How is "He for She" in anyway egalitarian? She never called out women and invited them to help solve the issues men face. Who's the UN ambassador for men? I do not enjoy being told that I am the problem for being born a man, and then "invited" to solve the problem of myself.
Well said. I think it seems egalitarian to Hoff-Summers only because, relatively speaking, it was a nicer speech than that one saying "You fucking male scum".... or Big Red saying "Patriarchy....Shut the fuck up... Cry me a river... Fuckface".
I hate it when people (especially celebrities like her) say that "By definition, feminism is about equality". 1) That's not true, feminism is about giving women equal rights to men. Hence the name, FEMinism. I don't have any problem if someone wants to only focus on women's problem, but I hate it when they pretend that their movement cares about both sexes when it clearly doesn't. 2) Movements aren't defined by their definition but by the actions taken within the movement. Even if her "definition" of feminism was true (which it isn't), that's not what feminists are portraying.
True I think its stupid. I prefer the name equalitism anyway. But I find many 'feminists' gloss over the laws that oppress men e.g. a woman can't rape a man I mean what a load of bullshit rape is rape regardless if I say no I mean no and if a girl holds me down and tries t rape I'm gonna punch that woman in the face, but Same goes if a man tries to rape me I'll punch him I'll punch anything (maybe not a puppy) in self defense. But tbh it'll probably break my fist and do nothing to my attacker I'm pathetic like that.
mrhappyjuice Be a good idea to take a self defense course then, or if you have the time and dedication then you can pursue a real (non-sport) martial art. I would recommend the Bujinkan, but anything that focuses on real 200+ year old martial arts traditions without bringing a sports element or commercialized element into it is good. (Ok, krav maga is only about 80 years old but it is probably good too.) At any rate, yeah, proper self defense. (Since you are a guy, I am going to make the assumption you are not going to freak out about victim blaming for me recommending that.) I can tell just by you saying you would punch your attacker that your martial skills are lacking. Someone who is properly trained has far more effective means than punching to deal with an attacker. For instance, you would not believe how effective a strike with the side of the hand can be so long as you are actually doing it right and not just imitating the stupid "karate chop" as depicted by an 80s american martial arts movie. Those are wrong and completely ineffective, but a properly thrown knife-hand strike can be far more damaging than a punch could ever be. Those strikes were actually originally engineered to break a person's neck, and only the slightest twist of the hand into a palm-strike can break a person's nose and give you the option of gouging the eyes. That is just in the area of strikes. Grabs and grappling can get infinitely nastier than any of the stuff that I just got done laying out.
***** i know but I'm too lazy for that. I only said punch because it sounded cooler my actual defense is to bite. Which I have done many times to get myself out of headlocks and it works a charm. But I also like to kick and dodge because I'm fast and flexible but I've never actually got into a real fight and if I did I'd probably kick hard and run. I have no dognity .
mrhappyjuice There is no dignity in a fight. Whatever gets you out alive, that's the rule. Anyway, yes a full fledged martial art takes quite a bit of dedication, but a self defense course will get you adequately up to snuff in just a week or so and open you up to a few of the options you have.
I must have been watching a different speech. All I saw was yet another call for men to step up and support women. She threw a few bones to men, but then reiterated that the way to solve men's problems was for men to yet again prioritise the needs of women above their own. To me this is just more feminist bigotry; a transparent attempt to candy-coat a nasty ideology that has been spewing hatred at men for decades. Feminism is beginning to try to re-package itself as more man-friendly, not to help men, but to shore up its fading support base among men. Watson pointed out that feminism is seen by many as a hate movement, but she made no effort to address the very substantial reasons as to why it is seen that way. There has been no sign from any feminist organisation or lobby group that feminism is interested in any kind of real equality; not anywhere in the last forty years at least. Emma Watson brought nothing new to the table except yet another polite invitation for men to support a movement that marginalises and degrades them and casts them as inherently deviant and dangerous. The same feminist arrogance is still seeping through every sentence of Watson's speech; the idea that men have any responsibility to women or any obligation to support women. They don't. Personally I prefer feminists like Robin Morgan and Germaine Greer. Bitter hate-mongers they may be, but at least they're honest about it. If you want to support a hate movement, then at least have the courage and honesty to wear the badge.
|the idea that men have any responsibility to women or any obligation to support women. They don't.| They do. The fact that feminism abuses this does not entitle us to deny it. I understand why that is your response but it is not the correct response. Chivalry is hard wired into us biologically for a reason. They need us. We need them. What feminists need to understand is that when either side ignores or abuses the other, the balance is wrong and society suffers. And that this can happen *from either vector,* men *or women* can abuse each other, and it's a crime and a shame either way.
hagamapama Men have an obligation to "support" women? Wrong. Men have a natural inclination to support women, sure. But to think of it as an obligation is fascist in nature, to embrace or deny this inclination is a question of individual freedom.
As I remember Heinrich Heine ever write: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." ("Where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings too.")."
In AD 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of 'Amr ibn al-'As. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar.[39][40] Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the 13th century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them. The Nazi book burnings were a campaign conducted by the German Student Union (the "DSt") to ceremonially burn books in Nazi Germany and Austria in the 1930s. The books targeted for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. These included books written by Jewish, pacifist, religious, classical liberal, anarchist, socialist, and communist authors, among others.[1] The first books burned were those of Karl Marx and Karl Kautsky.[2]
A quick visit to wiki will help clear some of the wrong info that you have :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria#Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt
Christoph Gould what is stupid is claiming that a historical event did take place only on one's assumption, as for me quoting Wikipedia what is the problem with that? Is Wikipedia trying to cover Islamic atrocities ? Or is there a Wikipedia conspiracy to hide the Muslim burning of the library? And btw we know for sure that the Romans did actually burn the library, I don't see u mentioning that though, nor do u link Romans to Nazis, now I don't know what are u trying to prove, by mentioning Muslims with Nazis but next time at least try to cite any source instead of accusing someone based on Ur own assumptions and theories
We know for sure? Well... Go back a bit further in history and read up on someone who most likely had much unknown literature of his own burnt in the fire, "I know one thing; that I know nothing" I can't debate an idiot sorry :)
I'd call myself an egalitarian/equalist because I just think its definition applies more to my views. Feminism is for my taste a tad bit too gender-centric but I'd never disapprove of it because of few bad apples. People unfortunately tend to generalize members of its entire movement (that's divided into many submovements) and label them all as man-hating idiots which is simply not true. I think reasonable feminists like Christina H. Sommers are needed for true gender equality.
It's not that Norah it's that the actions taken in the name of modern feminism are generally man-hating and the ultimate goal is at odds with the best interest of the majority, IMO. You can still be a wonderful person as a feminist, no doubt, but when you don't call out the injustices it becomes a major issue. That's why i'm really not a fan of Emma Watson implying men need to fix feminism. BS, feminists need to fix feminism.
LickTheEnvelope It's true and I don't disagree with the fact that there are many extremists (*cough* tumblr *cough*) among the movement, but I'm just trying to say that generalizing all feminists is at least in my opinion unhealthy because it leads to people associating it with only radical misandrists who are using its ideology to get the upper hand instead of trying to achieve actual equality between men and women. Calling people out on their actions might be helpful, I personally think it'd be better to ignore them and not give them any attention at all and focus on the good kind. I wish people (especially those extremists) would be capable of having civil debates without having to point fingers at each other. It's gotten so rare these days unfortunately.
Norah Slade It's not that they are all misandrists it's that the final solution of all feminists is the same thing, many of them are just oblivious to what it actually means.
Her speech was passable. Her pledge was overtly discriminatory. "ending gender discrimination faced by WOMEN AND GIRLS" the boys and men didn't even get a look in. Whilst her speech may have been enough for me to point to her as an example of "good feminism", the campaign she supported actually had NOTHING to do with helping men or boys. It was a blatant, transparent call for chivalry. Men were given the responsibility (HeFor), and women the reward (She). As usual.
6oodfella I've been super busy with a dozen things, and I've got one scripted. But I've also got another one in the works for Inside-Man, and a host of other stuff I'm working on. If all goes well, I should have my video on NAFALT (not specifically the speech but one of the points raised) up by the end of the week.
I don't think her speech was very good at all, or gives an example of good feminism. When she is spewing out nonsense like the whole "i was called BOSSY" stuff and the wage gap myth, it's clear she has either not done her research at all or is just lapping up what feminists are telling her without thinking.
When I try to understand their rationale for not the slightest proposal to help man and boys all I can find is that they think that this help will somehow happen automatically when women are no longer oppressed.
Fantango Read the pledge. "ending gender discrimination faced by WOMEN AND GIRLS" i.e: ending gender discrimination faced by everyone except men and boys.
Frankly, I don't see Emma Watson's efforts as positive. Yeah she's not as militant as some others, and I guess she's trying to re(re)define the term "feminism", but ultimately she's just like the rest of Hollywood feminist cronies. In another interview for the HeforShe campaign, she was asked if feminists should focus more on eastern women (who suffer from an actual rape culture, acid burning, public beatings, and oppressive law). She pathetically dodged the question saying that the "West still has a lot of work to do" and "we should set an example for the rest of world." Just like most feminists, she is completely uninterested in helping the women who actually need help. After all, it is far easier to gain the favor of the spineless liberal media who will bend over for your Hollywood stardom, than it is topple the long standing REAL sexism in other nations across the globe. Shame on Emma Watson and UN Women.
Hmm. Good point. Although Emma Watson still made a rather inspiring speech. Though you are right in the fact that feminism in the Western world can wait, as there are much bigger and more urgent problems the world should be handling. Be it the Eastern sexism, or something even bigger like global climate change.
i just checked the Heforshe website and i noted that it is worldwide effort. "Just like most feminists, she is completely uninterested in helping the women who actually need help." Can you point out other evidence to support this hypothesis? I dont think just dodging a question qualify as not being interested in helping women. On the contrary she went to Malawi in Africa to support leaders who passed laws to make the minimum age for girls to marry should be 18. Isn't that a more concrete example to discredit your claim which is based flimsily on a dodge question? in.reuters.com/article/us-malawi-childmarriage-emma-watson-idINKCN12A2IL
+Wellstar "So you want to be a feminist when you grow up?Sorry sweetheart,it's one or another,you can't do both."It's not my quote,but I'll always remember it.
I love how Emma Watson goes on about the dangers of living in a macho oriented culture in interviews yet she is dating a football player. Why isn't she dating a sensitive artist? LOL.
He's a Rugby player, football makes it seem like you're talking about "soccer" which isn't considered an overly masculine sport. But you're spot on otherwise, women are attracted to masculine men just as men are attracted to feminine women. Ying & Yang. Imagine if we started demanding that women be less feminine, we'd be instantly be labelled as misogynists.
Hamish James True, and I bet he doesn't cry around Emma very much. Like most women, she might 'like' sensitive guys, but she won't fuck one. And frankly, that is all that matters to us guys. Sure, friends are nice, but you can have guys for friends. Sex is what makes women special. Feminists know that women go cold with sensitive guys, and that is part of the plan to segregate the sexes. Just like all that 'consent' BS that Laci Green is pushing. Dry like a desert.
Hamish James You don't know what the Rugby player is like as a person. It's not fair to state you know his personality, many "manly men" are very "feminine" men off the field. Not saying you are necessarily wrong.
SikforSenses I guess time really did tell what #HeforShe stands for... nice grab! And it seems only feminists are blind to their bias.. and that's sad...
Is it really? I think the notion of burning books being so deplorable is a relic from a time when books were actually rare. When making a single copy takes months or even years, burning it (or otherwise destroying it) is a substantial harm. Especially since many books had only a handful of copies in existence so with a bit of diligence you actually could destroy the text for good. But today we make thousands of copies at a time. You burn a copy of a book? Big deal, I'll just take these $10 and buy a new one. You burn most of the copies? Well, I'll take this digital source and print a couple thousand more. You delete my source? I'll restore it from one of my backups. The amount of work that goes into the creation of each individual copy today is negligible and there are so many copies it's practically impossible to destroy the text itself. You're basically just burning paper, so why should it be such a big deal?
***** Burning books may not seem like a big deal to you, but it could mean the difference between protecting vs destroying a legacy. "You delete my source? I'll restore it from one of my backups. " We're not talking about now or in 15 years. But in another 100-200 years, who knows how well or how badly recorded history is
Bloodstainer Unless humanity is meat with some great technological depression, information is going to be backed up better and better. But let's say it does happen. Let's say we end up losing all of our technology somehow. _Then_ books will have value once more. But right now they're worth little more than the paper they're made out of. The ideas contained within are irreplaceable, priceless, but the physical books themselves are absolutely worthless.
***** Yes, but even in this technological age, we are still seeing a lack of information/data from the late 1990's and the early 2000's I still dislike the very idea of removing data, regardless of whether its digital or on paper.
Bloodstainer Trust me, we do share that antipathy but that data was lost not because of how we treat data today, but because of how we used to treat data back then. We've learned the importance of redundancy, we've learned to make backups. Many, many backups. So when thousands or even millions of copies of a certain piece of data exist, a few of the copies being destroyed isn't such a big deal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating burning of books. There is rarely anything to be gained from it, so, if nothing else, generally speaking it's wasteful. I just don't think it's a big deal when someone does it for whatever reason.
I'm sorry Christina, but this speech was more of the same offensive ideas that make me hate feminism, there was nothing new. Yes she gave lip service to men's issues, but why? Because if we solved some of men's issues it will help women, apparently we shouldn't help men for men's sake, no we should help men for women's sake only. To Emma, men should be free to express their feelings, except when men express anger or disgust because of feminist ideas, no the only feelings that should be allowed in feminist rhetoric are feelings that make men weak, probably so they can be more easily manipulated. And again, UN Women launches a campaign for "equality" in which one gender saves the other gender, in which the issues of women and girls are to be addressed by men and boys. Apparently, our mothers, sisters and daughters should be free from prejudice, but our sons, and only our sons because fathers and brothers are already finished obviously, our sons would have the PERMISSION to be HUMAN, again Fathers and Brothers aren't humans and can't be human anyway, only Sons are salvageable. Or maybe that's because Fathers and Brothers are the ones doing the work anyway, so they can take care of themselves right? While All the women are just sitting waiting to get all the fruits of hard labor on a silver platter. This speech and this campaign is absolutely offensive and disgusting, it does nothing for equality, as usual like any feminist campaign, it just strips women and girls of responsibility, give them all the rights and protections of men and obviously from men, because only men and boys are responsible for the violence against women that's why they have to do all the work (oh and violence against men is business as usual so who cares?!), while men are saddled with all the responsibility and all the guilt.
Most worrying aspects of this speech - That it was sanctioned by the UN, one of the most powerful organisations in the world, if not the most powerful, & was made by a globally known celebrity who has the reputation of being an intelligent, independent, model woman (her reputation & reach earning her the UN job in the first place of course). This is the UN's idea of "social progression". The sheep don't stand a chance & the paddock extends the globe, not looking good.
Jonathan Hobman Nope, the speech was crystal clear, it's the same rhetoric spewed by feminists all over the world for decades, it's nothing but a damsel in distress asking for white knights to save her, she slightly pats you on the head pretending to care about your issue, she also pretends that you could be the bigger man by joining her in protecting her and the other women, she care not about your actual feelings, your real hardships, or the real discriminations you face. Every lip service she did for men's issues are just a ploy to lower your defenses so you more readily jump at her rescue. In reality, it's gynocentrism and feminism 101. It is simply and purely disgusting.
Again you are simply adding in things that aren't apparent. You saying she doesn't care about men's issues is your own projection. Any hardships I can remember suffering as a male has been a result of heteronormative culture.
