News Emma Watson on Equality and UN HeForShe Campaign

[Bandersnatch]

This is very different from a lonely nut with no influence ,having a webpage with 10 views in the last 5 years. The difference with your ref. is that , AFAIK, Ken Ham and his museum have only limited influence, limited funding, visibility media access , limited influence on the mainstream, and are commonly recognized as being absurd. Not so for the brand I refer to.

Ah, spoken like somebody who doesn't follow the topic very closely. Here's a quick primer:
Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis consistently gets ~250K hits per year, and the Creation Museum gets a similar yearly attendance. On the agenda pushed by the organisation is to include teaching creationism(rebranded Intelligent Design) in schools, and questioning evolution. The influence they have can be measured in altered texbooks and supreme court cases, as well as widespread acceptance of creationism in the US - presidential candidates(Romney), Texas Board of Education members(and president in 2006-2008), even a large percentage of general populace, all profess essentially the same set of beliefs as Ken Ham's. They are hardly a benign, toothless kind of crazy.

And yet, if somebody went and spoke in the defence of fellow Christians being persecuted in Somalia, it'd be equally perverse to conflate their position with young Earth creationistm as it is to conflate the idea of women being people as expressed by Watson with man-hating.

 

[jz92wjaz]

The feminists I know are generally very reasonable people. They hold some opinions I don't agree with, but those opinions don't oppress men, and they do fight for a lot of things I think are very worthy.

As has been stated, the majority of people in our country making laws are men, and the majority of professors are men. Men's issues are going to be considered regardless of what feminists push for. Men in power who would oppress women are nearly guaranteed to outnumber the women in power who would oppress men. Politically, the power balance greatly favors men, so I am not concerned about extreme feminist ideas gaining traction in our legal system. That, and I don't see much support for extreme ideas from women. If a specific radical idea is looking like it's going to be included in a new law, then it's relevant and should be looked at. Otherwise, I see little reason to even bring it up.

Bandersnatch: In the primaries, Romney stated in an interview that he believed that Evolution was the mechanism God used to create humans, and opposed the teaching of creationism in science class.

 

[WWGD]

.

Ah, spoken like somebody who doesn't follow the topic very closely. Here's a quick primer:
Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis consistently gets ~250K hits per year, and the Creation Museum gets a similar yearly attendance. On the agenda pushed by the organisation is to include teaching creationism(rebranded Intelligent Design) in schools, and questioning evolution. The influence they have can be measured in altered texbooks and supreme court cases, as well as widespread acceptance of creationism in the US - presidential candidates(Romney), Texas Board of Education members(and president in 2006-2008), even a large percentage of general populace, all profess essentially the same set of beliefs as Ken Ham's. They are hardly a benign, toothless kind of crazy.

And yet, if somebody went and spoke in the defence of fellow Christians being persecuted in Somalia, it'd be equally perverse to conflate their position with young Earth creationistm as it is to conflate the idea of women being people as expressed by Watson with man-hating.

I think we are not understanding each other: first, I qualified my statement with an AFAIK; I do stand corrected. I do not know every single nook and cranny of every issue. Does neither mean nor imply that I am not well-informed in general. I stated the fact that the radicals formed a "non-trivial" lobby, and I was pointing out the fact. I was not comparing this with the creationists, because I do not know enough about the issue. I was just pointing out thee existence of a powerful cadre of feminist radicals, and I was pointing out that this is the brand that I oppose. I made no reference to any other group; this was intended as a "Stand-alone" statement.

And please do not put the wrong words in my mouth; I have _never_ conflated the idea of women being people as expressed by Watson (although I do have some caveats on what she said) with man-hating. Did I express myself so poorly? I just stated that there is a brand within feminism embedded within the mainstream of society that is hateful; maybe the feminist equivalent of Ken Ham in that they are both embedded in mainstream society and have plenty of funding and overall support within that society. I believe in equal rights for all defined in a "reasonable way" ( don't want to veer into philosophy and see this thread closed for it ).

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, guys, I'm not seeing much merrit here at all. I find the speech to be at best, pointless and at worst, insulting.

Malala got shot in the face because she wanted to protect her right to attend school, and Emma Watson is complaining about girls not wanting to play sports because they don't want it affecting their figures. One is a real problem, the other is not.

Emma is right that gender stereotypes in Western society go both ways, but so what? The reason they go both ways is that they are the white noise left-over after the real problem is eliminated. They aren't even really much of a problem at all, much less one that requires activism. If getting shot in the face because you want to go to school is a 9 on a scale of -10 to 10 (negative numbers for men) then quitting soccer because you want to keep your figure is a 0.1 and the men-are-stupid TV stereotype is a -0.1.

The Western "problems" she listed are the noise that is left-over after legal equality is achieved. They are not womens'/human rights problems, much less global problems warranting a UN discussion about them. She was talking about the wrong issues.

