Emma Watson on Feminism

Walrus said:
I agree with that.

There are plenty of stereotypes that men are pressured into living up to - being the breadwinner, courting - "chasing" the woman, paying for dates, being physically and emotionally strong.

I had this discussion the other day with my girlfriend and the key point I ended up with is that feminists try to see men and woman as the same. This simply isn't true. Men and women are NOT the same. Now, that does not mean they should not both be of equal "value" (for want of a better word) or that one is superior to the other, it simply means that there are inherent differences between the genders which not caused by any chauvinistic notions, bigotry or outdated opinions, but rather are caused from millennia of evolution during which gender roles were defined in ancient society.

Let me state now that this isn't a "women are housewives due to evolution" post, it is simply that men and women are inherently different, it is in our DNA. Men are naturally evolved to be physically stronger, women have evolved to have high maternal instincts just like in every other species (this is not the only difference, but it is, I would say the most commonly cited one). Over time, as society changes, these traits may well equal out again due to evolution, but in modern day society rather than trying to force absolute equality on men and women, we should recognise the inherent differences in the genders and accept them for what they are. This does not mean that if a woman wants to work full time as a bodybuilder, while the husband stays at home, that it shouldn't be allowed - far from it, I applaud both of them for not allowing society to define their roles or capabilities, but to give another example - there is a reason women don't compete with men in most sports. If one believes that men and women are identical, surely all sports, athletics etc should be unisex? No, they shouldn't (not anytime soon at least).

Another popular debate on this is about the sexualising/objectifying of women. My old housemate was a girl and had a NSFW Instagram page where she still posts saucy/provocative images to say the least. When I discussed her interpretation of feminism etc with her in this context, she said that she actually felt empowered by knowing all these hundreds of men "wanted" her and that she was the one in control, rather than feeling objectified etc.
Its an interesting area because a lot of women can make a living essentially off their looks. Is this unfair or the women in question for being objectified, or is in unfair on men who realistically don't have these sorts of.. Career opportunities? (Yes male models obviously exist, but there is a far bigger industry for female modelling, not to mention the "showgirls" who present trophies/provide eye candy, even down to the pretty girls holding up the numbers between rounds in a boxing match).

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. This does NOT mean however that men and women are identical.

I doubt I will say much more in this thread, as the last feminism thread I participated in got a little more heated than I would like, and earnt me this delightful tagline.
Click to expand...


Hahaha, I seen your tagline before I read your post, but anyway, after reading it, you worded it perfectly, and I couldn't agree more on all your points

Also about most feminist movements what I`ve noticed is they want more rights and "equality"for themselves, but do less work, but want the same pay

For example as you said as human beings and as a gender both have "different" roles inherently, I used to work in a factory where women were not allowed to lift anything at all, we should all do same job, but if something would need to be lifted, even if it was something small, or right beside them, they`d call a man over, here lift this onto the pallet etc

So we would do same thing they where doing but then have to lift the heavier stuff, I have no problem with that at all, except if the roles where reversed Im sure the women would be asking for more pay since they do more work

I mean giving equal pay doesn't really work then, so you cant want equality in everything, even though by nature women are physically weaker

I mean fair enough there's some areas where women deserve better laws, but now I think most of those outdated laws about women have been abolished

But this constant forcing of feminism needs to stop, as I really think they are taking it too far now
 
Silva said:
It starts when they're pretty much out of the womb. "What a clever boy" "what a pretty dress she's wearing" set the tone for what society's gonna do to the poor little things.
Click to expand...

I know. It's bleedin' sad :(

There ARE of course differences between the sexes, but overall I'd say there's way more differences between individuals within the gender than there are inherently between the sexes.
 
Silva said:
I don't know much about feminists in Norway, but you're the only person in this thread that has a victims mentality.

Feminists focus mostly on women because women have had the short end of the stick for thousands of years. A short perioud of time of relative equality in Norway isn't enough to give up. You're welcome to campaign for changes that are faces solely by men, no ones going to stop you.

Anyone who is for gender equality is a feminist, sorry to disappoint.
Click to expand...

To be fair, such movements are derided and mocked (by some feminists, which is *insert confused gif here*)
 
adexkola said:
That was his greatest speech IMO.