The speech was a beautiful little mask for what she's really doing. Her little he-for-she thing (what she was referencing with her "invitation" for men) does not focus on mens problems. It's literally he for she. Encouraging men to help "liberate" women in the western world by getting them more privileges under the guise of "equal rights" and it ignores men's plight (possibly aside from the whole "men can feel too" which just benefits feminism anyway) it's still not egalitarian/"humanist" and it's not a change for 3rd wave feminism at all. It's what it's always been minus the misandry
It's more than that. The expression "He for She" subjugates every single issue that men have to be less important than the issues that women purportedly face. As in, "Don't waste time focusing on your own problems; this is far more important! We'll get to you later..." And of course, later will never come. Now Emma is obviously bright enough to come up with something like this, but I have a hard time believing that she is either evil or motivated enough to do so. Which means that she was fed this by someone else, and is acting as a mouthpiece. She's been duped at best.
"Hey men! Solve our problems for us because we're enlightened, strong, empowered women! If you do it quickly, you'll get a cookie!" - Emma Watson's UN speech, abridged by Lance Meibos
People like you are like the whole "religion vs. science" crowd, like the two cannot peacefully co-exist. The way of thinking is equal to that of church of the crusades - it's US vs. THEM!!! You are disagreeable by nature, you should work on that.
I interpreted her invitation of men not as a sign of acknowledgement of their issues, but rather as just another attempt to put responsiblities on them and that is why the whole initiative she is supporting is called He for She, it is as one sided as most of the feminist crap is, Men get the blame, the responsibilities and whathaveyou, but not any kind of benefits, since it is still assumed it is their fault in the first place. So, I don't think her speech was in any way, shape or form helping to promote gender equality, but only reinforcing the exploiting nature of feminism on the backs of men even further.
Women already have equal rights. Our destinies are for the most part determined by our choices. I think feminists should focus on educating and liberating women in countries where women can't vote/drive/wear-what-they-want, etc. As for the whole "bossy" argument, I disagree. I think a male could be called "bossy" just as much as a female.
Yes, choice is the main factor that will ultimately determine how ones life plays out. Telling feminist that is the equivalent of saying women deserve to be raped. The word bossy is usually reserved for people who are in fact, bossy. Emma was called bossy at the tender age of eight and became a millionaire. To be honest I wish more people called me bossy as a kid. Ironically the character she made millions portraying was bossy. Wonder why she didn't protest that.
My 9 year old brother is the bossiest person I know, and I call him on it all the time. Bossy people are called bossy because they attempt to wield authority where they have none.
I guess Emma Watson represents a moderate, in a movement dominated by very radical views. However, I think she is a little naive; talking about 'first world problems' in front of countries with nasty dictators that might use her speech to suggest that their country really isn't that bad. Some people truly have no idea the horrors that go on in some parts of the world, and yes in many places women get the short stick. If you are (especially) a north Korean women (but definitely men aswell) you are truly oppressed and have to fear being executed or a family member being executed or being stuck in a concentration camp, many unsurprisingly try to escape; and the only real way to do it is sneak across the Chinese border and live on the run, perhaps bartering with sex in exchange for not being handed in, if you are lucky after travelling hundreds if not thousands of kilometers eventually you might arrive in Mongolia or Thailand where you can surrender to authorities and finally board a plane to South Korea where you can live in conditions that seem utopian to you.
North Korea is an odd duck, but not that odd. They have labor conscription (forced work in government authorized jobs that pay next to nothing). Of course, this conscription (like nearly all conscription, worldwide) is for men only. Women have become the primary breadwinners of the typical North Korean family, as their exemption from this form of conscription frees them to work in under-the-table cottage industries and to participate in the more lucrative black markets. In many cases, a woman can bring home 10-100 times as much income as her husband, who is *forced* to work on pain of prison for government "wages" (or promises of wages one day), while the government is essentially broke. Incidentally, some have reported that female perpetrated domestic violence is on the rise in NK, as it is in Kenya, and for similar reasons. As income-earning labor opens up to women in ways that disadvantage men--in North Korea, men are stuck with what work the government gives them, for little or no income. In Kenya, largely due to government initiatives and changes in the economy, it has become easier to find gainful employment as a woman than as a man. But oddly enough, these women seem to resent having to financially support men the way men supported women for millennia. Some of the NK women interviewed described their men as more useless than children, as at least the children could help with household chores (unlike their husbands, working 10-14 hours a day). One male politician in Kenya opined not that long ago that of course when the men aren't performing as men (bringing in money), their women will beat them, and rightly so. What was once seen as a point of pride among "evil, patriarchal" men ("no spouse of mine will ever need to work for money"), is seen as an unwanted burden on economically independent women. Evil, patriarchal lawmakers the world over, from Japanese legal custom to Sharia to Coverture, enshrined this dynamic in law--that while a woman might be economically dependent on the men in her life (husband, father or eldest brother), these men had a legal responsibility to provide for her while also respecting her dignity and honor. They wrote protections into the law, limiting the husband's power over his wife to prevent abuses, and to compensate for them once they happened. Yet in these formerly evil patriarchal societies, where men were sworn to provide for and protect their women, and who are shamed when they fail, once women gain the upper hand economically, what happens? Where is the pride for a Kenyan woman who supports her husband? For the North Korean woman whose husband is literally enslaved, to provide him the benefits his enslavement does not? ncfm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Abused-man-boycott.png You ever wonder what it must be like to be forced to work 14 hours a day for the equivalent of 4 American dollars, only to come home and have your comparatively wealthy (and free) wife call you a useless burden on her wallet? I don't think most people even remotely understand the whole picture of what is going on in these "misogynistic" countries where women are supposedly oppressed.
karen straughan Let's be honest in north Korea *everyone* is oppressed with the exception of a (mostly male) political elite. Its certainly a patriarchy (in that men hold the power) but such a description seems inadequate in the context of NK. But yeh, women are the primary breadwinners in NK which is unusual. However if you are a male in the army you do at least get some protection. I think what is undisputable is that female north korean defectors are treated much worse in China. But okay, I don't really think feminism is appropriate here, DPRK is a humanitarian crisis, and imo the worst one on the entire planet.
karen straughan From my experience, feminism let loose in places like Kenya and North Korea will rail for more economic empowerment and independence for women, while the men in those societies become worse than second class citizens. When you have (privileged male) politicians in Kenya justifying the injuries in that picture I showed you, because that man couldn't "bring home the bacon" in a country filled with women's employment initiatives that squeeze men out of the workforce (and when you have prominent Kenyan women agreeing with them!)... I can only think that this is what HeForShe will turn out to be. There are women in Middle Eastern Countries that have been the beneficiaries of western NGOs that aid women (and women alone) who have criticized western governments for ignoring their men. When women in poor and developing economies have children, they are ALWAYS better off with men who are economically competent assisting them and their children. Yet we have relegated the lion's share of the aid and initiatives for women and women alone--job training, education, food aid, medical and victim services, etc. A mother with a live husband to help her is better off than one with a dead one. A mother with an employed husband is better off than one with an unemployable, impoverished one or none at all. We in the west somehow believe that helping women means men will benefit through some vague trickle-down effect. The *entire reason we believe that* is that this is how it works in reverse. When men are better off, their women are better off. We somehow think that it's a given that if we empower women economically, these women will do what men have always done, and lift their men along with them. But in Kenya and North Korea, they haven't. In the US, they haven't. In the UK, they haven't. Women have consistently refused to fill men's shoes in this way. Millionaire men typically don't care whether the woman they marry will earn anything at all. Millionaire women want a husband who is at least as wealthy as they are, *because economically empowered women simply do not, in any reasonable numbers, want to support a man*. What will HeForShe do about this?
karen straughan You make very convincing points, I admire your very extensive general knowledge. I think then that one should be in possession of all the knowledge before doing anything rash. For DPRK I am at a loss about what can be done there, its just a disaster on the order of nazi Germany. And I struggle to see how emancipation for men or women is every going to happen there, the best case scenario I see is that the regime just spontaneously collapses (which it could easily do) and south Korea absorbs all the refugees. But even this seems like a nightmare, S korea would not be able to cope with millions of N korean refugees and China will not allow reunification. To make matters worse, NK is capable of leveling Seoul at a moments notice with their artillery and there is literally nothing the south can do. And worst case scenario we see another bloody Korean war which the South will win but at huge cost and which may in itself introduce a proxy war between the US and China. Its an explosion waiting to happen.
+Ryan Thornton An intellectual movement from the early renaissance that values human needs and empirical thinking over dogma and the sacrifice of liberties for abstract values. It doesn't have to do with especific advances for women's equality of opportunity and fair treatment, which is the role of feminism despite all the tumblr crybabies complaining about manspreading.
I should have just asked google but thanks for replying lol. I learn something new everyday. Still if you ask me, humanism has something to do with equality of the genders, and a grander scale and I think if you can really argue that it does not than the nature of its name is lost.
@Mila Jones You fool, women have more selective power in mating, so they have it better. Men chase women, women select men. Women are nature's medium for eugenics and men are nature's dice roll to see what combinations work out with women. Being a beautiful, feminine woman in today's society is the best thing that could ever happen to someone. You get so much sex and validation, which is what true happiness is centered on.
I couldn't take the speech seriously at all; she kept talking in such a trembling that made it seem like she was about to break down into tears. Did she lose her acting ability since Harry Potter? Her speech boils down to the rhetoric that men are responsible for the woes of the world and that the only way to save humanity is to subjugate the male population and make them slaves to females. The utter hilarity of a privileged child actress who was born to rich parents, has been a successful childstar who got paid more than the guy who played Ron. Lecturing people on women being oppressed. Let's not forget the hypocrisy of claiming that "masculinity" is oppressing men when she's dating a tall, bearded rugby player from Oxford. She doesn't realize that women like her have pushed men into the protector/provider role so that the best of the best can be picked out. She wouldn't look twice at a "liberated" unmasculine man(let).
I still think feminism is far beyond saving. #HeForShe couldn't make a difference even if it could be saved. It's just modern feminism with a different label. It's still saying that women should be the focus, it's still saying that men should do the brunt of the work, it's still blaming them for the nonexistent patriarchy. It's exactly the same as it was before, just said a little more softly. It's still problematic, and it should still be rejected. Feminism is not the way to equality, and neither is #HeForShe.
Honestly I think that you are giving her too much credit. Her call for actual equality is incredibly surface level when you consider the actual pledge being called for by her 'HeForShe' campaign - "I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls." Not 'faced by men and women', as true equality would suggest.
I wasn't a real honest fan of the speech, but I do know an equality movement exists. It's egalitarianism, I am apart of it. Despite modern online feminists hating us, we aren't bad people 9 times out of 10.
tee arryuuteeach Egalitarianism. We have some bad seeds, but most of us are good people, at least that I have met. We have some good feminists support.
tee arryuuteeach The ones that pretend to be egalitarians, but are actually the toxic type feminists and or the bad MRA's. However there are a lot of lies spread like saying it's an MRA project. That lie was spread by PBS, and it's rather pathetic. We want everyone to feel like they matter, no matter what you look like. So many people are like "It's mostly men" or something like that, but that's just not true.
bbomg02 It doesn't seem complicated to me. Let the laws be equal for everyone. Reduce mens prison time to that of women, who can honestly not agree with that? I don't see why this isn't obvious...and surely there's women behind this movement also, this idea would help society as a whole.
+BleedRainbows Maybe if you talk about 1st wave feminism. This 3rd wave feminism bullsh*t is nothing similar. 3rd wave feminism, contrary to damage control, is about man-hating and poor little rich girl syndrome under the guise of equality of the sexes.
+BleedRainbows If it was about equality, it wouldn't make female only scholarships, female only jobs, female only trains, and so on and so on. All of which are designed to be of a higher class than that men have access to. It's about equality in the same way Apartheid was - look at their rhetoric, it's exactly what they claimed to be about, yet all the resources mysteriously ended up in the whites section of the country.
Oh please, Emma Watson doesn't care about men's issues, as Stefan Molyneux pointed out, if she did she would have done five minutes of research on Google to understand what men feel are their issues rather than "I knew this one man once and he had problems". That would be like me standing up for Native American problems by saying " I knew a red man once and he drank a lot".
No reason for any man to break his back to salvage a movement that has destroyed the basic relationship between men and women. I disrespectful decline Ms Wattson's invitation. Feminism as a whole needs to go. Plenty of men and women suffer in various countries, feminism isn't the answer. It's basically doing what feminism has done here, putting one gender up in favor over the other. That's not equality.
Funny how I never feel one bit of attraction for feminist women, there is no looseness, relaxation and play to their personalities, no feminine energy! Yet this woman that speaks here, I find SUPER attractive even though she might be over 40. You go girl! ;-)
Attraction is based on behavior and "the feel" more than looks, I was talking about attraction. ;-) And I didn't mention dismissing I just pointed out the attraction, don't put words in my mouth. :-)
I'm not convinced. Emma's talking points are exactly what people want to hear, not what has to be said. If you want to have a truly egalitarian society with gender equality, you have to first address all the issues of inequality. She hasn't. This seems like a horrendously obvious attempt at elongating her shelf life as an actress. She's pandering to the tumblrettes and women who crave empowerment in an attempt to remain relevant in the public eye. It seems like it's doing more harm than good to her image, though.
+Call Me Ishmael It isn't. People love this stuff. Not that she's selling lies or asking for something evil, she just stated the obvious and I don't know anyone who would say "fuck you emma, I like my wymyn opressed and silent". But it sure sells.
The Emma Watson speech made me cringe. I was initially surprised she acknowledged some of the issues men face and those in the world who still do face gender discrimination, but it all seemed more a ploy to me than empathy. It was there to promote first-world feminism by employing careful tactics: use of the 'strict' definition of feminism, trying to be diplomatic in acknowledging, and hence preemptively dismissing, potential criticisms, and trying to make it seem that feminism is about ' mutual equality'. How could you not agree with her without being called a misogynist? She even stirred up Taylor Swift's passions to join in. The message she is spreading though is dangerous, misleading, and ultimately without strong leadership to contain it. The 'wage gap' is an example of the type of equality she is trying to implement: it's not about equal rights -- it's about the destruction of all gender differences. Men and women are not the same though, both have unique needs and strengths, yet the type of equality she is backing is one-sided; it's the handicapping of men. It's not about women toughening up; it's about men being whipped down. She has no intent on helping men's issues; the campaign itself is even called #heforshe. The speech was pure manipulation to win the trust of men, shame them, and then recruit them to the women's side. -- she wants women to dominate the home, work, and government; women can't have their cake and eat it too though, but that's the plan. Individualism as a women is falling through the cracks even, as women are pressured to not have families, to pursue careers they may not enjoy, and to resent men they should otherwise love. The cause needs its soldiers. The stay at home mom has become an evil that only promotes the patriarchy apparently. This regressive feminism is destroying individualism and potentially leading to a very unhappy, confused, and dwindling population. Emma Watson may mean well, but words and ideas can be far more dangerous than a thousand swords, especially when misguided. I really appreciate the factual feminists like yourself; in the modern first-world, feminism has become sickly, hijacked and needs rescuing. The feminist movement seems to be running full tilt into Marxist ideologies and without any sense of consequence; where have we seen this before? The issues I have taken up include the education system, which is greatly rigged for one style of learning, and mental health awareness. I am struggling with personal relationship dynamics as well, but all I need to do is find just one great lady; shouldn't' be hard, right? ha!
I really didn't see anything positive from this. She paid lip service to some men's issues and women in regions where feminists will never go, pretended that the belief that feminism is loaded with hatred and bigotry is baseless, and concluded that the way to solve men's issues is, in keeping with modern feminism, to ignore men completely except to get them to pledge to better serve women. Heforshe could not be more straightforward in that regard.
I thought it was a moderate feminist speech, and an improvement on the usual condescending or bossy tones. But what Emma Watson gained by recognizing the importance of fathers and the high male suicide rates, she threw away in the "He for She" idea. I was always under the impression that feminism was about inspiring, mobilizing, and empowering women, and not in using men to give them whatever they want. I was under the impression that the liberation of women included reducing their dependency on men, and getting them to realize how much power they have on their own. "He for She" is explicitly an attempt to do the opposite. To shelter women from the harsh realities of the world, a call for genteel knights to save their princesses in distress. Not that there's anything wrong with that! I'm a man, and I love to help a woman when she's in trouble. But don't call it "equality" when I do it. Don't call it "empowering women" when I solve a problem for her. I maybe dumb, but I'm not stupid! I'd like at least a "thank you" for my trouble. It's not equalism if "he" is taking all the risk for "she."
