Emma Watson on Feminism

If you think I am offended try coming out with shit like that to actual black people that live in these communities.

"If you were crafty you could get yourself to a decent position in life even in slavery"


Where do you get off?
 
What civil wars are these? Has there been a gender war I missed? Damn, who won?

If you ask black people quite a few will say there's a war going on them. Same goes for feminists, anti feminists, religious people etc.. It's not a view totally without justification. Not to say it is correct in the literal sense, but the fact that many perceive something like that is evidence of great friction.

Nobody wins.
 
If you think I am offended try coming out with shit like that to actual black people that live in these communities.

"If you were crafty you could get yourself to a decent position in life even in slavery"


Where do you get off?

Some black people owned their own slaves and property. How do you think that happened?
 
Which is why I said in some ways. Black folks during slavery and before segregation ended, in general lead lives of less violence, crime, better health and safer communities. Yes, they still had major cons such as being slaves or not having the same rights, but where they were once chastised by a white man they are now at war with other black folks in the drug infested ghettos. Where once they got punished for offending the master, they now get sent to jail for a bag of pot. Where they once received no education at all, they now receive the most shitty education possible in poor, run down schools when more affluent people get sent to private school. Some things have definitely become better, but I think it's a bit unfair to call their situation a success just because they are free and equal. As I said, if you were crafty you could get yourself into a decent position in life even during slavery, so it's not all black and white, no pun intended. I use this as an example of how "extremism" and "misguided activism" can have detrimental effects and are not just justified means for perceived end goals.

Apart from that tacking on at the end I felt she spelt a very inordinate time and focus on the western world. It doesn't quite look like water carrying women in Africa was the thing that inspired her (now that I could get behind).

Err.. no

I find your post very offensive, in that you'd equate freeing Black slaves as 'misguided activism'.
 
All that's missing is for Lothar to tell us he is in fact a woman, and then later admit he was just saying that for impact.
 
It's alright, you get a pot to piss in and you don't go to jail. Yeah you have to work for 15 hours on a cotton mill, but look at the bright side, your kind benevolent masters rule over you and don't send you to a drug infested ghetto.
 
Err.. no

I find your post very offensive, in that you'd equate freeing Black slaves as 'misguided activism'.

I didn't. In fact I explicitly said emancipation was one of the great achievements of that movement, but feel free to believe what you want.
 
Which is why I said in some ways. Black folks during slavery and before segregation ended, in general lead lives of less violence, crime, better health and safer communities. Yes, they still had major cons such as being slaves or not having the same rights, but where they were once chastised by a white man they are now at war with other black folks in the drug infested ghettos. Where once they got punished for offending the master, they now get sent to jail for a bag of pot. Where they once received no education at all, they now receive the most shitty education possible in poor, run down schools when more affluent people get sent to private school. Some things have definitely become better, but I think it's a bit unfair to call their situation a success just because they are free and equal. As I said, if you were crafty you could get yourself into a decent position in life even during slavery, so it's not all black and white, no pun intended. I use this as an example of how "extremism" and "misguided activism" can have detrimental effects and are not just justified means for perceived end goals.

Apart from that tacking on at the end I felt she spelt a very inordinate time and focus on the western world. It doesn't quite look like water carrying women in Africa was the thing that inspired her (now that I could get behind).

:lol:

I'd say "major cons" is understating things just a tiny bit.
 
Can we go back to the bit about slaves living in a world of less crime. Of course they live in a world of less crime, they're slaves! Its difficult to rob a bank when you will probably be shot for leaving your location, and everyone knows who you "belong to", from just one glance.

The moment you used that argument @Lothar, you've lost all credibility, possibly in all topics and threads. If its not obvious to you that a metric of "less crime" is ridiculous, youve possibly taken a bash to the head.

And speaking of crime and feminism, how often where female slaves raped by their masters? Every slave? Every second slave? Every third slave?

I'm just going to give up there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moses
I actually found his style very similar to those who were arguing that british rule had been good for the occupied people.

Yes, they are almost as bad as those who think the alternative to British rule at the time was a modern democratic justice based system which they stupidly judge the past by so they can maintain a grudge . They are both laughable aren't they?
 
This is the thread that just keeps on giving
 
I'm going to become one of Lothar's followers on the Caf. This guy will go on to do big things.
 
Tbf the black guy in 12 Years a Slave did get to keep his violin. There are definitely two sides to this.
 
