Emma Watson on Equality and UN HeForShe Campaign

[Astronuc]

Emma Watson made a brilliant speech to the US on 20 September 2014.

Speech by UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson at a special event for the HeForShe campaign, United Nations Headquarters, New York, 20 September 2014 - See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emma-watson-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too



http://www.heforshe.org/

 

[nikkkom]

I wouldn't participate or help in any such campaigns.

I believe in Western countries women already have absolutely the same rights as men.
In fact it sometimes feels like they have more rights.
For example, in divorces, when they don't resolve amiably, men usually lose a lot of $$$, as well as the custody of their children.

There is this joke that soon it will be a crime to be a white young male.

I am against any discrimination. I am against discrimination of women, *and men*.

 

[WWGD]

Right on, nikkkom. Let's imprison some 1,000,000 women, so there can be equal imprisonment rate. Let's start giving custody to millions of dads to get equality in family court, where moms get custody more often . Let's get women to sign up for selective service system at 18 (who has fought most wars? )... cherry-picking continues. Let's allow dads to discontinue child support when DNA testing shows the children they are supporting are not their own (some women groups oppose this.) And show me a study that clearly shows women get paid less _for the same work_ -- why would anyone hire a man if this was the case? . How about we start spending the same amount to fight prostate cancer as we do for breast cancer, since both have the same fatality rates? How about we talk about domestic violence against men, not just against women? A man cannot fight back because the second he even tries to defend himself and touches a woman in self-defense, he will go to jail and have a record. Good luck finding a reasonable job/housing after that. Enough of this nonsense, let's hear the other side of the story for once:

http://www.cuil.pt/r.php?cx=002825717068136152164:qf0jmwd8jku&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8&q=men's rights&sa=Search.

 

[jz92wjaz]

I liked her speech. Most people subconsciously and unintentionally discriminate in ways that hurt both genders. Subconscious/unintentional bias against men may mean higher conviction rates and longer jail sentences for the same crime, when compared to women, and can lead to false assumptions that equally qualified women are less suited to a job, resulting in lower pay. When a husband is more suited to care for children and a wife is more suited to work, societal pressures often push the man into work, and leave the woman as the primary caregiver for the children. Ideally, we'd live in a society that let's people be who they are, and treats them as individuals, and not as members of a group. However, human nature is what it is, and it's hard to change.

 

[GTOM]

"No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality."

Different things or people will be never all equal, yeah man don't have to be aggressive, masculine whatever... then they wonder why girls choose the bad guys... while they remain to be cute friends.

 

[WWGD]

O.K, so I made an idiot of myself by reacting in a knee-jerk way. Sorry , Astronuc, others, I stand embarrassed and corrected; Emma Watson was actually pretty reasonable. Since I decry ideologues, I should try to avoid being one myself.

 

[lisab]

O.K, so I made an idiot of myself by reacting in a knee-jerk way. Sorry , Astronuc, others, I stand embarrassed and corrected; Emma Watson was actually pretty reasonable. Since I decry ideologues, I should try to avoid being one myself.

You beat me to it - I was going to admonish you for not actually watching the video :p!

I really liked her speech. Her message isn't a feminist one, it's a human one.

 

[Tobias Funke]

She would probably be the first to say that it is a feminist message, which in no way means it can't also be a human one. Wasn't one of her points how feminism is misrepresented as an extreme man-hating ideology? The fact that people are so quick to claim that it's not feminist because it's reasonable and they agree with it just proves her point. Well, that and the fact that people are essentially calling her a man-hater without watching the video.

 

[Enigman]

I liked her better when she was doing it for S.P.E.W. but this is great too.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Loved the video. Rock on Emma!

 

[OmCheeto]

Loved the video. Rock on Emma!

Me too. I find it difficult not to think like she does. Does this make us "inadvertent feminists"?

hmmm... Not sure about the t-shirt though.

I only look like that for the first 30 minutes after waking up every morning.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I only look like that for the first 30 minutes after waking up every morning.

Your best 30 minutes of the day?It's a scary thing that the word "feminist" evokes its caricature before its actual meaning.

 

[WWGD]

There are many different brands and degrees of feminism (as there are of many movements) , some brands more extreme than others; some of these _are_ man-hating IMO . Her statement may be interpreted in different ways, maybe meaning that she identifies herself with the brands that are not man-hating. And, Tobias Funke, it would be a good idea if you for once addressed me _directly_ instead of making all sort of oblique references to me. At least I admit when I am wrong; and I can see different interpretations, which you are apparently unable/unwilling/both to do. You seem to be unable/unwilling to conceive of this possibility: there is no such a thing as a monolithic feminist movement, so referring to feminism without additional qualifications is at best ambiguous.

 

[WWGD]

Your best 30 minutes of the day?It's a scary thing that the word "feminist" evokes its caricature before its actual meaning.