Everyone seems to miss the point that Ms. Sommers is trying to put forth here. Watson did not use foul language, ad hominem arguments, or any of the other tactics used by new-wave feminists. She was respectful, and acknowledged the plight of men as well as women, not just in the developed world, but world wide. She advocates "equalism" (which is really just egalitarianism, but still), and doesn't try to frame all men as the oppressors. She's simply trying to say that both genders have their struggles, and we as humans have to work together to fix them.
+TheDukeOfHazzard "We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled." ~ Emma Watson Stereotyping men as being aggressive and controlling... Check. Stereotyping women of being victims of this toxic masculinity... Check. Sorry, just the same smelly shit concealed in a better laid out container.
***** I read it as Watson saying that societal expectations of men are what further the narrative that men are aggressive and women are victimized, not the opinion that men are inherently aggressive. Women are, though, still told to play the victim card, but this is only because SJWs love the idea of men being evil. I don't exactly agree with everything she says, but it's nice to hear someone who isn't a complete and total radical on the subject.
TheDukeOfHazzard You want to see it, in Emma Watson coloured glasses, be my guest. I'm a little more skeptical, as I said in my first comment about "smelly shit concealed in a better laid out container" stands for me because, and not limited to, she is a patriarchal feminist. It is in her speech. She drivels the equal pay :Wage Gap" nonsense as well, even more reason to state patriarchal feminist at her. And when you hear "oppressive" over and over again, well? Remember... Male victimizer, Female Victim. When men change, it will benefit all of us of course... Because no way in high fucking heaven will we change our ways... We have more rights than ever and we ain't about to give any of them up. Go equality...
***** I guess I'm just viewing her speech relative to the normal feminist rhetoric I hear. On first listen, she just sounds kinder and calmer than what I usually hear. But you make some very good points.
Men make more because we are more likely to take on jobs that require more training, work longer hours, and take on more hazardous jobs. Sure a man and woman may work the same job, with the same skill sets, but the man is more likely to work longer hours. Those extra hours have to be compensated, so men are paid more. Men are also more likely than women to negotiate their pay. If women fail to negotiate for a higher salary and then accuse men of being paid more, who is really to be blamed? The one that negotiates for more or the one who accepts what they're given? It's not as if women are barred from negotiating their salary/pay.
Emma Watson did a tremendous job in her speech but she invited men to take part in a discussion where the response waiting for us was "shut up and listen." We need to directly tackle this notion that for women to take a step forward men must take 3 steps back and the scarier notion that if your a white male heterosexual your opinions/ideas (regardless of how good) don't matter because enough such people have been praised. We need to call these "tumblr" feminists to account for their BS and judge contributors based on the merits of their arguments. Until we do the only thing we're "invited" to is a lecture from "feminists" on how we are the problem and that will simply turn men away.
No, I just can't see that positive spin on it. the entire 'He For She' framing is a bad one that caused a decent wave of backlash almost instantly. It was more an attempt an neuro-linguistic programming than genuine egalitarianism. It had a strong vibe of 'we should be equal, so you should make that happen for us' to it. Sorry. Not buying it.
Am I the only one that notices this: She is a multi-millionaire, who was given huge opportunities in life that nobody else was and she complains about being "not treated fairly" by men and by society? Oh C'mon! And everybody listens to her! You know why? Because of her pretty face and we want to raise our score with her subconsciously. We are already losers if we listen to her. Could anybody just imagine any young man being Ever invited to UN to talk about Any real issues of men? Like slavery, abuse in military service, being bullied, ripped in court, or just being paid fairly! This is so hypocritical it's just infuriating! This shows just HOW POWERFUL women have become in this world. This is a Queen wanting even more power, and using her "niceness" and naiveness as a weapon to disarm us and make us listen to this propaganda. And we as men should support these women and their policies that abuse us All The Time, that never care about us? What are we, animals? It should be the other way around, it's the Women should team up and Finally START Supporting Their MEN! Or else your lives are useless, with all education in the world and all the money will never buy you love and adoration of a man. Your young years will pass, soon you will no longer be "pretty Emman Watson" almost a child. Soon you will be an old woman and then nobody will listen to you, because nobody will want to score with you anymore. Welcome to the real life.
Naomi Just don't do that stuff then. It's 2017; this is the most liberated country on earth and it's the most liberated time in history. Someone saying "you're bossy" isn't oppression worthy of a un meeting. I might as well call trump and tell him to come ask my coworkers to stop bullying me. Just do whatever you want. Any males who don't like your progress are just being bitches or maybe they're just intimidated. Which also makes them bitches. Just ride it out and chase it down, whatever you want. Let the haters hate type thing. They'll be sorry when they start working for you (if you make it).
Naomi Your reproductive rights haven't been taken away. This is the most peaceful and liberated time in history, and you're in downtown liberation central. This is according to numbers which don't rely on these emotional rants. Your logic doesn't make sense - every day sexism = unequal to men = earth shattering. Every day sexism = saying you're bossy. Therefore, in your logic string, saying you're bossy = earth shattering. This is the problem - you say something and then say you mean something you can't mean by that. And I just proved it but you still won't listen. This is all emotion. You're not oppressed, nothing is wrong, there is no wage gap and this is horse shit. Get over yourself.
Naomi Okay, again - talk to me pragmatically. This is all soaked in feelings. I just want numbers and logic strings or I'm not dealing with it. And the reason you can't do that is because if you used pure fact and numerical representation, which is the only way to not skew stuff, you have no argument.
Naomi You said "being told we are bossy isn't earth shattering". Then you went on to detail that it's part of a sexist agenda. Which I can assume IS a big problem or else you wouldn't have said it. so its like this: bossy = non earth shattering bossy = part of earth shattering sexist agenda = earth shattering bossy = part of sexist agenda bossy = earth shattering This is the problem. I'm using simple logic and you can't follow it. You're saying one thing and then saying you're not saying it, just like I said before and then I even predicted that if I laid it out in rhythmic equation for a simpleton to even see, you would just pretend it isn't real and not count it. Math itself says you have no idea what you're talking about. But that doesn't matter - your feelings guide you, I guess. I don't know it but that's all I can guess.
They literally resorted to book burning? Do they realize the connotation related to book burning? It's worse than putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala" because you're not only narrow minded but you want to kill information.
"By definition, feminism is the belief that...", "it is the theory of...". *Choose one.* Feminism cannot be both, devoid of interpretation and based on a certain interpretation at the same time. Believing in equality is *NOT* the same as having a specific hypothesis on what the root of inequality and its solutions are.
Feminists keep saying that all they want is equal rights, but they already have them. And that they want equal opportunity, but what they really want is preferential treatment. Which is not the same as equal opportunity. And they want freedom from responsibility, which is something that nobody can have in a free country. But most of all, what they want is praise. But that is not something that anybody owes you.
HeForShe, they couldn't have picked a more miserable title for an equality movement could they? this sounds like "teach men not to rape" without ever uttering those words
Emma Watson's speech acknowledged some men's issues, but then quickly turned the topic towards ways men could help women rather than how we could all help each other. That left a sour taste in my mouth. If gender equality and liberation for all is the goal, then why did she propose "he for she" as opposed to "he and she for us"?
I agree that her heart is mostly in the right place, but from listening to her, I could still hear a lot of what is wrong with some feminists' logic. Certainly a step in the right direction from the extremists, but nowhere near as good as would be required for true equality to be the pursuit and end of a movement she might lead in my eyes.
Help men, help women, but who is going to help tortured murdered animals, living in horrendous conditions and murdered after a couple years of miserable "life"? Tens of thousands each minute all over the world.
Oh god I just cant listen to Emma. No matter what good you might have to say, dont try to convince me by using a sobbing voice. Does she think this triggers some kind of protection instinct?
It's calculated acting designed to draw sympathy from the audience. She's appealing to a man's instinctual desire to protect a woman in distress (an emotion which coincidentally, women are particularly adept at expressing outwardly, as Emma showed us). Which is ironic because feminists should technically be trying to tear down such gender stereotypes, right? Calling for an end to gender stereotypes while simultaneously appealing to them? That's some duplicitous shit.
kaikou1098 _"Which is ironic because feminists should technically be trying to tear down such gender stereotypes, shouldn't they?"_ You're new to this, right? Hypocrisy is a core aspect of feminism. Double standards are 'how they roll'. _"I guess it's only the gender stereotypes that they don't directly benefit from that they're trying to tear down."_ BINGO. This is why logic terrifies them. No rational person stays under their spell for long when presented with the truth.
Insightful comments so far, but there's still one thing I didn't see mentioned: When Ms Watson talked about the issues men faced, all she talked about was what "she saw". And the points she highlighted are known, among the MHRM, as the least important. She made it clear that she did no real research into the topics that are 'actually' important to men, let alone actually talk to anyone advocating for men. This comes back down to Feminism telling men what it thinks they need, rather than asking them what they actually need. Many comments already pointed out the clearly one-sided "heFORshe". Ms Watson did not empower women but rather just call for men to help with women's problems, while very clearly not caring for what problems men face themselves. Sadly, while her heart might be in the right place, this seems like more of the same. Ms Watson just dressed up the same talking points we've heard time and again without actually showing any signs of a conversation. Whenever you hear a speaker fall back on "the definition of feminism" it shows that they don't want to acknowledge what the movement 'is actually doing'. It feels like she's just drawing attention away from the problems within the movement to continue perpetuating the status quo of female victimhood instituted by modern Feminism. In the end, this will change nothing. And sadly, I have little faith in the millennials generation to see through the hate and actually push for the good of all and not just those like them.
I have to disagree since she says we think that feminists are man haters instead of admitting almost every vocal feminist is a man hater right now. I can't expect her to know that since she has not lived in the real world where things are not scripted for her in over a decade. She needed to say that feminists need to stop going to things like comicons and demand that such and such is sexist (like cosplayers) when she didn't want to go in the first place, only change it to her will and never go again. It is all well and good to say "men are included but she must face the fact that every, EVERY, MRM event is protested to some degree and that it is considered a good thing.
No they're not. It's just that calm and rational people don't make for very punchy news, and the media long lost interest in factual representation. If you can't spin it controversially, it's rarely news anymore.
***** You just defined non-vocal and then agreed. I am on social media waiting for them to say loudly and by the thousands or I stand by my "every vocal feminist is a man hater right now".
Exactly my point. Social media is not a realistic representation of the world. Social media is the equivalent of farting into a vacuum. There are billions of people in this world. They are a speck in the grand scheme of humanity.
***** Again you agreed with me, they are not vocal. Tip => get online: make websites make facebook pages, they likely have facebook harass news stations to get on TV Start hashtags make youtube videos It is not that hard to get out there and say "patriarchy" is bullshit and we both have problems, equally, not "it is mostly women so we need to fuck over college guys" and "all men are rapists" and "men who don't rape are still rape apologists" and "anyone who isn't a feminist is a bigot, sexist, cis, white, male" but in a whisper saying "oh ya, men have all of these problems too".
Emma really just came across as unknowledgable. Almost everything she said was over-generalized to a T. She herself cannot speak on behalf of many women she "may be speaking for since she herself has been heavily privelaged for most of her life. Seriously this woman hasn't had to struggle a day in her life.
I felt her speech was a very polite way of saying, "Come on men, help yourselves by helping women. Once women have their problems solved, yours will just go away".
Watson's speech is at odds with HeForShe's gender-biased mission statement: "Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by WOMEN and GIRLS." and "Join the solidarity movement and spread the word. Share this with the MEN in your life." This doesn't sound like an egalitarian movement to me. It sounds more like Feminism trying to mask its antagonism, and they want men to rally behind it. I'm not convinced.
Note upfront: my apologies if I misuse "feminism" here. To me it's mostly synonymous with ideological radfem at this stage, and I think this comment would become unclear if I keep trying to make the distinction; consider it noted, and my apologies. To me it felt like these were two speeches blended together. On one hand, it's perhaps a bit like after a couples fight... feminism has gone too far, and increasingly many people have decided not to put up with it anymore. Her speech had some aspects of that "guilty side" trying to start reconciliation. She admitted men face some problems. That is a step. More so, she acknowledged that we feel feminism is hateful towards men. But there it stopped. She didn't say "feminists should stop hating men", but only that the perception of that needs to stop. If this were a dialogue, that'd be the obvious response: we'll stop the perception once we believe "you" will stop the hate itself. So overall, that part could have served as trying to re-open the dialogue. It's not an offer I can accept, but it's an opening bid that could open a door. === She made some comments in there that she shouldn't have. Her little bit about what "sexism" she herself endured (topped off with mentioning that boys couldn't express their emotions)... not a good appeaser. If her main problems are things like being called bossy, while men are dying half a decade earlier... I think we can skimp on the sympathy there. Likewise on her bit on "feminism is perceived as so and so". She describes it as if it's a branding problem, bad PR. Well, quite true... only it's that we're seeing how bad the product is getting, and getting fed up with the PR itself. Stop telling us feminism is about equality: make sure to talk about equality. And when feminism is "unattractive"... don't treat that as a PR problem, but consider if the product may be bad. Just some things I noted, and this is by memory; do correct me if I'm wrong. ==== It went completely off the rails as she came to the point. "He for She". To continue the analogy. When a girlfriend (or boyfriend/husband/whatever) tries to make up, and you're about to give them another chance... and then the next thing is "by the way, can you help me out with this big thing?"... what are we supposed to believe? It looks like manipulation 101. Appeasing merely to get more out of us. And that's starting to fall apart: people are seeing through it, and it only makes us more angry. We feel used, manipulated. She's not solving that by doing essentially the same thing again. She could have redeemed this. If she had made it clear that feminism in the West has reached its goals almost entirely, and that she wants that exported to other countries... I could agree with that (although it's questionable whether that's our choice to make). But as far as I saw, she did not draw that distinction. Final note, which lies at the heart of this. "He for she" is a sexist statement. It's designating one half of the population as the helpless, and the other half as their servants. Which is at the core of what sexism has always been about: men holding the power ànd the obligations, while women aren't self-reliant, but receive whatever help they ask for. You cannot fight sexism with more sexism. True equality cannot be reached by any effort of "he for she". Women must take equality - as a package deal, not just the nice parts - and men must simply allow that. And in some respects, of course, also the reverse. ==== In conclusion, while some bits were interesting, the overall picture didn't convince me. It seems to me that she's not concerned about the damage [radical] feminism does, the hatred it spreads, the sexism it unwittingly promotes. It looks to me like she's offering the same product, not even bothering to change the brand name, merely trying a new marketing approach. One may be right to call me cynical on this. I think it's a fitting response. If Emma Watson wants to show that she is serious about a "peace offering", she'll have to make a real one. And I suspect the moment she does that, she'll lose the support of the wider feminist movement.... because it's an ideology. It cannot admit when it's wrong. Long enough for a textwall. Hope it's useful feedback :).
The very term "feminism" is inherently not equal. However, true egalitarianism is ridiculous. Men and women has strengths that weaknesses that compliment one another. Trying to say all men and women are equal is like saying that "all tomatoes are oranges". Yes, they are fruits, yes, they supply a variety of vitamins that, together, give your body a better overall health but they are *NOT* the same thing. Equal opportunity should be had but *outcome* should *NEVER* be equal, it should be based on your ability not your gender or race. Why the hell can't people see that?
How is a millionaire movie-star representing the oppressed?! Fuck me, every celebrity wants to be an Ambassador - what about us? Do I need to be in eight hugely successful films to be heard? Because I'll do it!
