver this deeper insight.

what in the beep world did you just say? Doesn't make sense at all

yes because feminists are the biggest defenders of men..

I hope this is not a common mindset, being willing to suppress your emotions all for the sake of sex appeal.
There's no doubt that women have a hand in enforcing masculinity (i.e., how Adams' character left her husband because she, like her mother, thought he was weak), but men do too. Growing up I can't even count the number of times I've seen adult male figures tell young boys not to cry because it's weak. Women, often times the more 'traditional' kind, do this too, like calling men who cry "b*tches" or other degrading terms. I've seen feminists denounce this so I wonder why your conclusion is to get rid of it. Buzzwords aside, I feel like it's more dangerous to tell boys they
do
need to be strong and conventionally masculine, because some just aren't. Some are sensitive and they should know that it's okay. Men have the highest rates of suicide and I could only hope that number could lessen if only they were told they didn't need to be strong all the time.

Armie Hammer's character seemed pretty useless to me. Rich yes, but not masculine in the least. He would have been no help in that same situation on the road unless he could bribe his way out of it.

This message has been deleted.

Nice to read a posting from a female that actually gets it.

So you married a conventionally masculine guy- a guy who has military experience, who is strong, and who would have been able to defend his family from three dangerous men. And this disproves my previous point how, exactly? You are saying that men need to be both strong and sensitive. OP is saying that men do not need to be strong. Your disagreement is with OP, not with me.

Huh? lol I think you might mean that reply for someone else. Never said a word of that. My husband is a combat vet, 10 years military police. I love that he can protect us that what I was saying. It was frustrating watching a man not fight for his family. Really no idea what you're talking about lol. Might wanna copy and paste that into the discussion you meant to reply to.

Why do you have to make everything men do or don't do an example of the evil, mythological patriarchy??
I have news for you. That aggression to fight off people threatening you or your loved ones has NOTHING to do with men, masculinity or patriarchy. It's called SELF-PRESERVATION.
We don't need more feminism. We need more common sense.
Get off your soapbox while I play you a tune on the tiniest violin.