It is scarier that some cannot see that there is a very extreme brand of the feminist movement, by no means a caricature; it is a very well-organized and very well-funded movement, with very outspoken and very active members wanting to pass all sorts of men-hating laws. Feminism is _not_ a monolithic movement with just one variant. Why don't you show up in one of the classes at Hunter College in CUNY or many other schools throughout the country -- and bring your cup protector with you - because you will be demeaned, figuratively castrated accused of every evil that has ever happened , and will not be given _any_ chance to reply to the systematic cherry-picking from a professor who does not understand the most basic aspects of statistics.
These are tenured professors, not by far outside-of-the-mainstream nuts sitting in the middle-of-nowhere; this means that several people, whole committees who were aware of their hateful views approved of them and decided to let them go on.

Before you make statements like these, spend a few days watching MSNBC, where many rich/influential feminist constantly spew their hatred of men and make indefensible statements that go unchallenged: Donna Edwards (paraphrase): Some people claim there is no unfairness in pay ; that is just not true. Some famous professor : today's youth agree with us that there is unfairness in pay in today's world. Wow, really, is that what passes for a debate? That is just not true? Got me, you're right. So today's youth believe there is unfairness. Guess what , yesterday's youth believed Blacks were inferior.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I'm not saying there are no "extremist feminists", for the lack of a better label. I'm saying they're just as representative of the majority of feminists as Ken Ham and the Creation Museum is of the majority of Christians.

 

[WWGD]

Not so. like I said, these are not far-out nuts having no influence; these are extremists that are very well-embedded in the mainstream as tenured professors, as well-paid consultants in mainstream cable TV --MSNBC in prime time, (not on channel 557 at 3 a.m.) as senators, etc.. They are very well-funded and very well-organized, and frequently promote the passing of laws that benefit them at men's expense . 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.

 

[Tobias Funke]

WWGD, I wasn't only referring to you in this thread. There's a pretty major backlash against Watson for her speech in the men's rights arena*, and I addressed you very directly in another thread, so I don't know what you mean by "for once." You jump at any opportunity to launch into your script about strawmen feminists, either when it has nothing to do with the thread or, in this case, without knowing what you're talking about. Calling you wrong multiple times for doing the same thing doesn't make me close-minded. Even your methodology is meaningless because making a list of 10 or so "men vs. women" statistics accomplishes nothing. "Men commit suicide more" can easily be paired against the similarly themed "women are twice as likely to suffer from depression." Do they cancel each other out then? That's really your approach to such a nuanced issue?

There's been an active misinformation campaign against feminism for over 100 years (see the anti-suffragette propaganda for example) and you're falling for it perfectly**. Yes, to your credit you admitted that you were wrong, and you can use this as a learning experience and question whether you might have the wrong idea about feminism---or at least the wrong ratio of extreme feminists with power : regular feminists who don't want to destroy men--or you can keep doubling down and complaining about all these rabid feminist lunatics that are supposedly constantly on TV and infiltrating the government.

*Anyone interested in what these people think in general should check out David Futrelle's blog. These aren't random trolls he's quoting (not always or even most of the time at least), they're people in leadership positions and respected within their community.

**I can't resist another footnote. This smear campaign is similar to and interects several others. I noticed that you mentioned past ideas about race, because obviously racism is wrong. Yet you liked a post that "joked" (we know it wasn't entirely a joke though) about a near future with white men being persecuted and, I guess, arrested. There was no mention of race at all before that. So what type of person says something like that? A non-racist? Not too likely. (note that I asked what type of person says something like that, not agrees with the overall post; I'm not calling you a racist)

 

[WWGD]

Please do quote the post about white men being persecuted and arrested that I liked. Because this 'liking' thing has been in place here for around a week -or-so. Please do give me a link to it. And calling me wrong just shows you disagree with me , because you have not offered a single serious counter to anything I said. And your claims of strawmen are just garbage, and difficult to take seriously when you repeatedly engage in red herrings.

And please convince me that there is a backlash in "the men's rights arena" , whatever that may mean. And don't patronize me on my having the wrong idea on feminism, when I have never seen any real effort on your part to consider the possibility that _you_ are wrong. And please do look at the feminists that believe that men should support for life children that are not their own.

Besides, what do you mean supposedly are constantly on TV ? Have you ever watched prime-time cable? What do you mean that the extreme feminists are marginal figures? Have you ever been to a mainstream class on feminism? These are _tenured professors_ that are teaching classes where evidence is cherry-picked. And there consultants in prime-time cable. There are female senators that use words like "sexual assault" and even "rape" in the most casual way; it is a jury that must decide whether a rape/assault happened. How is this a marginal movement, a fringe? These college professors and other women espousing these views have also appeared a few times on C-Span book TV. How is this not a substantial representation of this extreme brand?
Of course, you believe that your exposure and your experience are perfectly representative of the general experience with feminists, and anyone who does not report a similar experience to yours is necessarily biased. So don't patronize me on open-mindness until you show some yourself.