Lee Carler Is she bollocks, mate. If that were the case, she would have done it before releasing her fashion line. She is trying to further her career under the guise of compassion.
the speech was awful. basically her opening salvo is the pathetic "websters dictionary defines" trope of debate. she sounds like she is going to cry the entire time. no acknowledgement of the wayward ideological views of feminism that do more damage than good. the damn yawn inspiring "wage gap" myth. the manufactured, one sided story of being called bossy, when it sounds like, in fact, she WAS being bossy. "i want to!" doesnt mean you get to direct the play, thats called entitlement. acting like she is somehow oppressed, despite being a privileged millionaire movie star. her presumptuous and embarrassing claims on what boys and men "want to be", and anecdotal "boys dont share feelings!" personal experiences. factual feminist is just too kind. no one wants to lambaste hermoine, but give me a break, she deserves a serious dressing down for this man shaming, victim cult propaganda. feminists, dont piggyback your damn petty first world problems on the real problems facing women in other cultures, and dont assume that they agree with you on everything. that is an incredibly self-important display of narcissism.
Every time I watch one of your videos I just want to stand up and cheer. I like to think I am a feminist, but as a 30 year old white male, I can't help but feel I am not welcome in being a feminist, even though I personally feel very strongly about equal rights. But I cannot agree with every random complaint that becomes the new "front line" in the feminist/patriachy wars. So glad there are real feminists like you out there, just wish we could all listen to you more, and stop giving so much attention to the hypocritical feminists. "sexual equality! down with men!"
She's an actress. An actress who reads other people's lines. As a research interviewer, basically a watered down version of the exact same thing, I recognize when someone else's lines are being read. Maybe some of that pap she actually believes, maybe not, but I'll tell you one thing -- she sure as hell didn't write it herself, and she needs more experience with a teleprompter before she tries that angle again. It was way hollow and false to anyone who knows what they're listening for.
I'll do you one better -- not only was that someone else's words prepared for her, but she wasn't comfortable reading them. If you're going to give a speech and the words you speak are your words, you'll go off script and speak off the cuff from time to time and it comes across in your own natural tones. The only time that never happens is when you are FORBIDDEN to do it. Watson didn't even come close to doing that. I'll grant she's nervous, but even a nervous actress would go off the cuff a few times, probably even more so than if she was perfectly calm. Instead she was carefully rehearsed from word one. Someone's controlling the message. Emma Watson is just the face they chose to put to it.
That means very little. Presidents don't write their own speeches, but I think few would argue that a President's speech isn't his ideas. She probably hired a professional speech writer (it's not like she doesn't have the resources), rehearse the speech (given where she was giving it, I think anyone would.) For the record, I'm not completely on board with her. There are a few things I would like to see feminist do before I cast in my lot (like denounce Amanad Marcotte.)
Like Reagan, hate Reagan, his ability (or that of his handlers) to weave through the foreign policy tangle at the end of the Cold War bordered on genius, and no President since (with the possible exception of Clinton) has shown anywhere near his level of brass cojones.
hagamapama He was acting the entire time, and honestly if you think that there weren't soviet officials dying to bring down the iron curtain so they could get rich you're living in disneyland. He was just a piece of a huge moneymaking scheme.
I've never understood feminism. I never lived with it. I only heard about the movement in the last 3-4 years and I got a very negative view of it. I've never understood these people calling for the women to be more like men or vice versa for women. Technically, if they believe in a patriarchy, they're striving for a matriarchy. I didn't believe in just looking at a definition of feminism to understand it. I'd rather have looked at the actions of those labeling themselves as feminist. I saw a number of intolerant people that looked to hide behind a label and not stand up for anything that they supposedly fought for. I saw an ideologically based group that hides behind buzzwords and faith instead of logic and reason. I recoiled in horror because such things are sophist in nature to me and not Socratic. I do hope that there is a new way for feminism because such hatred and bigotry are improper and unpopular. But it can't be done if so many people are intolerant of other views and hide in bubbles from public spaces. It's time for feminism, if people believe in it, to really take a hard look at itself and see what it has to offer and how it's planning to get there because as it stands, it's got a lot of growing up to do.
As a male I have long considered myself a feminist until recently because of the more current definition. your channel has re- affirmed my hope that men and women can find an equal middle ground.
my household feminist strategy - get my girls dirt bikes - get them skating and playing hockey - come with pops to shoot a deer to feed ourselves - cause we are poor deplorables
Book-burning????Lmao! Emma Watson actually thinks she's as smart as Hermione Granger. Hermione READS...she doesn't just wake up with ideas she just imagined😂 This is why I personally think celebrities should keep their thoughts to themselves, they're just way to stuck in their own world to understand our reality
I'm surprised by your view on her speech. I think it was basically what so many feminists say today, the give pretty words with negative intent. For example with her "If men didn't feel the need to control they wouldn't control women" thing, basically saying that the male problem is that men are being a problem and the female problem is that they are dealing with the male problem. Her speech was devoid of accuracy. I won't lie, she seems like she may care about equality, I get that impression but I may be wrong. I definitely don't believe she made the speech, it was prepared by someone else and she is only the talking figure head believing what she is told rather than doing her own research,
Christina, I admire you for being a rational and non-hateful woman, but I am well immunized against that kind of optimism. As a man, knowing that a panel of women and a whole audience full of women can laugh about a man's dismemberment for 20 minutes on national television, all the while speculating about the horrible things he MUST have done to deserve it, and what sorts of things might motivate THEM to commit the same crime, I can't help but build up a thick skin to block even cautious optimism about a future where men and women are not at war with each other. When Emma brings up the dictionary definition of feminism, I cringe thinking of the semantic dishonesty inherent in that, and how that same dishonesty has been used over and over again to get men to fight against their own best interests. On the surface, Emma seems genuine and goodhearted, and that is exactly what I don't trust about her. I have grown to distrust people who seem genuine, because if a person really was genuine they wouldn't have to seem genuine. Real genuineness comes when a person doesn't care whether or not another person likes them or wants to join their club, and simply says what's on their mind, warts and all. So as much as a part of me still wants to see the goodhearted humanness of Emma, the fact is that, as MRA's have been pointing out ever since Emma made her speech, she has used the same ideological points that gender feminists have been using for the past 40 years, only couching them in friendlier terms. She even explicitly put the furtherance of women's goals first, before even a single men's issue could be addressed. So, if Emma really is changing the direction of feminism, since this is not magic, and faith is therefore not required, I will believe it when I see it. And if she wants to prove it to me, she can address the following issues: 1) No one can support a worldwide ban on forced FGM while opposing similar legislation against forced MGM and still believe in equality. 2) No one can support putting the onus on the defendant in a rape trial to prove his (or her) innocence, OR support a one sided definition of rape that excludes forced envelopment, OR support the status quo that women (but not men) avoid prosecution for making false rape allegations even when there is proof, while still believing in equality. 3) No one can accept the status quo that women are consistently treated with greater leniency at all levels of the criminal justice system, OR use statistics generated by such an unequal application of law to support the notion that men are either more violent than women or in any way more criminal, while still believing in equality. 4) No one can support a gender biased draft OR oppose the draft on grounds of equality while nevertheless not lifting one finger to end it, while still believing in equality. 5) No one can support marriage and divorce laws that encourage hypergamous behavior known to be engaged in by one gender more than the other OR support divorce laws that have no presumption of shared parenting, while still believing in equality. 6) No one can deny the value of the risks men consistently take on to themselves either to support women or to prevent women from having to take the same risks, thus creating an impression of male disposability OR produce literature or other works that encourage male disposability, while still believing in equality. 7) No one can hold violence by men against women to be heinous, while holding violence by women against men to be normal, impossible, or otherwise not worthy of note OR advocate the establishment of special shelters for female victims of domestic violence while opposing the establishment of shelters for male victims of domestic violence, while still believing in equality.
I disagree with you about everything you have said in your analysis of Emma Watson's speech. Her movement is called "He For She". In other words, men have to fall behind, be subordinate to woman. That woman, in her view are still the oppressed minority. (which they are in many third world countries but not in the west, where Ms Watson has lived all her life.). Besides which, Ms Watson is a young woman who has spent most of her formative teenage years on a film set and as a result is very rich, to boot. As a young, rich, privileged western woman I don't see she has a lot to offer until she has a few more decades under her belt and grown up a lot.
Plenty of women are already doing countless hard work towards equality for their gender (as men should also do for theirs). Working together for both goes a long way.
***** Sorry I think you misunderstood what I said drastically. Women need to be responsible for themselves, because they are perfectly capable of doing so, just like men. I stand by my statement.
Spikes D Agreed. Part of the problem is that NEITHER men NOR women are biologically hard wired for... pure fiat equality is the way I want to put it. Men are not women, and women are not men, and how we're hard wired to react in the presence of the other is such an integral part to our humanity that there's only so much you can do to alter it. Where Feminism fails is in making that all men's fault, and refusing all blame to themselves or to simple biochemistry.
Christina Hoff Sommers: Erin Pizzey went too far by supporting MRA and caring about male victims of domestic violence. Christina Hoff Sommers: We should support heforshe, as it is feminism done right. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with Sommers?
Disappointed you didn't address the "He for She" problem. At the core thesis this is once again about men bearing the burden of so-called equality. I think we've done more than our share
I really needed to see this video. There is so much negativity out there it's great to see some positivity. Especially if it's about Emma Watson, since I grew up with Harry Potter, she holds a special place in my heart. And I do appreciate that you point out the cringe moments as that is how you do good critique. Point out the good and the bad, just like we should do in feminism.
This is by far the most disappointing Sommers talk that I have ever listened to. Heforshe is more of the same crap, and this speech didn't address any of the real male issues. This is just more special pleading for women and their privileges. Sommers should not have fallen for this charade.
I have to agree with what you say. Sadly, I had the same disappointment with CHS ultimate conclusion. I formed the impression that CHS really wants this to be the resurgence of a new egalitarian feminism that respects and includes men - however it's clear that is nowhere in this UN speech. I continue to enjoy and learn from CHS work, she is a highly intelligent woman. This time however she missed the mark somewhat.
This was a UN Speech . its rare that real problems get addressed there. I think this is a case where Christina really just wanted to see something that wasn't there. Obviously a downside of being an optimistic person :)
In Emmas speach she said that feminism is by definition equality for everyone, it isn't and its wrong. By definition it stand for the rights and equal treatment of women, it doesn't stand for the rights and equal treatment of everyone. It egalitarianism that stand for the equal treatment of everyone, not feminism.
+Cloud Seeker She didn't say "equality for everyone" she said equality of the sexes... the difference here is that egalitarianism is by definition equailty of EVERY single human being on the planet. Feminism is by definition only focussed on the equality of sexes. (third wave feminism aside)
Cloud Seeker no not really... there's a subtle difference Gender equality: people are treated the same regardless of sex Egalitarian equality: Everyone is treated the same regardless of sex, *race, sexuality, hair color, or whatever biological or social difference you can come up with.* Egalitarianism is more adamant about equality, basically.
The danger of equalism is that people can mistake it for identicalism. And in that case, things can go wrong again. We should have rights to our gender that would allow us to be best of ourselves.
I'm getting kind of tired of leftists using celebrities to push their perspectives and or agenda. I'm sorry but I can't seem to trust people whose job it is to lie about who they are. And to be honest she seemed really shaky and nervous giving this presentation. This looks like a paid job to me.
How is "He for She" in anyway egalitarian? She never called out women and invited them to help solve the issues men face. Who's the UN ambassador for men? I do not enjoy being told that I am the problem for being born a man, and then "invited" to solve the problem of myself.
You're probably not even completely human! :\
LickTheEnvelope Are most of us like 1% Neanderthal?
Well said. I think it seems egalitarian to Hoff-Summers only because, relatively speaking, it was a nicer speech than that one saying "You fucking male scum".... or Big Red saying "Patriarchy....Shut the fuck up... Cry me a river... Fuckface".
Absolutely brilliant. Well said
P.S. 142 more signatures needed here: www.change.org/p/united-nations-creation-of-bureaus-within-the-unitednations-securing-and-promoting-equal-gender-rights-for-men-and-boys
I hate it when people (especially celebrities like her) say that "By definition, feminism is about equality".
1) That's not true, feminism is about giving women equal rights to men. Hence the name, FEMinism.
I don't have any problem if someone wants to only focus on women's problem, but I hate it when they pretend that their movement cares about both sexes when it clearly doesn't.
2) Movements aren't defined by their definition but by the actions taken within the movement.
Even if her "definition" of feminism was true (which it isn't), that's not what feminists are portraying.
True I think its stupid. I prefer the name equalitism anyway. But I find many 'feminists' gloss over the laws that oppress men e.g. a woman can't rape a man I mean what a load of bullshit rape is rape regardless if I say no I mean no and if a girl holds me down and tries t rape I'm gonna punch that woman in the face, but Same goes if a man tries to rape me I'll punch him I'll punch anything (maybe not a puppy) in self defense. But tbh it'll probably break my fist and do nothing to my attacker I'm pathetic like that.
mrhappyjuice Be a good idea to take a self defense course then, or if you have the time and dedication then you can pursue a real (non-sport) martial art. I would recommend the Bujinkan, but anything that focuses on real 200+ year old martial arts traditions without bringing a sports element or commercialized element into it is good. (Ok, krav maga is only about 80 years old but it is probably good too.)
At any rate, yeah, proper self defense. (Since you are a guy, I am going to make the assumption you are not going to freak out about victim blaming for me recommending that.) I can tell just by you saying you would punch your attacker that your martial skills are lacking. Someone who is properly trained has far more effective means than punching to deal with an attacker. For instance, you would not believe how effective a strike with the side of the hand can be so long as you are actually doing it right and not just imitating the stupid "karate chop" as depicted by an 80s american martial arts movie. Those are wrong and completely ineffective, but a properly thrown knife-hand strike can be far more damaging than a punch could ever be. Those strikes were actually originally engineered to break a person's neck, and only the slightest twist of the hand into a palm-strike can break a person's nose and give you the option of gouging the eyes. That is just in the area of strikes. Grabs and grappling can get infinitely nastier than any of the stuff that I just got done laying out.
***** i know but I'm too lazy for that. I only said punch because it sounded cooler my actual defense is to bite. Which I have done many times to get myself out of headlocks and it works a charm. But I also like to kick and dodge because I'm fast and flexible but I've never actually got into a real fight and if I did I'd probably kick hard and run. I have no dognity .
*dignity
mrhappyjuice There is no dignity in a fight. Whatever gets you out alive, that's the rule.
Anyway, yes a full fledged martial art takes quite a bit of dedication, but a self defense course will get you adequately up to snuff in just a week or so and open you up to a few of the options you have.
I must have been watching a different speech. All I saw was yet another call for men to step up and support women. She threw a few bones to men, but then reiterated that the way to solve men's problems was for men to yet again prioritise the needs of women above their own.
To me this is just more feminist bigotry; a transparent attempt to candy-coat a nasty ideology that has been spewing hatred at men for decades. Feminism is beginning to try to re-package itself as more man-friendly, not to help men, but to shore up its fading support base among men.
Watson pointed out that feminism is seen by many as a hate movement, but she made no effort to address the very substantial reasons as to why it is seen that way.
There has been no sign from any feminist organisation or lobby group that feminism is interested in any kind of real equality; not anywhere in the last forty years at least. Emma Watson brought nothing new to the table except yet another polite invitation for men to support a movement that marginalises and degrades them and casts them as inherently deviant and dangerous.
The same feminist arrogance is still seeping through every sentence of Watson's speech; the idea that men have any responsibility to women or any obligation to support women. They don't.
Personally I prefer feminists like Robin Morgan and Germaine Greer. Bitter hate-mongers they may be, but at least they're honest about it. If you want to support a hate movement, then at least have the courage and honesty to wear the badge.
|the idea that men have any responsibility to women or any obligation to support women. They don't.|
They do. The fact that feminism abuses this does not entitle us to deny it. I understand why that is your response but it is not the correct response. Chivalry is hard wired into us biologically for a reason. They need us. We need them.
What feminists need to understand is that when either side ignores or abuses the other, the balance is wrong and society suffers. And that this can happen *from either vector,* men *or women* can abuse each other, and it's a crime and a shame either way.
Lana Voreskova Thank you for saying this, you cannot get enough upvotes for this comment.
hagamapama
Men have an obligation to "support" women?
Wrong.
