Yeah, I think that's a fair assumption. It's a tough thing to really examine though.
If we agree to see women as less human then men, then the word 'human' just becomes synonym for 'man'. What he's really talking about is the belief that women and men are different, and that women are less interesting to him, less valuable in his eyes.
Well, so what?
Lots of women think that men are less interesting, and not as valuable. And some men see their fellow men that way, and some women see other women that way. Wherever we see the difference, we pretty much have to expect that there will be a preference as well.
But, like you said, he's pandering. It's how he makes his dollars, and it's why we are here talking about him. He's smart enough to make it pay.
He's an ex-actor and former NFL player. He might very well come from a surrounding that treats women as less than humans (harvey weinstein, lots of abused former child actors, NFL players who made domestic violence headlines).
He might even be sort of right when he says he's part of a toxic cult, but it's not masculinity. It's wrong of him to assume that this applies to society as a whole.
Agreed. Especially with his recent confession about being groped, after all. He wishes to stay relevant in the spotlight of this particular issue, which I can understand. In this particular industry (Hollywood, the limelight, what have you) you really must swim or die from the public mind. Polarizing comments will accomplish that objective quite nicely and require very little actual thought, from what I can understand.
On the topic of men vs women, I believe such an age old debate will never truly be resolved. I respect my girlfriend. While she can be very emotional she can also wield a very cold logic. I have always entertained the view that everyone is bound by their genetic coding to some degree but nuture can expand a person much further than nature. That in itself is a debate which may be older than men vs women, frankly.
I think part of the debate is well enough resolved by simply agreeing that we are, as groups, different from one another. The attributes of the group are not the attributes of the individual, even if the attributes of the group as a whole are distinctive and predictable.
The debate remains open, perhaps forever, on the question of what to do about it.
Debate itself is a good thing - debate is how societies evolve; lack of debate becomes stasis. What matters is that the debate be honest, and relevant, so that the resulting changes can be useful. When the debate is done for show, stupidity follows in its wake and nobody is happy afterwards.
We went through a phase where many people angrily insisted that there were no meaningful differences at all between men and women, and I don't think too many people were happy about where that lead us, and fewer still were honest about it. Many folks still believe that the wage gap is necessarily a result of overt discrimination, rather than a perfectly obvious difference in preference between these groups. We create insolvable problems for ourselves this way.
I'm old enough to remember when the ERA - a constitutional amendment to make the law gender-blind - was the number one policy goal of those who claimed to be speaking on behalf of women. Equality in everything, including college admissions, hiring, child custody and child support, even the draft. What once seemed like an ideal (it came within one state of ratification) would be considered a disaster today.
Honestly, it seems like he's just pandering to the crowd for precious points. Then again, these days it seems as though there is very little acceptable grey area in society. You're either completely toxic to the other side or you're the embodiment of their ideals. This isn't limited to one side, either.
In any case, I mentioned in another reply to this thread that I get the feeling he implied that his general view of women extended beyond the strip club.