And, if you want to have a serious discussion, stop distorting and ridiculing what I say , re "women who are supposedly infiltrating the government". I only said that there were female senators along these extremists.

And what is the point of that link on Futrelle? You're referring me to someone who agrees with you and who mocks those who disagree with him. What gives?

 

[WWGD]

Here is another example of the absurdity of so many of your claims. In this case I am referring to your claim that there is a serious backlash against Emma Watson. A Cuil search on Emma Watson:

http://www.cuil.pt/r.php?cx=0028257...cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8&q=emma watson&sa=Search

Reveals only one indirect reference to her speech on women's rights in the first 3 pages. Is that what you call a serious backlash? Or maybe you are providing evidence of how little men's rights matter that the search produces no hits on men's rights organizations?

And here is a search for "Emma Watson, Men's rights":

http://eldritchedain.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/an-open-letter-to-emma-watson/

There is one mention in the first three pages of someone trying to hack her site and post nude images of her in retaliation. Is this the great backlash you refer to? You seem to expect that I will agree with you just because you say I am wrong. That is not going to happen; I form my opinions carefully, I can support them, I need convincing counters, and you have not offered a single one so far. You seem to be stuck in a self-righteous vicious circle of unfalsifiable beliefs.

Now, Tobias, start finding a justification for these quotes from the "marginal" man-haters:
Here are 23 more feminist statements we (men) are required to overlook because feminists (and you) tell us to…
1)I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
2)The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. Linda Gordon
3)I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. Andrea Dworkin
4)Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage. Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
5)Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Andrea Dworkin
6)The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist. Ti-Grace Atkinson
7)Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will p.6
8)When a woman reaches ****** with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression. Sheila Jeffrys
9)Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. Catherine MacKinnon
10)The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men. Sharon Stone
11)Ninety-five percent of women’s experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive… women didn’t go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo. Jodie Foster, quoted in The New York Times Magazine
12)The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female
13)And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference. Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime
14)If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. Mary Daly
15)If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them. David Angier
16)Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience. Catherine Comins
17)As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters… THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE. Marilyn French
18)I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it. Barbara Jordan, former Congresswoman
19)Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release. Germaine Greer
20)Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence. Judith Levine
21)omen have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do. Popular Feminist Graffiti
22)We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable. Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women
23)I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it’s OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys. Treena Shapiro

And how about the SCUM manifesto, Tobias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto?

Tobias, extremism by women is so rare, and so marginal that these must have been the _only_ vicious comments ever expressed, right?

 

[GTOM]

She is cute that she cares about some man's problem also, just live in an illusion... even in many arabic countries woman can become members of police, pilots, in the rest of them, that feminist and equality stuff still has some useful purpose, otherwise it is a nonsense, that results men importing wives from Malaysia, because they are still feminine, and girls seeking the company of arabic and african men...
I'm really glad i met men who shattered illusions.

 

[Char. Limit]

...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.

 

[GTOM]

I like women standing up for themselves, and refuse conspiracy theories, that no matter what laws say, who are rescued first when the ship sinks, they are OPPRESSED.

https://www.facebook.com/WomenAgainstFeminism

 

[Tobias Funke]

WWGD, you're trying to get me on the most flimsy things imaginable. You didn't technically "like" that post but the first thing you did in the next post is express that you liked it. OH WOW YOU GOT ME! That totally changes the spirit of what I said. And no, you never implied that radical feminists are infiltrating the government, just that they have influence to pass man-hating laws and why don't more people see itI?! Again, you really got me on that technicality. Way to demonstrate your debating skills with someone who's not even really debating you.

As for your list (you like throwing up lists of things don't you?), provide dates, magazines/interviews, etc., because so many supposed feminist quotes are unverifiable, taken out of context, or evn worse, like taken from a character in said feminist's novel. Futrelle dissected such a list, and probably snopes too. Also keep in mind that Sharon Stone saying something stupid doesn't exactly prove your point about a powerful extremist feminist lobby, whose man-hatred manifests itself in pointing out a wage gap (the horror!)

 

[WWGD]

Please do link to that post. I am calling you on it. Interesting how you chided me for not reading carefully, and this, to you was evidence of my dishonesty and radicalism , yet you end up doing the exact same. And the lists are part of what is called "supporting a point" . You should look into it if you choose to take a trip outside of your world of circular logic at some point --tho I doubt you ever will.

You see, Funke, I cannot explain my side of things if I have NO IDEA of what post you are referring to. Are you making up the post?

 

[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.