Now, the problems with the definition and movement of feminism come from the above misdirection. Two ways:

1. The definition of feminism from the dictionary is "the advocacy of womens' rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." But women have legally recognized equal rights in the West. There is nothing for for feminists to do on that front.

2. Because the "problems" in the West are somewhere between miniscule and nonexistent when compared to the womens/human rights issues in the developing world, in order to be a Western-focused feminist you either have to be an activist who is fighting hard* to achieve very little or an extremist. Let me put that another way: It is natural to get angry/passionate fighting against men shooting women in the face. That's an extreme act that warrants extreme measures to combat. Combat. Literally. Calling a girl "bossy"? Not nice, but it isn't in the same universe as shooting her in the face.

*Based on her speech, Watson appears to me to not be an extremist; she's just passionately fighting to achieve very little.

 

[WWGD]

I fully agree, Ross Watters; you said it much better than I did. My point is that, I do agree with you, and I am really baffled at the vitriol of some (many of the ones I run into; maybe my experience , living in NYC, the birthplace of feminist activism is somehow not representative of the "average" feminist movement) against men; I just really don't get it. Maybe I am not much better/classier in my reaction to that vitriol, I hate to admit.

 

[WWGD]

...Wow, just reading this thread and it's absurd just how much concentrated, vitriolic hate there is directed at radfems - radfems who apparently control all of government and the media, somehow. Are they the new Illuminati or something?

Actually, never mind - there isn't hate directed at radfems, but hate directed at women who stand up for themselves. Really sad to see such a thing.

I don't know who you are referring to, but I never stated that these women control anything; I said that some of the members of brands I believe to be radical occupy positions of power , have financial backing and have access to the mainstream media, i.e., they are not marginal(ized) figures. That is all I said.

And, just curious, what is it they are standing up for, what is it that is so horrible that is being done to them, or that is afflicting them?

 

[Tobias Funke]

Again, point out the racist like, or retract . If you don't, I will report your post.

No, stop doing this. Report what you will, you know I stated very clearly that I don't think you're racist. I even quickly edited the post because I didn't initially make that clear enough and it could be genuinely confusing. If you insist on throwing fits and being outraged at all your misreadings, that's not my problem. For the last time, and then I'm done with you, I'm pointing out that the poster who believes that the rights of men are under attack also seems to believe that the rights of white people (white men at least) are under attack. That's no coincidence; the two beliefs are often paired. That's all I said, and I think it's worthwhile to consider the similar techniques used to plant and foster such beliefs.

 

[GTOM]

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2014/09/30/an-open-letter-to-emma-watson/While Emma has good points, but as it was mentioned before, even the name of the campaign is suspicious, He for She, why not He AND She?I expect this soon turns into a campaign of :
- traditional family model is bad
- boys should be wussies
- women shouldn't become housewifes
- ban porn
- abortion is basic woman right, but men has to pay for unwanted kids and should be punished for going to a prostitue

The seeds are already there (why no gender equality in ANY country, why boys arent sensitive, i was sexualized...) and they will be nurtured by people who barely cares about real rape victims, they care about sue men for sexist jokes, get taxpayer money for fighting against phantoms, make stupid roles, extend their influence.

If i will be wrong, that would be a positive development.

And of course i agree there are many parts of the world where isn't legal equality, and i see that a bad thing, both for females, and boys.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-...rning-boys-alive-wake-media-up-to-boko-haram/

 

[nikkkom]

As has been stated, the majority of people in our country making laws are men, and the majority of professors are men.

Majority of people working in the fashion industry are women. I take it men must fight for equality there, pronto. I demand the quotas to be instituted for men in the fashion industry. Sarcasm.

Men in power who would oppress women are nearly guaranteed to outnumber the women in power who would oppress men.

Men who will get abused in prisons are nearly guaranteed to outnumber the women (because the prison population is predominantly male). I take it men are horribly oppressed. Sarcasm.

Politically, the power balance greatly favors men, so I am not concerned about extreme feminist ideas gaining traction in our legal system.

Search the net for harrowing stories of male divorcees who lost everything - family, children, home, money - because courts are far more often side with a woman on these issues. (No, I'm not holding a personal grudge. I'm not a divorcee).

As it currently stands, marital and divorce laws are in fact already so unfair towards men that I would recommend to never marry - just live together without formally marrying.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Is it really so hard to stop pretending it's a football match and not choose sides? How about we start condemning inequality without first checking between our legs which side of the argument we need to turn a blind eye to?

 

[WWGD]

Is it really so hard to stop pretending it's a football match and not choose sides? How about we start condemning inequality without first checking between our legs which side of the argument we need to turn a blind eye to?

Well, what happens is that there are real-life consequences to the trashing and demonizing of men; claims like " a woman is sexually-assaulted every two seconds (Carolyn Maloney, D-NY), expressed without any qualification (is an incident reported as assault by a woman automatically considered to be an assault? Does the man get to give his side? Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty? Isn't there an element of subjectivity associated with an (alleged) assault?), or the old canard that a woman makes $.70 for every $1.00 a man makes (again: why would anyone hire a man)?