And I agree, but that's another advantage the moderate activist holds. He/she can just point at the extremist and say "see, we're not so bad as those nutters". Obviously you would want to come forward with some original merit to your movement, but the comparison offers another advantage.
Click to expand...
To be fair, extreme feminists are mostly annoying people on twitter so being a moderate one isn't enough of a juxtaposition. We need some crazy girls throwing bricks at gentlemens clubs windows.
 
adexkola said:
To be fair, such movements are derided and mocked (by some feminists, which is *insert confused gif here*)
Click to expand...
Cause the majority of people in them are ridiculous. Just like those who campaign for white rights in white majority countries. In theory, it makes sense, in practice, it's just a load of paranoid nutters.
 
adexkola said:
Again, from my anecdotal world, I'm friends with this feminist, who also happens to be black. She rants on twitter about how mainstream feminism ignores women of color, poor women, etc. That sentiment is rapidly gaining momentum. (Again, from my narrow viewpoint; I'm sure some googled article will back me up here).
Click to expand...
I think it all started kicking off and getting more coverage after the #solidarityisforwhitewomen hashtag on twitter. But yeah, there are some good articles explaining what happened and what the issues are.
 
Mogget said:
Possibly because it seems that some of the loudest voices in modern day feminism come from middle class white women complaining about trivial matters, or stuff which only affects few, already well off women. Apart from that and the way which they tend to ignore the issues non white women face I have no problem with feminism.
Click to expand...
Right, I'm not sure how any of this is a reason to disregard feminism until one tiny aspect of inequality has been proved beyond doubt. Which as it happens was done by somebody else in this thread and, shockingly, Mad Winger still doesn't seem too keen on feminism.
 
Conrad said:
Right, I'm not sure how any of this is a reason to disregard feminism until one tiny aspect of inequality has been proved beyond doubt. Which as it happens was done by somebody else in this thread and, shockingly, Mad Winger still doesn't seem too keen on feminism.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's a reason to disregard feminism but that it's quite an important issue. Forget feminists ignoring some issues that affect men, they're ignoring issues that affect some women.
 
Silva said:
Anyone who is for gender equality is a feminist, sorry to disappoint.
Click to expand...

That's only true in theory, not in practice.

There's a big difference between the average feminist and the average egalitarian(who specifically try to distance themselves from feminists and MRAs). The average feminist focus mainly(almost exclusively in my experiences) on women. A typical egalitarian focus on the individual, and acknowledge that both genders have different problems, without being biased towards either side.

The feminist movement can boast being for gender equality in theory, but that's misleading at best.
 
Mad Winger said:
That's only true in theory, not in practice.

There's a big difference between the average feminist and the average egalitarian(who specifically try to distance themselves from feminists and MRAs). The average feminist focus mainly(almost exclusively in my experiences) on women. A typical egalitarian focus on the individual, and acknowledge that both genders have different problems, without being biased towards either side.

The feminist movement can boast being for gender equality in theory, but that's misleading at best.
Click to expand...
This is the wrong thread to have this opinion in, given the topic. The whole speech is (mostly) about feminism and men.

You're shouting into the wind that the wind isn't windy
 
Mad Winger said:
That's only true in theory, not in practice.

There's a big difference between the average feminist and the average egalitarian(who specifically try to distance themselves from feminists and MRAs). The average feminist focus mainly(almost exclusively in my experiences) on women. A typical egalitarian focus on the individual, and acknowledge that both genders have different problems, without being biased towards either side.

The feminist movement can boast being for gender equality in theory, but that's misleading at best.
Click to expand...
Distancing yourself from feminists doesn't stop you from you being a feminist, the requirement of which is merely answering yes to "should women and men have equal equal rights, opportunities and be treated the same?" Case in point; I can't stand Germaine Greer. Does that stop me being a feminist? Nope. The only reason you do is it because you see feminism as some kind of dirty word, which is silly, especially, as robo pointed out, given the OP of this thread.
 
rcoobc said:
This is the wrong thread to have this opinion in, given the topic
Click to expand...

I disagree. What I'm writing is directly related to many of the things Emma said.