Nice way of distorting the issue. Another red herring--sad to see that indeed.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Please do link to that post. I am calling you on it. Interesting how you chided me for not reading carefully, and this, to you was evidence of my dishonesty and radicalism , yet you end up doing the exact same. And the lists are part of what is called "supporting a point" . You should look into it if you choose to take a trip outside of your world of circular logic at some point --tho I doubt you ever will.

You see, Funke, I cannot explain my side of things if I have NO IDEA of what post you are referring to. Are you making up the post?

It's the first sentence in your first post in this thread! You clearly expressed that you liked the post! Besides, I was making a point about the telling wording of the post itself (the unnecessary insertion of race) to illustrate how different smear campaigns often target the same type of individual, and you're nitpicking to the extreme as usual, making a big deal about nothing. Whether you clicked "like" or simply verbally agreed is unbelievably beside the point, which--hard as it may be for you to believe--wasn't really about you.

Now stop asking me to link you to things that everyone can plainly see for themselves.

Unrelated: I'm (sort of) glad this thread is still going. For a while I was worried that PF was getting a little soft with closing threads and editing posts. Not that there's much more to say at this point...

 

[WWGD]

Yes, "everyone can see for themselves". Nice and circular. You demand rigorous arguments from me, yet this is what
you offer. Very open-minded indeed.

And, re my endorsing a racist statement, there is no mention whatsoever of race in my first post here. Back up your innuendo, or retract your claim that I endorsed a racist statement. I only endorsed the first part, and the last part is not racist , but I did not endorse that part. This is dishonest on your part; the last sentence is separate, and , from the rest of my post it is clear what I was endorsing and agreeing with. That sentence is more of a stand against some forms of p.c. , and not a racist statement IMO.

 

[WWGD]

Funke: you have stated I endorsed a racist statement. I am no racist, and I take those claims seriously. Point out _specifically_ where I endorsed a racist statement, or retract that statement.

The first two sentences of my first post are:

" Right on, nikkkom. Let's imprison some 1,000,000 women, so there can be equal imprisonment rate... " Point out the racism or retract, and delete the post where you made the claim. It is clear from the rest of my post just what I am agreeing with, so stop stretching the truth; note that I did not mention anything in this regard in the rest of my post. And I do not believe this to be a racist statement either, despite the fact I was not endorsing it. This is a response to the claim and accusation that white hetero males are responsible for all the ills of society. Sit in on a course on feminism and you will hear it very often.


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

 

[OmCheeto]

...
https://www.facebook.com/WomenAgainstFeminism

Those women posting all sound like feminists. Perhaps they just don't like the tag.

The dictionary definition of feminism doesn't strike me as something that difficult to comprehend, and therefore shun: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

It sounds very reasonable.

Maybe they don't like Gloria Steinem. I remember her when growing up. She seemed very bossy, kind of like my older sister. Wow. Gloria Steinem is 80 years old!

Lots of interesting stuff in wikipedia about her life. Some of it is kind of funny, in a sad kind of way.

...
Paradoxically, the number of homosexuals may get smaller. With fewer over-possessive mothers and fewer fathers who hold up an impossibly cruel or perfectionist idea of manhood, boys will be less likely to be denied or reject their identity as males.
...
In 1977, Steinem expressed disapproval that the heavily publicized sex reassignment surgery of tennis player Renée Richards had been characterized as "a frightening instance of what feminism could lead to"
...
This is no simple reform. It really is a revolution. Sex and race because they are easy and visible differences have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups and into the cheap labor on which this system still depends. We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned. We are really talking about humanism.
...

...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.

Just do like I do, and stop reading a post, after the 1st indication that the poster is a misguided. Ain't nobody got time for that.

If they continue with misguided thoughts, in future posts, I add them to my ignore list. I'm kind of old, with a fairly predictable lifespan, and don't even have time to see their names again.

 

[WWGD]

Those women posting all sound like feminists. Perhaps they just don't like the tag.

The dictionary definition of feminism doesn't strike me as something that difficult to comprehend, and therefore shun: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

It sounds very reasonable.

Maybe they don't like Gloria Steinem. I remember her when growing up. She seemed very bossy, kind of like my older sister. Wow. Gloria Steinem is 80 years old!

Lots of interesting stuff in wikipedia about her life. Some of it is kind of funny, in a sad kind of way.





Just do like I do, and stop reading a post, after the 1st indication that the poster is a misguided. Ain't nobody got time for that.

If they continue with misguided thoughts, in future posts, I add them to my ignore list. I'm kind of old, with a fairly predictable lifespan, and don't even have time to see their names again.

But unfortunately the real thing does not always match the definition. Nor does everyone who calls themselves a feminist agree with the definition, and, if they do, they do not neccesarily live by what they claim to stand for. This is, of course, the case with many other, if not most of all movements; hypocrisy/self-delusion is a sad part of life.

 

[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.