Yeah, it's swings n' roundabouts for sure - he was a big band leader on the plantation.
 
I have tried to word this post delicately to avoid offence - but for the records I believe in gender equality, that women should have more or less the same opportunities in life as men, and certainly that neither gender is superior or inferior to the other.

More or less?
 

Like specific acting roles, modelling (as in, clothes etc). Manual labour is in general less suited to women as on average a woman is less physically strong (this doesn't mean they can't do it, simply that proportionally you won't see as many women on building sites as men, and it isn't due to any sort of favouritism.)

As I said in my original post which you quoted, to try to see both genders as identical is folly. Doesn't make one better than the other, but millennia of evolution has caused men and women to develop different mental and physical traits. To deliberately ignore these is simply blind ignorance.
 
Like specific acting roles, modelling (as in, clothes etc). Manual labour is in general less suited to women as on average a woman is less physically strong (this doesn't mean they can't do it, simply that proportionally you won't see as many women on building sites as men, and it isn't due to any sort of favouritism.)

As I said in my original post which you quoted, to try to see both genders as identical is folly. Doesn't make one better than the other, but millennia of evolution has caused men and women to develop different mental and physical traits. To deliberately ignore these is simply blind ignorance.

Alright, I'll give you "heavy lifting" but I'm pretty sure women are allowed to be actors and models these days.

And I'm not sure where you're getting the word "identical" from? Feminism isn't about making men and women "identical", it's about making them "equal".

I just happen to think using language like, "Women should be afforded MORE OR LESS the same opportunities as men" is very dubious, especially when you could only come up with heavy lifting. Maybe you didn't mean it the way it sounded, but it certainly could have been worded better as there should be NO opportunities off limits to women.
 
Alright, I'll give you "heavy lifting" but I'm pretty sure women are allowed to be actors and models these days.

And I'm not sure where you're getting the word "identical" from? Feminism isn't about making men and women "identical", it's about making them "equal".

I just happen to think using language like, "Women should be afforded MORE OR LESS the same opportunities as men" is very dubious, especially when you could only come up with heavy lifting. Maybe you didn't mean it the way it sounded, but it certainly could have been worded better as there should be NO opportunities off limits to women.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Of course women are allowed to be actors or models - my original post was simply that there will be times that a role or job requires a man (or a woman) due to its nature, not due to any sexist agenda. On a catwalk you are rarely going to see men modelling women's clothes.

While we are at it, I hate the name "Feminism" because it in itself is practically sexist. "Feminism" to me says that you want equal rights for women (which is fine) but are unconcerned about getting equal rights for men.
Now, I agree that there are more issues in this regard where women are not getting fair or equal treatment, but to say "I want equal rights for everyone" and "I want equal rights for women" are two different things and I think that is where a lot of the anti-feminist feeling comes from nowadays.
 
While we are at it, I hate the name "Feminism" because it in itself is practically sexist. "Feminism" to me says that you want equal rights for women (which is fine) but are unconcerned about getting equal rights for men.

Well, that makes no sense. How can you want women to have the same rights as men and simultaneously not want men to have those rights?

It's only called "Feminism" because it was started BY women, FOR women.

The LBGT community also want equal rights and they are referred to as "Gay rights" not "All sexual orientation rights" and no one has an issue with that.
 
Men already have such rights. It's why black power is more palatable than white power.

Well the original post/speech by Emma Watson seems to agree that there are issues facing men as well.

Again in not claiming that men "have it worse" or any such nonsense, but to focus exclusively on equality for one gender whilst ignoring the other, is sexist in itself, and it is from this that the whole "anti-men" feelings stem from, in my opinion. If you want to campaign for equality then campaign for equality for EVERYONE - women, men, black, white, whatever. Calling the movement "feminism" specifically does not help this, frankly.

Well, that makes no sense. How can you want women to have the same rights as men and simultaneously not want men to have those rights?

It's only called "Feminism" because it was started BY women, FOR women.

The LBGT community also want equal rights and they are referred to as "Gay rights" not "All sexual orientation rights" and no one has an issue with that.

Right, and if you re-read the Emma Watson statement then it explains better than I can, why making a movement - in your words - FOR WOMEN, is immediately alienating men from the discussion, and putting the focus exclusively on women, rather than having the focus on equality for everyone.
 
Insidious, isn't it? Men even try to control & define the issue of women's rights. Why on earth should feminists campaign for anyone but women?