Men have a natural inclination to support women, sure. But to think of it as an obligation is fascist in nature, to embrace or deny this inclination is a question of individual freedom.
Lana, you are Exactly Right!
Well, in their feminine, manipulative ways, they try to sit on 2 opposing chairs at the same time.
As ever you've got one of the best points in general. Spasibo. We already have egalitarianism, humanism or general human rights.
I remember another group that burned books, they were also pretty extreme and devout. I think they had something to do with a second world war?
+Cairanmac1 Contemporary radical feminists remind me so much of "Fahrenheit 451".
+HenriFaust EXACTLY!!!!!
+Cairanmac1 who?
+Cairanmac1 How about the nutjobs burning Quarans in Florida?
DrummerDG How about those nutjobs burning buildings in Syria?
As I remember Heinrich Heine ever write: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." ("Where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings too.")."
back in the 60ies hippies burn books!
In AD 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of 'Amr ibn al-'As. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar.[39][40] Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the 13th century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.
The Nazi book burnings were a campaign conducted by the German Student Union (the "DSt") to ceremonially burn books in Nazi Germany and Austria in the 1930s. The books targeted for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. These included books written by Jewish, pacifist, religious, classical liberal, anarchist, socialist, and communist authors, among others.[1] The first books burned were those of Karl Marx and Karl Kautsky.[2]
A quick visit to wiki will help clear some of the wrong info that you have :)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria#Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt
Christoph Gould what is stupid is claiming that a historical event did take place only on one's assumption, as for me quoting Wikipedia what is the problem with that? Is Wikipedia trying to cover Islamic atrocities ? Or is there a Wikipedia conspiracy to hide the Muslim burning of the library? And btw we know for sure that the Romans did actually burn the library, I don't see u mentioning that though, nor do u link Romans to Nazis, now I don't know what are u trying to prove, by mentioning Muslims with Nazis but next time at least try to cite any source instead of accusing someone based on Ur own assumptions and theories
We know for sure? Well... Go back a bit further in history and read up on someone who most likely had much unknown literature of his own burnt in the fire, "I know one thing; that I know nothing" I can't debate an idiot sorry :)
I'd call myself an egalitarian/equalist because I just think its definition applies more to my views. Feminism is for my taste a tad bit too gender-centric but I'd never disapprove of it because of few bad apples. People unfortunately tend to generalize members of its entire movement (that's divided into many submovements) and label them all as man-hating idiots which is simply not true. I think reasonable feminists like Christina H. Sommers are needed for true gender equality.
It's not that Norah it's that the actions taken in the name of modern feminism are generally man-hating and the ultimate goal is at odds with the best interest of the majority, IMO. You can still be a wonderful person as a feminist, no doubt, but when you don't call out the injustices it becomes a major issue. That's why i'm really not a fan of Emma Watson implying men need to fix feminism. BS, feminists need to fix feminism.
LickTheEnvelope It's true and I don't disagree with the fact that there are many extremists (*cough* tumblr *cough*) among the movement, but I'm just trying to say that generalizing all feminists is at least in my opinion unhealthy because it leads to people associating it with only radical misandrists who are using its ideology to get the upper hand instead of trying to achieve actual equality between men and women. Calling people out on their actions might be helpful, I personally think it'd be better to ignore them and not give them any attention at all and focus on the good kind. I wish people (especially those extremists) would be capable of having civil debates without having to point fingers at each other. It's gotten so rare these days unfortunately.
Norah Slade It's not that they are all misandrists it's that the final solution of all feminists is the same thing, many of them are just oblivious to what it actually means.
what about it's ideology, and it's main actions and voices?
Feminism has never been for equality.
Her speech was passable. Her pledge was overtly discriminatory. "ending gender discrimination faced by WOMEN AND GIRLS" the boys and men didn't even get a look in. Whilst her speech may have been enough for me to point to her as an example of "good feminism", the campaign she supported actually had NOTHING to do with helping men or boys. It was a blatant, transparent call for chivalry.
Men were given the responsibility (HeFor), and women the reward (She). As usual.
I'm surprised you haven't made a video about this.
6oodfella
I've been super busy with a dozen things, and I've got one scripted. But I've also got another one in the works for Inside-Man, and a host of other stuff I'm working on. If all goes well, I should have my video on NAFALT (not specifically the speech but one of the points raised) up by the end of the week.
I don't think her speech was very good at all, or gives an example of good feminism. When she is spewing out nonsense like the whole "i was called BOSSY" stuff and the wage gap myth, it's clear she has either not done her research at all or is just lapping up what feminists are telling her without thinking.
When I try to understand their rationale for not the slightest proposal to help man and boys all I can find is that they think that this help will somehow happen automatically when women are no longer oppressed.
Fantango
Read the pledge. "ending gender discrimination faced by WOMEN AND GIRLS"
i.e: ending gender discrimination faced by everyone except men and boys.
Frankly, I don't see Emma Watson's efforts as positive. Yeah she's not as militant as some others, and I guess she's trying to re(re)define the term "feminism", but ultimately she's just like the rest of Hollywood feminist cronies. In another interview for the HeforShe campaign, she was asked if feminists should focus more on eastern women (who suffer from an actual rape culture, acid burning, public beatings, and oppressive law). She pathetically dodged the question saying that the "West still has a lot of work to do" and "we should set an example for the rest of world." Just like most feminists, she is completely uninterested in helping the women who actually need help. After all, it is far easier to gain the favor of the spineless liberal media who will bend over for your Hollywood stardom, than it is topple the long standing REAL sexism in other nations across the globe. Shame on Emma Watson and UN Women.
Hmm. Good point. Although Emma Watson still made a rather inspiring speech. Though you are right in the fact that feminism in the Western world can wait, as there are much bigger and more urgent problems the world should be handling. Be it the Eastern sexism, or something even bigger like global climate change.
dpillay009 preach!
This is the person that said 20th century warfare killed less people than gender inequality did. ????????? I don't know where she got that from.
i just checked the Heforshe website and i noted that it is worldwide effort. "Just like most feminists, she is completely uninterested in helping the women who actually need help." Can you point out other evidence to support this hypothesis? I dont think just dodging a question qualify as not being interested in helping women.
On the contrary she went to Malawi in Africa to support leaders who passed laws to make the minimum age for girls to marry should be 18. Isn't that a more concrete example to discredit your claim which is based flimsily on a dodge question?
in.reuters.com/article/us-malawi-childmarriage-emma-watson-idINKCN12A2IL
it also doesn't help that she has never been affected by sexism in her life and lives in a privileged bubble
Shes asking us men to help women, yet, feminist claim women want to be independent? Here's the thing Emma, you can't have both.
+Wellstar I'l tell you what she can have, MY HAIRY WILLY
Tom jackson Harry's Willy?
Wellstar lol or harrys willy
+Wellstar "So you want to be a feminist when you grow up?Sorry sweetheart,it's one or another,you can't do both."It's not my quote,but I'll always remember it.
Ionescu Constantin Good quote.
"He for She..." That's not equality.
Im sorry, but HeForShe just sounds like more man hating to me. Get back to me when its AllForAll.
HeForShe? Do you think women can't do it themselves? Check your privilege, shitlord...
jerryboy2199 Maybe you ought to read the comment again and watch the video, it doesn't look like you did.
I love how Emma Watson goes on about the dangers of living in a macho oriented culture in interviews yet she is dating a football player. Why isn't she dating a sensitive artist? LOL.
What? Hypocrisy in feminism? Really?
He's a Rugby player, football makes it seem like you're talking about "soccer" which isn't considered an overly masculine sport.
But you're spot on otherwise, women are attracted to masculine men just as men are attracted to feminine women. Ying & Yang.
Imagine if we started demanding that women be less feminine, we'd be instantly be labelled as misogynists.
Hamish James
True, and I bet he doesn't cry around Emma very much. Like most women, she might 'like' sensitive guys, but she won't fuck one.
And frankly, that is all that matters to us guys. Sure, friends are nice, but you can have guys for friends. Sex is what makes women special.
Feminists know that women go cold with sensitive guys, and that is part of the plan to segregate the sexes.
Just like all that 'consent' BS that Laci Green is pushing. Dry like a desert.
Hamish James You don't know what the Rugby player is like as a person. It's not fair to state you know his personality, many "manly men" are very "feminine" men off the field. Not saying you are necessarily wrong.
InfiniteIdeas
You're full of shit. Real life is not like PC television.
She says one thing but does another... Time will tell what He got she truly stands for
Time already has told what HeforShe truly stands for:
time.com/3432838/emma-watson-feminism-men-women/
See what I did there?
now ik which side im on.... and its definitely not Emmas
SikforSenses I guess time really did tell what #HeforShe stands for... nice grab! And it seems only feminists are blind to their bias.. and that's sad...
SikforSenses Thanks for the link. I'm surprised this article actually exists.
The definition of feminism is what I don't like "for women" . Egalitarian "for everyone "
Burning books is the worst crime one can commit without taking a life or hurting someone in a democratic society.
Is it really? I think the notion of burning books being so deplorable is a relic from a time when books were actually rare.
When making a single copy takes months or even years, burning it (or otherwise destroying it) is a substantial harm. Especially since many books had only a handful of copies in existence so with a bit of diligence you actually could destroy the text for good.
But today we make thousands of copies at a time. You burn a copy of a book? Big deal, I'll just take these $10 and buy a new one. You burn most of the copies? Well, I'll take this digital source and print a couple thousand more. You delete my source? I'll restore it from one of my backups.
The amount of work that goes into the creation of each individual copy today is negligible and there are so many copies it's practically impossible to destroy the text itself. You're basically just burning paper, so why should it be such a big deal?
***** Burning books may not seem like a big deal to you, but it could mean the difference between protecting vs destroying a legacy.
"You delete my source? I'll restore it from one of my backups. "
We're not talking about now or in 15 years. But in another 100-200 years, who knows how well or how badly recorded history is
Bloodstainer Unless humanity is meat with some great technological depression, information is going to be backed up better and better.
But let's say it does happen. Let's say we end up losing all of our technology somehow. _Then_ books will have value once more. But right now they're worth little more than the paper they're made out of. The ideas contained within are irreplaceable, priceless, but the physical books themselves are absolutely worthless.
***** Yes, but even in this technological age, we are still seeing a lack of information/data from the late 1990's and the early 2000's
I still dislike the very idea of removing data, regardless of whether its digital or on paper.
Bloodstainer Trust me, we do share that antipathy but that data was lost not because of how we treat data today, but because of how we used to treat data back then. We've learned the importance of redundancy, we've learned to make backups. Many, many backups. So when thousands or even millions of copies of a certain piece of data exist, a few of the copies being destroyed isn't such a big deal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating burning of books. There is rarely anything to be gained from it, so, if nothing else, generally speaking it's wasteful. I just don't think it's a big deal when someone does it for whatever reason.
I'm sorry Christina, but this speech was more of the same offensive ideas that make me hate feminism, there was nothing new. Yes she gave lip service to men's issues, but why? Because if we solved some of men's issues it will help women, apparently we shouldn't help men for men's sake, no we should help men for women's sake only.
To Emma, men should be free to express their feelings, except when men express anger or disgust because of feminist ideas, no the only feelings that should be allowed in feminist rhetoric are feelings that make men weak, probably so they can be more easily manipulated.
And again, UN Women launches a campaign for "equality" in which one gender saves the other gender, in which the issues of women and girls are to be addressed by men and boys. Apparently, our mothers, sisters and daughters should be free from prejudice, but our sons, and only our sons because fathers and brothers are already finished obviously, our sons would have the PERMISSION to be HUMAN, again Fathers and Brothers aren't humans and can't be human anyway, only Sons are salvageable.
Or maybe that's because Fathers and Brothers are the ones doing the work anyway, so they can take care of themselves right? While All the women are just sitting waiting to get all the fruits of hard labor on a silver platter.
This speech and this campaign is absolutely offensive and disgusting, it does nothing for equality, as usual like any feminist campaign, it just strips women and girls of responsibility, give them all the rights and protections of men and obviously from men, because only men and boys are responsible for the violence against women that's why they have to do all the work (oh and violence against men is business as usual so who cares?!), while men are saddled with all the responsibility and all the guilt.
Great post - feminism in a nutshell.
Most worrying aspects of this speech - That it was sanctioned by the UN, one of the most powerful organisations in the world, if not the most powerful, & was made by a globally known celebrity who has the reputation of being an intelligent, independent, model woman (her reputation & reach earning her the UN job in the first place of course).
This is the UN's idea of "social progression". The sheep don't stand a chance & the paddock extends the globe, not looking good.
Every negative criticism you've provided here was produced by you and not even hinted at, tacit or otherwise, in the speech.
Jonathan Hobman Nope, the speech was crystal clear, it's the same rhetoric spewed by feminists all over the world for decades, it's nothing but a damsel in distress asking for white knights to save her, she slightly pats you on the head pretending to care about your issue, she also pretends that you could be the bigger man by joining her in protecting her and the other women, she care not about your actual feelings, your real hardships, or the real discriminations you face. Every lip service she did for men's issues are just a ploy to lower your defenses so you more readily jump at her rescue.
In reality, it's gynocentrism and feminism 101. It is simply and purely disgusting.
Again you are simply adding in things that aren't apparent. You saying she doesn't care about men's issues is your own projection. Any hardships I can remember suffering as a male has been a result of heteronormative culture.
The speech was a beautiful little mask for what she's really doing. Her little he-for-she thing (what she was referencing with her "invitation" for men) does not focus on mens problems. It's literally he for she. Encouraging men to help "liberate" women in the western world by getting them more privileges under the guise of "equal rights" and it ignores men's plight (possibly aside from the whole "men can feel too" which just benefits feminism anyway) it's still not egalitarian/"humanist" and it's not a change for 3rd wave feminism at all. It's what it's always been minus the misandry
It's more than that. The expression "He for She" subjugates every single issue that men have to be less important than the issues that women purportedly face. As in, "Don't waste time focusing on your own problems; this is far more important! We'll get to you later..."
And of course, later will never come.
Now Emma is obviously bright enough to come up with something like this, but I have a hard time believing that she is either evil or motivated enough to do so. Which means that she was fed this by someone else, and is acting as a mouthpiece. She's been duped at best.
Feminism is the solution to gender inequality by only focusing on the female gender. Yeah, that makes plenty of sense......
"Hey men! Solve our problems for us because we're enlightened, strong, empowered women! If you do it quickly, you'll get a cookie!"
- Emma Watson's UN speech, abridged by Lance Meibos
People like you are like the whole "religion vs. science" crowd, like the two cannot peacefully co-exist. The way of thinking is equal to that of church of the crusades - it's US vs. THEM!!! You are disagreeable by nature, you should work on that.
@@victoriapowell6318 Wow that's a really disagreeable and confrontational way for you to present that.
I interpreted her invitation of men not as a sign of acknowledgement of their issues, but rather as just another attempt to put responsiblities on them and that is why the whole initiative she is supporting is called He for She, it is as one sided as most of the feminist crap is, Men get the blame, the responsibilities and whathaveyou, but not any kind of benefits, since it is still assumed it is their fault in the first place. So, I don't think her speech was in any way, shape or form helping to promote gender equality, but only reinforcing the exploiting nature of feminism on the backs of men even further.
Yes: 'Hey men come save feminism! and for that you get to continue making the unjust laws in western societies biased against men!' Thanks Emma!
That would be because you are disagreeable by nature.
Women already have equal rights. Our destinies are for the most part determined by our choices. I think feminists should focus on educating and liberating women in countries where women can't vote/drive/wear-what-they-want, etc. As for the whole "bossy" argument, I disagree. I think a male could be called "bossy" just as much as a female.
Yes, choice is the main factor that will ultimately determine how ones life plays out. Telling feminist that is the equivalent of saying women deserve to be raped. The word bossy is usually reserved for people who are in fact, bossy. Emma was called bossy at the tender age of eight and became a millionaire. To be honest I wish more people called me bossy as a kid. Ironically the character she made millions portraying was bossy. Wonder why she didn't protest that.