Listen, it is not a matter of nitpicking, nor a matter of boys are better than girls; there are very real consequences to these beliefs and to these claims being made. These beliefs shape public attitudes and public policies. I mean, what do you think will happen if a man goes looking for a job , and the interviewer has been hearing repeatedly how men have had unfair advantages over women for years? What do you think will happen if you have a discussion with a woman in a public place and you happen to raise your voice, and there is a cop nearby that has been hearing repeatedly that a woman is assaulted every two seconds? Don't you think that seriously raises the chances that you will get in trouble or even go to jail? And now the state of NY openly favors businesses owned by women.
Beliefs have consequences; it is a reality of the world we live in. That is why I post what I post; ideas have consequences. And, guess what: ignoring what the nuts say doesn't work.

Now, if you have a suggestion for how to address this, I will gladly hear it. It would be nice to live in a world where this doesn't matter, but, like it or not, beliefs have consequences, and the trashing and demonizing of men has very real negative consequences for your average man.

 

[lisab]

Well, what happens is that there are real-life consequences to the trashing and demonizing of men; claims like " a woman is sexually-assaulted every two seconds (Carolyn Maloney, D-NY), expressed without any qualification (is an incident reported as assault by a woman automatically considered to be an assault? Does the man get to give his side? Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty? Isn't there an element of subjectivity associated with an (alleged) assault?), or the old canard that a woman makes $.70 for every $1.00 a man makes (again: why would anyone hire a man)?

Listen, it is not a matter of nitpicking, nor a matter of boys are better than girls; there are very real consequences to these beliefs and to these claims being made. These beliefs shape public attitudes and public policies. I mean, what do you think will happen if a man goes looking for a job , and the interviewer has been hearing repeatedly how men have had unfair advantages over women for years? What do you think will happen if you have a discussion with a woman in a public place and you happen to raise your voice, and there is a cop nearby that has been hearing repeatedly that a woman is assaulted every two seconds? Don't you think that seriously raises the chances that you will get in trouble or even go to jail? And now the state of NY openly favors businesses owned by women.
Beliefs have consequences; it is a reality of the world we live in. That is why I post what I post; ideas have consequences. And, guess what: ignoring what the nuts say doesn't work.

Now, if you have a suggestion for how to address this, I will gladly hear it. It would be nice to live in a world where this doesn't matter, but, like it or not, beliefs have consequences, and the trashing and demonizing of men has very real negative consequences for your average man.

Ironic to hear you calling out people who have made statements without qualification. You've done the same so many times in this thread.

We've strayed far from the OP on Watson's speech, into "things people on the fringe say that piss me off". Stop it. Get back on topic.

Everyone: the innerwebs are full of places where people can simply kvetch at the world. PF isn't one of those places.

 

[WWGD]

I am willing to offer support for any and every claim I have made, and include data if needed; please don't say that I have made statements without qualification or give examples of such claims. And my whole point is that _ it is not a fringe_ , and that is why I bring it up. Still, I will try to get back on topic.

 

[jz92wjaz]

@nikkkom
The purpose of my post was to respond to another poster who has expressed repeated concerns that feminists have infiltrated certain areas of the system, like academia, and are using that power to unfairly push their cause at the expense of men. My response was that I am not overly concerned about it, because there are a lot of people out there who act as a counterbalance to what radical feminism pushes for, including women. I am a supporter of middle of the road discussions on this issue. I think there are valid concerns that men and women have, and there are changes that should be made. I am most certainly not pushing for equal representation of women in politics and academia, because I think most differences in society between the genders are down to personal choice. Men are more likely to make choices that put them in politics and academia, and women make choices that place them in other portions of society, and I see no reason to spend time and money trying to fix something of minimal consequence that is caused by personal choice.

I am opposed to radical feminism and radical men's groups. I've seen the ugly side of both groups, and I think it only serves to divide men and women when we focus on the negative, instead of the good. I see normal men and women who take on a variety of different labels who truly want equal opportunity and fair treatement, who are constantly drowned out by those on the fringe who have distorted our perceptions on gender issues. I believe there is a great need for men and women in the middle to come together and take a look at all of these issues, which are human issues, and have reasonable discussions on how we can change the things that need to be changed. In that sense, I am supportive of the brand of feminism that Emma Watson is talking about.

 

[nikkkom]

I just learned that Tokyo subway has "women-only" trains.
Is it funny or outrageous? You decide.

 

[russ_watters]

I just learned that Tokyo subway has "women-only" trains.
Is it funny or outrageous? You decide.

These days it can be tough to know which way the prejudice points...whether it is discrimination against or special treatment for.

In this case, I'll go with special treatment to counteract the rampant sexual assault problem in Japanese mass transit. Am I right?

 

[nikkkom]

These days it can be tough to know which way the prejudice points...whether it is discrimination against or special treatment for.

Special treatment IS discrimination.