[ snipped portion can be found here ]
Well, if you will simply refer to the captioned gif that I helpfully provided at the top of this post, you’ll find Emma Watson referring to feelings of sensitivity and vulnerability as something that men have “abandoned” to be less than “true and complete versions” of themselves. This is a very polite and concise way to say that the reason men are not more like women is because they are wounded and limited and stunted. In the video that this gif is taken from, she makes a few seconds of lip service to the issues that men suffer, and then drops this innocuous bit of contempt on us all. In her speech, she offers to do men the greatest favor she can: offer to make them more like women.
And I think that is very clear that she considers men to be lesser creatures, wouldn’t you agree? If I told you that you are, by nature and circumstance, false and incomplete and in need of change to be a real person, you’d say that I had insulted you gravely, wouldn’t you?
As for the part about men doing all they can to women: if you re-read my words, you’ll find that I was referring not to men having already done all they can for women, but that I was referring to her asking that men do all they can for women. Because in her mind, what has been done is not enough. Laws that protect women and only women from abuse are not enough, laws that protect women and only women from rape are not enough. Laws that guarantee women an equal wage are not enough, and laws that guarantee women a greater degree of money for health research, education, civil protections, economic welfare, and shelters are not enough. She has every right that her male countrymen have, and more. And she wants more. Feminists have wanted more for a hundred years, and they’re not slowing down or demanding less. They were offered equality fifty years ago in America, and they turned it down because it wasn’t good enough for them. That’s what I mean about men doing absolutely everything that they possibly can for women: because that’s the only thing that will appease the feminist movement. Maybe.
Thank you for confirming that those are opinions and not facts. Your interpretations are a little too divergent for me to agree.
My interpretation is that seeing men as a means to an end is not less hateful than seeing them as an enemy, it’s just less obviously hateful. But if your opinion is that it’s fine to objectify men for their utility, then we’ve both got opinions here.
That speech showed great respect and care for men, to the extent that it makes a lot of feminists uncomfortable. It was one the most male inclusive feminist speeches of recent memory. And nowhere does it insult men. If it excluded men and I’m sure some men would be equally unimpressed and victimized.
Manipulating men into acting against the tenets of basic fairness and justice is not respectful or caring, it is insulting. And it is very inclusive: inviting men to join the list of people that advocate and agitate on behalf of women’s privilege. Its inclusivity does not, however, include men as possible beneficiaries of this activism and advocacy. It still pushes the ‘only women need equality’ idea, and that idea needs to be laid to rest once and for all.
The reality is that many laws exist and are systematically defied all the time. The gender wage gap does infact exist despite laws.
Yet, it does not exist in defiance of those laws. Apples to apples comparisons of men and women’s earnings shows perfect parity to within statistical margin of error. The difference in overall earnings is due to women choosing lower-paying fields, choosing flexible scheduling rather than overtime, and taking non-salary benefits like increased insurance coverage in lieu of full cash-out paychecks. What we’re illustrating, you and i, is the difference between equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. This is a huge distinction that needs to be understood, and a fundamental tenet of feminism is to overlook that distinction at every opportunity.
Women’s bodies are still a political battlegrounds despite our constitutional rights.
True. But every inch of reproductive rights women have in the West is an inch that men lack, men have much less autonomy than women do, by any metric. So decrying them as subjugated and embattled is disingenuous at best.
It’s not just a legal problem, it’s a cultural problem.
Meaning a social problem, one that comes down to individual opinions and expression of those opinions. There’s no way to ‘solve’ those ‘problems’, without infringing on personal liberties to an abhorrent and despotic degree. But the fact that feminism has been trying to solve social issues with formal legislation for fifty years is exactly why men cannot be legally recognized as abuse victims in many jurisdictions, and rape victims in most of the world.
As long as there are people who deny this dissonance there will be a need for all equality movements.
I see what your intention is when you write this, yet I still disagree. I find that the feminist movement has become far too corrupt to serve a useful purpose. It is counter-productive to continue supporting an institution that has done so much harm and continues to do so.
If some men are comfortable with their privilege and unable to see validity in even the most optimistic, inclusive and feel-good versions of feminism then no amount of objective fact based evidence will change their minds. It’s rather unfortunate.
What fact-based evidence have you provided, other than a passing reference to the laughably-debunked wage gap?
This is not about being ‘comfortable with my privilege’, this is about wanting the same legal rights that women currently hold, and about the new UN Women proposal that serves only to give them more rights, protections and opportunities that I do not have.
Yes, this HeForShe program is the most inclusive and soft-sold version of feminism that we have seen in this generation. And it still fails every tenet of basic fairness and equity. The purpose of it is to convince men to commit to elevating women on an ever-greater pedestal. It is an appeal to chivalry, not equality.
In closing, I would like to address your repeated insinuations that I am railing against your cool, hard facts with nothing more than my opinions.
Regarding the mythically alleged wage gap. More sources . Every one of those contains multiple citations from highly-reputable sources.
But maybe you want to talk about more than the pay gap, and are interested in facts about how men need to be advocating for themselves instead.
Or facts about how hateful destructive feminism really is.
I don’t ask you to read all of those. I just ask you to understand that my stance here is based on empiricism, not random prejudices. But I’d be thrilled to death if you did read them, oxxxygenslut.