You said it. There are still legal rights that men have and that women lack. But not in the U.S., Canada, western Europe, Australia, or New Zealand.
My 9 year old brother is the bossiest person I know, and I call him on it all the time. Bossy people are called bossy because they attempt to wield authority where they have none.
BigGuy4U
Exactly.
I was not called bossy when i grew up.
I was told to STFU!
YOU ARE NOT IN CHARGE HERE!
I guess Emma Watson represents a moderate, in a movement dominated by very radical views. However, I think she is a little naive; talking about 'first world problems' in front of countries with nasty dictators that might use her speech to suggest that their country really isn't that bad. Some people truly have no idea the horrors that go on in some parts of the world, and yes in many places women get the short stick. If you are (especially) a north Korean women (but definitely men aswell) you are truly oppressed and have to fear being executed or a family member being executed or being stuck in a concentration camp, many unsurprisingly try to escape; and the only real way to do it is sneak across the Chinese border and live on the run, perhaps bartering with sex in exchange for not being handed in, if you are lucky after travelling hundreds if not thousands of kilometers eventually you might arrive in Mongolia or Thailand where you can surrender to authorities and finally board a plane to South Korea where you can live in conditions that seem utopian to you.
***** Come on, the size of a North Korean man's penis has *nothing* to do with how oppressed they are!
North Korea is an odd duck, but not that odd. They have labor conscription (forced work in government authorized jobs that pay next to nothing). Of course, this conscription (like nearly all conscription, worldwide) is for men only. Women have become the primary breadwinners of the typical North Korean family, as their exemption from this form of conscription frees them to work in under-the-table cottage industries and to participate in the more lucrative black markets. In many cases, a woman can bring home 10-100 times as much income as her husband, who is *forced* to work on pain of prison for government "wages" (or promises of wages one day), while the government is essentially broke.
Incidentally, some have reported that female perpetrated domestic violence is on the rise in NK, as it is in Kenya, and for similar reasons. As income-earning labor opens up to women in ways that disadvantage men--in North Korea, men are stuck with what work the government gives them, for little or no income. In Kenya, largely due to government initiatives and changes in the economy, it has become easier to find gainful employment as a woman than as a man.
But oddly enough, these women seem to resent having to financially support men the way men supported women for millennia. Some of the NK women interviewed described their men as more useless than children, as at least the children could help with household chores (unlike their husbands, working 10-14 hours a day). One male politician in Kenya opined not that long ago that of course when the men aren't performing as men (bringing in money), their women will beat them, and rightly so.
What was once seen as a point of pride among "evil, patriarchal" men ("no spouse of mine will ever need to work for money"), is seen as an unwanted burden on economically independent women. Evil, patriarchal lawmakers the world over, from Japanese legal custom to Sharia to Coverture, enshrined this dynamic in law--that while a woman might be economically dependent on the men in her life (husband, father or eldest brother), these men had a legal responsibility to provide for her while also respecting her dignity and honor. They wrote protections into the law, limiting the husband's power over his wife to prevent abuses, and to compensate for them once they happened.
Yet in these formerly evil patriarchal societies, where men were sworn to provide for and protect their women, and who are shamed when they fail, once women gain the upper hand economically, what happens? Where is the pride for a Kenyan woman who supports her husband? For the North Korean woman whose husband is literally enslaved, to provide him the benefits his enslavement does not?
ncfm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Abused-man-boycott.png
You ever wonder what it must be like to be forced to work 14 hours a day for the equivalent of 4 American dollars, only to come home and have your comparatively wealthy (and free) wife call you a useless burden on her wallet?
I don't think most people even remotely understand the whole picture of what is going on in these "misogynistic" countries where women are supposedly oppressed.
karen straughan Let's be honest in north Korea *everyone* is oppressed with the exception of a (mostly male) political elite. Its certainly a patriarchy (in that men hold the power) but such a description seems inadequate in the context of NK. But yeh, women are the primary breadwinners in NK which is unusual. However if you are a male in the army you do at least get some protection. I think what is undisputable is that female north korean defectors are treated much worse in China. But okay, I don't really think feminism is appropriate here, DPRK is a humanitarian crisis, and imo the worst one on the entire planet.
karen straughan From my experience, feminism let loose in places like Kenya and North Korea will rail for more economic empowerment and independence for women, while the men in those societies become worse than second class citizens. When you have (privileged male) politicians in Kenya justifying the injuries in that picture I showed you, because that man couldn't "bring home the bacon" in a country filled with women's employment initiatives that squeeze men out of the workforce (and when you have prominent Kenyan women agreeing with them!)...
I can only think that this is what HeForShe will turn out to be. There are women in Middle Eastern Countries that have been the beneficiaries of western NGOs that aid women (and women alone) who have criticized western governments for ignoring their men. When women in poor and developing economies have children, they are ALWAYS better off with men who are economically competent assisting them and their children. Yet we have relegated the lion's share of the aid and initiatives for women and women alone--job training, education, food aid, medical and victim services, etc. A mother with a live husband to help her is better off than one with a dead one. A mother with an employed husband is better off than one with an unemployable, impoverished one or none at all.
We in the west somehow believe that helping women means men will benefit through some vague trickle-down effect. The *entire reason we believe that* is that this is how it works in reverse. When men are better off, their women are better off. We somehow think that it's a given that if we empower women economically, these women will do what men have always done, and lift their men along with them.
But in Kenya and North Korea, they haven't. In the US, they haven't. In the UK, they haven't. Women have consistently refused to fill men's shoes in this way.
Millionaire men typically don't care whether the woman they marry will earn anything at all. Millionaire women want a husband who is at least as wealthy as they are, *because economically empowered women simply do not, in any reasonable numbers, want to support a man*.
What will HeForShe do about this?
karen straughan You make very convincing points, I admire your very extensive general knowledge. I think then that one should be in possession of all the knowledge before doing anything rash. For DPRK I am at a loss about what can be done there, its just a disaster on the order of nazi Germany. And I struggle to see how emancipation for men or women is every going to happen there, the best case scenario I see is that the regime just spontaneously collapses (which it could easily do) and south Korea absorbs all the refugees. But even this seems like a nightmare, S korea would not be able to cope with millions of N korean refugees and China will not allow reunification. To make matters worse, NK is capable of leveling Seoul at a moments notice with their artillery and there is literally nothing the south can do. And worst case scenario we see another bloody Korean war which the South will win but at huge cost and which may in itself introduce a proxy war between the US and China. Its an explosion waiting to happen.
Emma Watson, if that was the definition of feminism what is the definition of humanism?
+Ryan Thornton An intellectual movement from the early renaissance that values human needs and empirical thinking over dogma and the sacrifice of liberties for abstract values. It doesn't have to do with especific advances for women's equality of opportunity and fair treatment, which is the role of feminism despite all the tumblr crybabies complaining about manspreading.
+Ryan Thornton Or Egalitarianism
I should have just asked google but thanks for replying lol. I learn something new everyday.
Still if you ask me, humanism has something to do with equality of the genders, and a grander scale and I think if you can really argue that it does not than the nature of its name is lost.
Equalism already exists though. It's sometimes referred to as Egalitarianism.
BecauselmGray Yea, and it's practiced in a land of pink unicorns and flying lizards who jump over a tri-colored rainbow above the crystal shore.
What?
+BecauselmGray He's calling bullshit on equality because in many aspects of life women have it better than men. True shit this is
***** oh sorry, yes that sounds much more accurate.
@Mila Jones You fool, women have more selective power in mating, so they have it better. Men chase women, women select men. Women are nature's medium for eugenics and men are nature's dice roll to see what combinations work out with women. Being a beautiful, feminine woman in today's society is the best thing that could ever happen to someone. You get so much sex and validation, which is what true happiness is centered on.
I'm surprised by your take on this to be honest, I disagree with most of what she said and fail to see why you think this could be a "game changer".
Not automatically assuming all men are automatically at fault simply by their pure existence, for one.
Only if you want to be REALLY pedantic about it.
Isn't it sad when a small scrap of 'equality' is considered major progress?
ye, everything she said was text book sexist feminism, there was nothing new in it at all, in fact, she reenforced how sexist feminism is.
I couldn't take the speech seriously at all; she kept talking in such a trembling that made it seem like she was about to break down into tears. Did she lose her acting ability since Harry Potter?
Her speech boils down to the rhetoric that men are responsible for the woes of the world and that the only way to save humanity is to subjugate the male population and make them slaves to females.
The utter hilarity of a privileged child actress who was born to rich parents, has been a successful childstar who got paid more than the guy who played Ron. Lecturing people on women being oppressed.
Let's not forget the hypocrisy of claiming that "masculinity" is oppressing men when she's dating a tall, bearded rugby player from Oxford. She doesn't realize that women like her have pushed men into the protector/provider role so that the best of the best can be picked out. She wouldn't look twice at a "liberated" unmasculine man(let).
I'm not sure I believe you watched the speech at all
only Trigglypuff can lead the way
hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
The imagery is too strong
Trigglypuff uses rollout!
The path has been cleared!
Trigglypuff faces an obstacle!
Trigglypuff uses rest!
Nothing happened.
+VoxelFusion Jigglypuff will eat any and all obstacles and become an even jigglier puff.
+kevin15776 that's honestly quite frightening!
I still can't get over how Ms. Watson always sounds like she's on the verge of tears
Sorry, but I don't need Emma Watson's permission to be human.
👍👍👍👍
Of course not. But it is great that she went on this path. Not the common path. It is a start
Or a male.
I still think feminism is far beyond saving. #HeForShe couldn't make a difference even if it could be saved. It's just modern feminism with a different label.
It's still saying that women should be the focus, it's still saying that men should do the brunt of the work, it's still blaming them for the nonexistent patriarchy. It's exactly the same as it was before, just said a little more softly. It's still problematic, and it should still be rejected.
Feminism is not the way to equality, and neither is #HeForShe.
Emma's speech was basically: Women are unhappy. Men need to fix that shit while we lean back.
Didn't find it refreshing.
Honestly I think that you are giving her too much credit. Her call for actual equality is incredibly surface level when you consider the actual pledge being called for by her 'HeForShe' campaign - "I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls." Not 'faced by men and women', as true equality would suggest.
I wasn't a real honest fan of the speech, but I do know an equality movement exists. It's egalitarianism, I am apart of it. Despite modern online feminists hating us, we aren't bad people 9 times out of 10.
+bbomg02 What's the movement called?
tee arryuuteeach Egalitarianism. We have some bad seeds, but most of us are good people, at least that I have met. We have some good feminists support.
bbomg02 Well that would be something i'd get behind. What's the "bad seeds" what's the problem?
tee arryuuteeach The ones that pretend to be egalitarians, but are actually the toxic type feminists and or the bad MRA's. However there are a lot of lies spread like saying it's an MRA project. That lie was spread by PBS, and it's rather pathetic. We want everyone to feel like they matter, no matter what you look like. So many people are like "It's mostly men" or something like that, but that's just not true.
bbomg02 It doesn't seem complicated to me. Let the laws be equal for everyone. Reduce mens prison time to that of women, who can honestly not agree with that? I don't see why this isn't obvious...and surely there's women behind this movement also, this idea would help society as a whole.
Egalitarianism is about making both sexes equal.
Egalitarianism is equality for all. Feminism is equality of the sexes.
+BleedRainbows Maybe if you talk about 1st wave feminism. This 3rd wave feminism bullsh*t is nothing similar. 3rd wave feminism, contrary to damage control, is about man-hating and poor little rich girl syndrome under the guise of equality of the sexes.
+BleedRainbows If it was about equality, it wouldn't make female only scholarships, female only jobs, female only trains, and so on and so on. All of which are designed to be of a higher class than that men have access to.
It's about equality in the same way Apartheid was - look at their rhetoric, it's exactly what they claimed to be about, yet all the resources mysteriously ended up in the whites section of the country.
Oh please, Emma Watson doesn't care about men's issues, as Stefan Molyneux pointed out, if she did she would have done five minutes of research on Google to understand what men feel are their issues rather than "I knew this one man once and he had problems".
That would be like me standing up for Native American problems by saying " I knew a red man once and he drank a lot".
No reason for any man to break his back to salvage a movement that has destroyed the basic relationship between men and women. I disrespectful decline Ms Wattson's invitation. Feminism as a whole needs to go. Plenty of men and women suffer in various countries, feminism isn't the answer. It's basically doing what feminism has done here, putting one gender up in favor over the other. That's not equality.
Funny how I never feel one bit of attraction for feminist women, there is no looseness, relaxation and play to their personalities, no feminine energy!
Yet this woman that speaks here, I find SUPER attractive even though she might be over 40. You go girl! ;-)
+Dimitrije Beric I just found that this woman is 65, WOW!
+Dimitrije Beric Funny how non-bitches tend to age better ain't it.
+Dimitrije Beric I'm not the only one i see.
thumbs up for sexy intelectuals.
+Dimitrije Beric JUST GONNA DISMISS HER BASED ON HER LOOKS NOW!?
Attraction is based on behavior and "the feel" more than looks, I was talking about attraction. ;-)
And I didn't mention dismissing I just pointed out the attraction, don't put words in my mouth. :-)
I'm not convinced. Emma's talking points are exactly what people want to hear, not what has to be said. If you want to have a truly egalitarian society with gender equality, you have to first address all the issues of inequality. She hasn't.
This seems like a horrendously obvious attempt at elongating her shelf life as an actress. She's pandering to the tumblrettes and women who crave empowerment in an attempt to remain relevant in the public eye. It seems like it's doing more harm than good to her image, though.
+Call Me Ishmael It isn't. People love this stuff. Not that she's selling lies or asking for something evil, she just stated the obvious and I don't know anyone who would say "fuck you emma, I like my wymyn opressed and silent". But it sure sells.
Yes, finally somebody about egalitarianism
The Emma Watson speech made me cringe.
I was initially surprised she acknowledged some of the issues men face and those in the world who still do face gender discrimination, but it all seemed more a ploy to me than empathy. It was there to promote first-world feminism by employing careful tactics: use of the 'strict' definition of feminism, trying to be diplomatic in acknowledging, and hence preemptively dismissing, potential criticisms, and trying to make it seem that feminism is about ' mutual equality'. How could you not agree with her without being called a misogynist? She even stirred up Taylor Swift's passions to join in.
The message she is spreading though is dangerous, misleading, and ultimately without strong leadership to contain it. The 'wage gap' is an example of the type of equality she is trying to implement: it's not about equal rights -- it's about the destruction of all gender differences. Men and women are not the same though, both have unique needs and strengths, yet the type of equality she is backing is one-sided; it's the handicapping of men. It's not about women toughening up; it's about men being whipped down. She has no intent on helping men's issues; the campaign itself is even called #heforshe. The speech was pure manipulation to win the trust of men, shame them, and then recruit them to the women's side.
-- she wants women to dominate the home, work, and government; women can't have their cake and eat it too though, but that's the plan. Individualism as a women is falling through the cracks even, as women are pressured to not have families, to pursue careers they may not enjoy, and to resent men they should otherwise love. The cause needs its soldiers. The stay at home mom has become an evil that only promotes the patriarchy apparently. This regressive feminism is destroying individualism and potentially leading to a very unhappy, confused, and dwindling population.
Emma Watson may mean well, but words and ideas can be far more dangerous than a thousand swords, especially when misguided. I really appreciate the factual feminists like yourself; in the modern first-world, feminism has become sickly, hijacked and needs rescuing. The feminist movement seems to be running full tilt into Marxist ideologies and without any sense of consequence; where have we seen this before?
The issues I have taken up include the education system, which is greatly rigged for one style of learning, and mental health awareness. I am struggling with personal relationship dynamics as well, but all I need to do is find just one great lady; shouldn't' be hard, right? ha!
I hope you do find your one great lady :)
Linda Valdeen HOLY SHIT!!!
WHAT THE FUCK DID I JUST READ?
Hilarious.
those "Marxist ideologies"? google "the Frankfurt School" and you'll see they want our society DEAD ,not "liberated"!
I really didn't see anything positive from this. She paid lip service to some men's issues and women in regions where feminists will never go, pretended that the belief that feminism is loaded with hatred and bigotry is baseless, and concluded that the way to solve men's issues is, in keeping with modern feminism, to ignore men completely except to get them to pledge to better serve women. Heforshe could not be more straightforward in that regard.
I thought it was a moderate feminist speech, and an improvement on the usual condescending or bossy tones. But what Emma Watson gained by recognizing the importance of fathers and the high male suicide rates, she threw away in the "He for She" idea.
I was always under the impression that feminism was about inspiring, mobilizing, and empowering women, and not in using men to give them whatever they want. I was under the impression that the liberation of women included reducing their dependency on men, and getting them to realize how much power they have on their own.
"He for She" is explicitly an attempt to do the opposite. To shelter women from the harsh realities of the world, a call for genteel knights to save their princesses in distress.
Not that there's anything wrong with that! I'm a man, and I love to help a woman when she's in trouble. But don't call it "equality" when I do it. Don't call it "empowering women" when I solve a problem for her. I maybe dumb, but I'm not stupid! I'd like at least a "thank you" for my trouble. It's not equalism if "he" is taking all the risk for "she."
Everyone seems to miss the point that Ms. Sommers is trying to put forth here. Watson did not use foul language, ad hominem arguments, or any of the other tactics used by new-wave feminists. She was respectful, and acknowledged the plight of men as well as women, not just in the developed world, but world wide. She advocates "equalism" (which is really just egalitarianism, but still), and doesn't try to frame all men as the oppressors. She's simply trying to say that both genders have their struggles, and we as humans have to work together to fix them.
+TheDukeOfHazzard
"We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.
If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled."
~ Emma Watson
Stereotyping men as being aggressive and controlling... Check.
Stereotyping women of being victims of this toxic masculinity... Check.
Sorry, just the same smelly shit concealed in a better laid out container.
***** I read it as Watson saying that societal expectations of men are what further the narrative that men are aggressive and women are victimized, not the opinion that men are inherently aggressive. Women are, though, still told to play the victim card, but this is only because SJWs love the idea of men being evil. I don't exactly agree with everything she says, but it's nice to hear someone who isn't a complete and total radical on the subject.
TheDukeOfHazzard
I know... right...
www.funnyordie.com/videos/55c51f0c23/dear-woman?_cc=__d___&_ccid=8027061ee785629b
TheDukeOfHazzard
You want to see it, in Emma Watson coloured glasses, be my guest.
I'm a little more skeptical, as I said in my first comment about "smelly shit concealed in a better laid out container" stands for me because, and not limited to, she is a patriarchal feminist.
It is in her speech.
She drivels the equal pay :Wage Gap" nonsense as well, even more reason to state patriarchal feminist at her.
And when you hear "oppressive" over and over again, well?
Remember... Male victimizer, Female Victim.
When men change, it will benefit all of us of course...
Because no way in high fucking heaven will we change our ways... We have more rights than ever and we ain't about to give any of them up.
Go equality...
***** I guess I'm just viewing her speech relative to the normal feminist rhetoric I hear. On first listen, she just sounds kinder and calmer than what I usually hear. But you make some very good points.
Men make more because we are more likely to take on jobs that require more training, work longer hours, and take on more hazardous jobs. Sure a man and woman may work the same job, with the same skill sets, but the man is more likely to work longer hours. Those extra hours have to be compensated, so men are paid more. Men are also more likely than women to negotiate their pay. If women fail to negotiate for a higher salary and then accuse men of being paid more, who is really to be blamed? The one that negotiates for more or the one who accepts what they're given? It's not as if women are barred from negotiating their salary/pay.
+kLPantera so true
+kLPantera Check your privilege bro! And check those abs too ;)
DrCash7 You'll have to clarify this privilege you speak of. None of what I said can be classified as privilege.
kLPantera Those abs. There's the privilege of which I speak. Check 'em.
Hey, can you give me your sources about "men negotiating their payment more than women"?
Emma Watson did a tremendous job in her speech but she invited men to take part in a discussion where the response waiting for us was "shut up and listen." We need to directly tackle this notion that for women to take a step forward men must take 3 steps back and the scarier notion that if your a white male heterosexual your opinions/ideas (regardless of how good) don't matter because enough such people have been praised. We need to call these "tumblr" feminists to account for their BS and judge contributors based on the merits of their arguments. Until we do the only thing we're "invited" to is a lecture from "feminists" on how we are the problem and that will simply turn men away.
No, I just can't see that positive spin on it. the entire 'He For She' framing is a bad one that caused a decent wave of backlash almost instantly. It was more an attempt an neuro-linguistic programming than genuine egalitarianism. It had a strong vibe of 'we should be equal, so you should make that happen for us' to it.
Sorry. Not buying it.
Am I the only one that notices this:
She is a multi-millionaire, who was given huge opportunities in life that nobody else was and she complains about being "not treated fairly" by men and by society? Oh C'mon!
And everybody listens to her! You know why? Because of her pretty face and we want to raise our score with her subconsciously. We are already losers if we listen to her.
Could anybody just imagine any young man being Ever invited to UN to talk about Any real issues of men? Like slavery, abuse in military service, being bullied, ripped in court, or just being paid fairly!
This is so hypocritical it's just infuriating!
This shows just HOW POWERFUL women have become in this world.
This is a Queen wanting even more power, and using her "niceness" and naiveness as a weapon to disarm us and make us listen to this propaganda.
And we as men should support these women and their policies that abuse us All The Time, that never care about us? What are we, animals?
It should be the other way around, it's the Women should team up and Finally START Supporting Their MEN! Or else your lives are useless, with all education in the world and all the money will never buy you love and adoration of a man. Your young years will pass, soon you will no longer be "pretty Emman Watson" almost a child. Soon you will be an old woman and then nobody will listen to you, because nobody will want to score with you anymore. Welcome to the real life.
Men and women alike can be called "bossy", that's not spesific to females...
Naomi
Just don't do that stuff then. It's 2017; this is the most liberated country on earth and it's the most liberated time in history. Someone saying "you're bossy" isn't oppression worthy of a un meeting. I might as well call trump and tell him to come ask my coworkers to stop bullying me.
Just do whatever you want. Any males who don't like your progress are just being bitches or maybe they're just intimidated. Which also makes them bitches.
Just ride it out and chase it down, whatever you want. Let the haters hate type thing. They'll be sorry when they start working for you (if you make it).
Which country is taking away these rights?
Naomi Your reproductive rights haven't been taken away. This is the most peaceful and liberated time in history, and you're in downtown liberation central. This is according to numbers which don't rely on these emotional rants. Your logic doesn't make sense - every day sexism = unequal to men = earth shattering. Every day sexism = saying you're bossy. Therefore, in your logic string, saying you're bossy = earth shattering. This is the problem - you say something and then say you mean something you can't mean by that. And I just proved it but you still won't listen. This is all emotion. You're not oppressed, nothing is wrong, there is no wage gap and this is horse shit. Get over yourself.
Naomi Okay, again - talk to me pragmatically. This is all soaked in feelings. I just want numbers and logic strings or I'm not dealing with it. And the reason you can't do that is because if you used pure fact and numerical representation, which is the only way to not skew stuff, you have no argument.
Naomi You said "being told we are bossy isn't earth shattering". Then you went on to detail that it's part of a sexist agenda. Which I can assume IS a big problem or else you wouldn't have said it.
so its like this:
bossy = non earth shattering
bossy = part of earth shattering
sexist agenda = earth shattering
bossy = part of sexist agenda
bossy = earth shattering
This is the problem. I'm using simple logic and you can't follow it. You're saying one thing and then saying you're not saying it, just like I said before and then I even predicted that if I laid it out in rhythmic equation for a simpleton to even see, you would just pretend it isn't real and not count it.
Math itself says you have no idea what you're talking about. But that doesn't matter - your feelings guide you, I guess. I don't know it but that's all I can guess.
*names a movement He for She*
much empower
very equality
such Hermione
wow
They literally resorted to book burning? Do they realize the connotation related to book burning? It's worse than putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala" because you're not only narrow minded but you want to kill information.
They burn books, and then they are surprised when people call them Feminazis...
I'm not sure, Emma Watson is good news. You have an interesting take on it. But I still hear a lot of wrong feminist logic in her speach.
"By definition, feminism is the belief that...", "it is the theory of...". *Choose one.* Feminism cannot be both, devoid of interpretation and based on a certain interpretation at the same time. Believing in equality is *NOT* the same as having a specific hypothesis on what the root of inequality and its solutions are.
Feminists keep saying that all they want is equal rights, but they already have them. And that they want equal opportunity, but what they really want is preferential treatment. Which is not the same as equal opportunity. And they want freedom from responsibility, which is something that nobody can have in a free country. But most of all, what they want is praise. But that is not something that anybody owes you.
The funniest part about that book burning is that they probably bought their copies lmfao!
HeForShe, they couldn't have picked a more miserable title for an equality movement could they? this sounds like "teach men not to rape" without ever uttering those words
Emma Watson's speech acknowledged some men's issues, but then quickly turned the topic towards ways men could help women rather than how we could all help each other. That left a sour taste in my mouth. If gender equality and liberation for all is the goal, then why did she propose "he for she" as opposed to "he and she for us"?
I agree that her heart is mostly in the right place, but from listening to her, I could still hear a lot of what is wrong with some feminists' logic. Certainly a step in the right direction from the extremists, but nowhere near as good as would be required for true equality to be the pursuit and end of a movement she might lead in my eyes.
Help men, help women, but who is going to help tortured murdered animals, living in horrendous conditions and murdered after a couple years of miserable "life"? Tens of thousands each minute all over the world.
Emma Watson; I love you so I wrote you a poem:
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I earn 33% more than you.
Even though that myth has been debunked but I think you knew that.
let's be real you probably earn a LOT less than her.
unfortunately.
Shien The Kid
That's part of the joke
that was a depressing joke
Shien The Kid
Okay; if you want to talk about your feelings, there's a gay channel around.
Oh god I just cant listen to Emma. No matter what good you might have to say, dont try to convince me by using a sobbing voice. Does she think this triggers some kind of protection instinct?
She does, and she's right. Even I felt some sympathy for her tone, but not when I heard her meaning.
It's calculated acting designed to draw sympathy from the audience. She's appealing to a man's instinctual desire to protect a woman in distress (an emotion which coincidentally, women are particularly adept at expressing outwardly, as Emma showed us). Which is ironic because feminists should technically be trying to tear down such gender stereotypes, right?
Calling for an end to gender stereotypes while simultaneously appealing to them? That's some duplicitous shit.
kaikou1098 _"Which is ironic because feminists should technically be trying to tear down such gender stereotypes, shouldn't they?"_
You're new to this, right? Hypocrisy is a core aspect of feminism. Double standards are 'how they roll'.
_"I guess it's only the gender stereotypes that they don't directly benefit from that they're trying to tear down."_
BINGO.
This is why logic terrifies them. No rational person stays under their spell for long when presented with the truth.
To me she just sounds nervous. Which makes sense since she is speaking to the UN!
Insightful comments so far, but there's still one thing I didn't see mentioned:
When Ms Watson talked about the issues men faced, all she talked about was what "she saw". And the points she highlighted are known, among the MHRM, as the least important. She made it clear that she did no real research into the topics that are 'actually' important to men, let alone actually talk to anyone advocating for men.
This comes back down to Feminism telling men what it thinks they need, rather than asking them what they actually need.
Many comments already pointed out the clearly one-sided "heFORshe". Ms Watson did not empower women but rather just call for men to help with women's problems, while very clearly not caring for what problems men face themselves.
Sadly, while her heart might be in the right place, this seems like more of the same. Ms Watson just dressed up the same talking points we've heard time and again without actually showing any signs of a conversation.
Whenever you hear a speaker fall back on "the definition of feminism" it shows that they don't want to acknowledge what the movement 'is actually doing'. It feels like she's just drawing attention away from the problems within the movement to continue perpetuating the status quo of female victimhood instituted by modern Feminism.
In the end, this will change nothing. And sadly, I have little faith in the millennials generation to see through the hate and actually push for the good of all and not just those like them.
I have to disagree since she says we think that feminists are man haters instead of admitting almost every vocal feminist is a man hater right now. I can't expect her to know that since she has not lived in the real world where things are not scripted for her in over a decade.
She needed to say that feminists need to stop going to things like comicons and demand that such and such is sexist (like cosplayers) when she didn't want to go in the first place, only change it to her will and never go again.
It is all well and good to say "men are included but she must face the fact that every, EVERY, MRM event is protested to some degree and that it is considered a good thing.
No they're not. It's just that calm and rational people don't make for very punchy news, and the media long lost interest in factual representation.
If you can't spin it controversially, it's rarely news anymore.
***** You just defined non-vocal and then agreed.
I am on social media waiting for them to say loudly and by the thousands or I stand by my "every vocal feminist is a man hater right now".
Exactly my point. Social media is not a realistic representation of the world.
Social media is the equivalent of farting into a vacuum. There are billions of people in this world. They are a speck in the grand scheme of humanity.
*****
Again you agreed with me, they are not vocal.
Tip => get online:
make websites
make facebook pages, they likely have facebook
harass news stations to get on TV
Start hashtags
make youtube videos
It is not that hard to get out there and say "patriarchy" is bullshit and we both have problems, equally, not "it is mostly women so we need to fuck over college guys" and "all men are rapists" and "men who don't rape are still rape apologists" and "anyone who isn't a feminist is a bigot, sexist, cis, white, male" but in a whisper saying "oh ya, men have all of these problems too".
Emma really just came across as unknowledgable. Almost everything she said was over-generalized to a T. She herself cannot speak on behalf of many women she "may be speaking for since she herself has been heavily privelaged for most of her life. Seriously this woman hasn't had to struggle a day in her life.
I felt her speech was a very polite way of saying, "Come on men, help yourselves by helping women. Once women have their problems solved, yours will just go away".
There's just something about being labeled as "privileged" by a 20-year-old multi-millionare celebrity that leaves a bad taste in my mouth...
Watson's speech is at odds with HeForShe's gender-biased mission statement:
"Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by WOMEN and GIRLS."
and
"Join the solidarity movement and spread the word. Share this with the MEN in your life."
This doesn't sound like an egalitarian movement to me. It sounds more like Feminism trying to mask its antagonism, and they want men to rally behind it.
I'm not convinced.
Note upfront: my apologies if I misuse "feminism" here. To me it's mostly synonymous with ideological radfem at this stage, and I think this comment would become unclear if I keep trying to make the distinction; consider it noted, and my apologies.
To me it felt like these were two speeches blended together.
On one hand, it's perhaps a bit like after a couples fight... feminism has gone too far, and increasingly many people have decided not to put up with it anymore. Her speech had some aspects of that "guilty side" trying to start reconciliation.
She admitted men face some problems. That is a step. More so, she acknowledged that we feel feminism is hateful towards men.
But there it stopped. She didn't say "feminists should stop hating men", but only that the perception of that needs to stop. If this were a dialogue, that'd be the obvious response: we'll stop the perception once we believe "you" will stop the hate itself.
So overall, that part could have served as trying to re-open the dialogue. It's not an offer I can accept, but it's an opening bid that could open a door.
===
She made some comments in there that she shouldn't have. Her little bit about what "sexism" she herself endured (topped off with mentioning that boys couldn't express their emotions)... not a good appeaser. If her main problems are things like being called bossy, while men are dying half a decade earlier... I think we can skimp on the sympathy there.
Likewise on her bit on "feminism is perceived as so and so". She describes it as if it's a branding problem, bad PR. Well, quite true... only it's that we're seeing how bad the product is getting, and getting fed up with the PR itself. Stop telling us feminism is about equality: make sure to talk about equality. And when feminism is "unattractive"... don't treat that as a PR problem, but consider if the product may be bad.
Just some things I noted, and this is by memory; do correct me if I'm wrong.
====
It went completely off the rails as she came to the point. "He for She".
To continue the analogy. When a girlfriend (or boyfriend/husband/whatever) tries to make up, and you're about to give them another chance... and then the next thing is "by the way, can you help me out with this big thing?"... what are we supposed to believe? It looks like manipulation 101. Appeasing merely to get more out of us. And that's starting to fall apart: people are seeing through it, and it only makes us more angry. We feel used, manipulated. She's not solving that by doing essentially the same thing again.
She could have redeemed this. If she had made it clear that feminism in the West has reached its goals almost entirely, and that she wants that exported to other countries... I could agree with that (although it's questionable whether that's our choice to make). But as far as I saw, she did not draw that distinction.
Final note, which lies at the heart of this. "He for she" is a sexist statement. It's designating one half of the population as the helpless, and the other half as their servants. Which is at the core of what sexism has always been about: men holding the power ànd the obligations, while women aren't self-reliant, but receive whatever help they ask for.
You cannot fight sexism with more sexism. True equality cannot be reached by any effort of "he for she". Women must take equality - as a package deal, not just the nice parts - and men must simply allow that. And in some respects, of course, also the reverse.
====
In conclusion, while some bits were interesting, the overall picture didn't convince me. It seems to me that she's not concerned about the damage [radical] feminism does, the hatred it spreads, the sexism it unwittingly promotes. It looks to me like she's offering the same product, not even bothering to change the brand name, merely trying a new marketing approach.
One may be right to call me cynical on this. I think it's a fitting response. If Emma Watson wants to show that she is serious about a "peace offering", she'll have to make a real one. And I suspect the moment she does that, she'll lose the support of the wider feminist movement.... because it's an ideology. It cannot admit when it's wrong.
Long enough for a textwall. Hope it's useful feedback :).
Marvellous analysis. I wish Emma would see it.
The very term "feminism" is inherently not equal. However, true egalitarianism is ridiculous. Men and women has strengths that weaknesses that compliment one another. Trying to say all men and women are equal is like saying that "all tomatoes are oranges". Yes, they are fruits, yes, they supply a variety of vitamins that, together, give your body a better overall health but they are *NOT* the same thing.
Equal opportunity should be had but *outcome* should *NEVER* be equal, it should be based on your ability not your gender or race. Why the hell can't people see that?
It made it quite clear from her speech just how young, naive and inexperienced in life she is.
ok... I'm from germany and I have to say:
YOU DO NOT BURN BOOKS!!!!
How is a millionaire movie-star representing the oppressed?! Fuck me, every celebrity wants to be an Ambassador - what about us? Do I need to be in eight hugely successful films to be heard? Because I'll do it!
***** Well then we will make sure the money from Comic Relief goes to you.:D
Samuel Saint she is using her platform to give voice for those whose voice can't be heard
Lee Carler Is she bollocks, mate. If that were the case, she would have done it before releasing her fashion line. She is trying to further her career under the guise of compassion.
the speech was awful. basically her opening salvo is the pathetic "websters dictionary defines" trope of debate. she sounds like she is going to cry the entire time. no acknowledgement of the wayward ideological views of feminism that do more damage than good. the damn yawn inspiring "wage gap" myth. the manufactured, one sided story of being called bossy, when it sounds like, in fact, she WAS being bossy. "i want to!" doesnt mean you get to direct the play, thats called entitlement. acting like she is somehow oppressed, despite being a privileged millionaire movie star. her presumptuous and embarrassing claims on what boys and men "want to be", and anecdotal "boys dont share feelings!" personal experiences.
factual feminist is just too kind. no one wants to lambaste hermoine, but give me a break, she deserves a serious dressing down for this man shaming, victim cult propaganda. feminists, dont piggyback your damn petty first world problems on the real problems facing women in other cultures, and dont assume that they agree with you on everything. that is an incredibly self-important display of narcissism.
When you don't have anything to do anymore and your career is over.
Every time I watch one of your videos I just want to stand up and cheer. I like to think I am a feminist, but as a 30 year old white male, I can't help but feel I am not welcome in being a feminist, even though I personally feel very strongly about equal rights. But I cannot agree with every random complaint that becomes the new "front line" in the feminist/patriachy wars. So glad there are real feminists like you out there, just wish we could all listen to you more, and stop giving so much attention to the hypocritical feminists. "sexual equality! down with men!"
I'm not going hate on Emma, but it doesn't mean I will like her. She is extremely condescending towards others, I really goes on my nerves.
She's an actress. An actress who reads other people's lines. As a research interviewer, basically a watered down version of the exact same thing, I recognize when someone else's lines are being read. Maybe some of that pap she actually believes, maybe not, but I'll tell you one thing -- she sure as hell didn't write it herself, and she needs more experience with a teleprompter before she tries that angle again. It was way hollow and false to anyone who knows what they're listening for.
I'll do you one better -- not only was that someone else's words prepared for her, but she wasn't comfortable reading them. If you're going to give a speech and the words you speak are your words, you'll go off script and speak off the cuff from time to time and it comes across in your own natural tones. The only time that never happens is when you are FORBIDDEN to do it.
Watson didn't even come close to doing that. I'll grant she's nervous, but even a nervous actress would go off the cuff a few times, probably even more so than if she was perfectly calm. Instead she was carefully rehearsed from word one. Someone's controlling the message. Emma Watson is just the face they chose to put to it.
That means very little. Presidents don't write their own speeches, but I think few would argue that a President's speech isn't his ideas. She probably hired a professional speech writer (it's not like she doesn't have the resources), rehearse the speech (given where she was giving it, I think anyone would.)
For the record, I'm not completely on board with her. There are a few things I would like to see feminist do before I cast in my lot (like denounce Amanad Marcotte.)
She's a pretty face to distract ppl from real issues. And I don't trust actors in politics. Reagan was proof enough
Like Reagan, hate Reagan, his ability (or that of his handlers) to weave through the foreign policy tangle at the end of the Cold War bordered on genius, and no President since (with the possible exception of Clinton) has shown anywhere near his level of brass cojones.
hagamapama He was acting the entire time, and honestly if you think that there weren't soviet officials dying to bring down the iron curtain so they could get rich you're living in disneyland. He was just a piece of a huge moneymaking scheme.
I've never understood feminism.
I never lived with it. I only heard about the movement in the last 3-4 years and I got a very negative view of it.
I've never understood these people calling for the women to be more like men or vice versa for women. Technically, if they believe in a patriarchy, they're striving for a matriarchy.
I didn't believe in just looking at a definition of feminism to understand it. I'd rather have looked at the actions of those labeling themselves as feminist.
I saw a number of intolerant people that looked to hide behind a label and not stand up for anything that they supposedly fought for. I saw an ideologically based group that hides behind buzzwords and faith instead of logic and reason.
I recoiled in horror because such things are sophist in nature to me and not Socratic.
I do hope that there is a new way for feminism because such hatred and bigotry are improper and unpopular. But it can't be done if so many people are intolerant of other views and hide in bubbles from public spaces.
It's time for feminism, if people believe in it, to really take a hard look at itself and see what it has to offer and how it's planning to get there because as it stands, it's got a lot of growing up to do.
As a male I have long considered myself a feminist until recently because of the more current definition. your channel has re- affirmed my hope that men and women can find an equal middle ground.
my household feminist strategy - get my girls dirt bikes - get them skating and playing hockey - come with pops to shoot a deer to feed ourselves - cause we are poor deplorables
Book-burning????Lmao! Emma Watson actually thinks she's as smart as Hermione Granger. Hermione READS...she doesn't just wake up with ideas she just imagined😂
This is why I personally think celebrities should keep their thoughts to themselves, they're just way to stuck in their own world to understand our reality
I'm surprised by your view on her speech. I think it was basically what so many feminists say today, the give pretty words with negative intent.
For example with her "If men didn't feel the need to control they wouldn't control women" thing, basically saying that the male problem is that men are being a problem and the female problem is that they are dealing with the male problem.
Her speech was devoid of accuracy. I won't lie, she seems like she may care about equality, I get that impression but I may be wrong. I definitely don't believe she made the speech, it was prepared by someone else and she is only the talking figure head believing what she is told rather than doing her own research,
Christina, I admire you for being a rational and non-hateful woman, but I am well immunized against that kind of optimism. As a man, knowing that a panel of women and a whole audience full of women can laugh about a man's dismemberment for 20 minutes on national television, all the while speculating about the horrible things he MUST have done to deserve it, and what sorts of things might motivate THEM to commit the same crime, I can't help but build up a thick skin to block even cautious optimism about a future where men and women are not at war with each other. When Emma brings up the dictionary definition of feminism, I cringe thinking of the semantic dishonesty inherent in that, and how that same dishonesty has been used over and over again to get men to fight against their own best interests.
On the surface, Emma seems genuine and goodhearted, and that is exactly what I don't trust about her. I have grown to distrust people who seem genuine, because if a person really was genuine they wouldn't have to seem genuine. Real genuineness comes when a person doesn't care whether or not another person likes them or wants to join their club, and simply says what's on their mind, warts and all. So as much as a part of me still wants to see the goodhearted humanness of Emma, the fact is that, as MRA's have been pointing out ever since Emma made her speech, she has used the same ideological points that gender feminists have been using for the past 40 years, only couching them in friendlier terms. She even explicitly put the furtherance of women's goals first, before even a single men's issue could be addressed. So, if Emma really is changing the direction of feminism, since this is not magic, and faith is therefore not required, I will believe it when I see it. And if she wants to prove it to me, she can address the following issues:
1) No one can support a worldwide ban on forced FGM while opposing similar legislation against forced MGM and still believe in equality.
2) No one can support putting the onus on the defendant in a rape trial to prove his (or her) innocence, OR support a one sided definition of rape that excludes forced envelopment, OR support the status quo that women (but not men) avoid prosecution for making false rape allegations even when there is proof, while still believing in equality.
3) No one can accept the status quo that women are consistently treated with greater leniency at all levels of the criminal justice system, OR use statistics generated by such an unequal application of law to support the notion that men are either more violent than women or in any way more criminal, while still believing in equality.
4) No one can support a gender biased draft OR oppose the draft on grounds of equality while nevertheless not lifting one finger to end it, while still believing in equality.
5) No one can support marriage and divorce laws that encourage hypergamous behavior known to be engaged in by one gender more than the other OR support divorce laws that have no presumption of shared parenting, while still believing in equality.
6) No one can deny the value of the risks men consistently take on to themselves either to support women or to prevent women from having to take the same risks, thus creating an impression of male disposability OR produce literature or other works that encourage male disposability, while still believing in equality.
7) No one can hold violence by men against women to be heinous, while holding violence by women against men to be normal, impossible, or otherwise not worthy of note OR advocate the establishment of special shelters for female victims of domestic violence while opposing the establishment of shelters for male victims of domestic violence, while still believing in equality.
Well-said.
10 points to Gryffindor.
I disagree with you about everything you have said in your analysis of Emma Watson's speech. Her movement is called "He For She". In other words, men have to fall behind, be subordinate to woman. That woman, in her view are still the oppressed minority. (which they are in many third world countries but not in the west, where Ms Watson has lived all her life.). Besides which, Ms Watson is a young woman who has spent most of her formative teenage years on a film set and as a result is very rich, to boot. As a young, rich, privileged western woman I don't see she has a lot to offer until she has a few more decades under her belt and grown up a lot.
No, she's just as militant as the radical feminists. Anyone who believes otherwise has been duped by her acting skills.
She's a rich millionaire, not someone facing oppression. Racism and sexism
BTW...thanks for being one of the few feminists whom I can disagree with and still feel like everything said can be taken in good faith.
She overly called on men to be responsible instead of equal responsibility.
Plenty of women are already doing countless hard work towards equality for their gender (as men should also do for theirs). Working together for both goes a long way.
***** Sorry I think you misunderstood what I said drastically. Women need to be responsible for themselves, because they are perfectly capable of doing so, just like men. I stand by my statement.
Spikes D Agreed. Part of the problem is that NEITHER men NOR women are biologically hard wired for... pure fiat equality is the way I want to put it. Men are not women, and women are not men, and how we're hard wired to react in the presence of the other is such an integral part to our humanity that there's only so much you can do to alter it. Where Feminism fails is in making that all men's fault, and refusing all blame to themselves or to simple biochemistry.
hagamapama In the end, quite sadly ironic, saying women can't be responsible for themselves is real misogyny.
Ironic indeed. But true.
The solution for all men is to take the red pill and be MGTOW.
Christina Hoff Sommers: Erin Pizzey went too far by supporting MRA and caring about male victims of domestic violence.
Christina Hoff Sommers: We should support heforshe, as it is feminism done right.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with Sommers?
How could 1000 people dislike anything said in this moderate, positive, calm, even-handed video?!
If Watson believed in real equality she'd be an MRA.
Emma: Feminism is the belief that men and women should have equal rights.
Me: Bullshit!
***** 1st wave feminism is fine by me but 2nd and 3rd wave feminism...I never asked for this.
Go to webster's dictionary. It's literally the definition of feminism.
Disappointed you didn't address the "He for She" problem. At the core thesis this is once again about men bearing the burden of so-called equality. I think we've done more than our share
MisterDragonbeard Of course you would be disappointed, you #shitknight !
Anton Hill you should have been there to see the queen shitknight me. A memorable ceremony
MisterDragonbeard I bet you farted everywhere!
I'm not a feminist, egalitarian, or equalist. I am a rational human being. Why the labels?
I really needed to see this video. There is so much negativity out there it's great to see some positivity. Especially if it's about Emma Watson, since I grew up with Harry Potter, she holds a special place in my heart. And I do appreciate that you point out the cringe moments as that is how you do good critique. Point out the good and the bad, just like we should do in feminism.
This is by far the most disappointing Sommers talk that I have ever listened to.
Heforshe is more of the same crap, and this speech didn't address any of the real male issues. This is just more special pleading for women and their privileges. Sommers should not have fallen for this charade.
Agreed, thought she was better than that.
Oh fuck! I criticized a woman. Miiiiiisogyny!!!!!!
I have to agree with what you say. Sadly, I had the same disappointment with CHS ultimate conclusion. I formed the impression that CHS really wants this to be the resurgence of a new egalitarian feminism that respects and includes men - however it's clear that is nowhere in this UN speech.
I continue to enjoy and learn from CHS work, she is a highly intelligent woman. This time however she missed the mark somewhat.
Lloyd De Jongh
We all make mistakes. Hopefully Sommers will refrain from making this mistake again.
This was a UN Speech . its rare that real problems get addressed there.
I think this is a case where Christina really just wanted to see something that wasn't there. Obviously a downside of being an optimistic person :)
Kiran Maktoum
I know, it was just disappointing. I will still watch her materials.
In Emmas speach she said that feminism is by definition equality for everyone, it isn't and its wrong. By definition it stand for the rights and equal treatment of women, it doesn't stand for the rights and equal treatment of everyone. It egalitarianism that stand for the equal treatment of everyone, not feminism.
+Cloud Seeker She didn't say "equality for everyone" she said equality of the sexes... the difference here is that egalitarianism is by definition equailty of EVERY single human being on the planet. Feminism is by definition only focussed on the equality of sexes. (third wave feminism aside)
TheGamesforreal Its the same thing just using different words, the meaning is the same.
Cloud Seeker no not really... there's a subtle difference
Gender equality: people are treated the same regardless of sex
Egalitarian equality: Everyone is treated the same regardless of sex, *race, sexuality, hair color, or whatever biological or social difference you can come up with.*
Egalitarianism is more adamant about equality, basically.
"Equality of the sexes" where is that equality? where are the woman that get called rapist pigs where is that equality I just cant seem to see it
The danger of equalism is that people can mistake it for identicalism. And in that case, things can go wrong again. We should have rights to our gender that would allow us to be best of ourselves.
Diversalism?
A celebrity of any kind is the last person I would ever take advice from.
I refuse to watch beauty and the beast because she is in it.
I'm getting kind of tired of leftists using celebrities to push their perspectives and or agenda. I'm sorry but I can't seem to trust people whose job it is to lie about who they are. And to be honest she seemed really shaky and nervous giving this presentation. This looks like a paid job to me.