But to be even more specific: I didn't find this speech to be that special. It was typical feminst rethoric, only with more added focus on men's struggles than usual(which shouldn't be that revolutionary, seeing as the ideology supposedly is for gender equality). She deserves kudos for not forgetting about men though, tbf. I don't see that very often from that movement.
 
adexkola said:
My point here is that you can't alienate and demarcate a population who's attitudes you're trying to change as the enemy. The majority of feminists don't do this but when a lot of males feel targeted instead of educated by the feminist message, then a rethink is needed.
Click to expand...

Except it's a phantom threat in this case. The ubiquitous "some" feminists people like to use as examples of this insiduous man hating extremism that's overruning the movement are almost always anecdotal and largely made of straw. And when they're not it's not like they're powerful and organised. My comparison falls down not because MLK was willing to pander to whites, but because there are no remotely comparable organisations to the Panthers or the NoI. It's always just "this girl I know" or "someone on the internet"

To give them credit, at least racist whites had something tangible to be scared of. Essentially, people opposed to feminism are actualy worse than racists.
 
Last edited:
Mad Winger said:
I disagree. What I'm writing is directly related to many of the things Emma said.

But to be even more specific: I didn't find this speech to be that special. It was typical feminst rethoric, only with more added focus on men's struggles than usual(which shouldn't be that revolutionary, seeing as the ideology supposedly is for gender equality). She deserves kudos for not forgetting about men though, tbf. I don't see that very often from that movement.
Click to expand...
That's because you're seeing the movement as your annoying friends.
 
Silva said:
It starts when they're pretty much out of the womb. "What a clever boy" "what a pretty dress she's wearing" set the tone for what society's gonna do to the poor little things.
Click to expand...

I never really got that angle. Combination of nature and nurture, sure, but IMO your genetics determine how masculine or feminine an individual behave, much more so than their upbringing. In the same way that gay men and women are often (but not always) more feminine/masculine than their straight counterparts, which I don't believe is all down to conditioning.

I've a boy and a girl and we haven't pushed them into any particular gender stereotype but from a really young age they're completely different in so many ways that are consistent with what you would expect from boys vs girls. Obviously, you get exceptions in terms of tom boys and girly boys but I don't think their parents have much choice either way.
 
Mad Winger said:
I disagree. What I'm writing is directly related to many of the things Emma said.

But to be even more specific: I didn't find this speech to be that special. It was typical feminst rethoric, only with more added focus on men's struggles than usual(which shouldn't be that revolutionary, seeing as the ideology supposedly is for gender equality). She deserves kudos for not forgetting about men though, tbf. I don't see that very often from that movement.
Click to expand...
It wasn't typical at all actually, or at least not from what I am used to with feminism.

- It's launched a new feminist subset, and an actual dedicated place for men in feminism.(before there was a question of whether men can be feminists at all, now at least there is a half answer)
- It directly addresses the negative image feminism has and turns it on its head.
- and as you say, it mentions male gender discrimination.

If we use political terms for a second, feminism may have been drifting to the right, as left wing feminists leave for "equalism" and right wing feminists gain media coverage. And young feminists are put off by the bad image.

Watson has spun it back to the middle. Feminism is about men too. And men can support feminism. Because she said so. Men would be better off with feminism. Feminism is about equality.
 
@Silva

So if you for instance agree with the main message of a political party, but hate the execution of the theory, you still have no choice but to identify yourself with them?

Being a feminist isn't a boolean value that's either true or false, where false suggests that you are against gender equality. To say so, is a cheap shaming tactic to silence critical thinkers.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I never really got that angle. Combination of nature and nurture, sure, but IMO your genetics determine how masculine or feminine an individual behave, much more so than their upbringing. In the same way that gay men and women are often (but not always) more feminine/masculine than their straight counterparts, which I don't believe is all down to conditioning.

I've a boy and a girl and we haven't pushed them into any particular gender stereotype but from a really young age they're completely different in so many ways that are consistent with what you would expect from boys vs girls. Obviously, you get exceptions in terms of tom boys and girly boys but I don't think their parents have much choice either way.
Click to expand...
I meant more in terms of expectations. A better one to use would have been "You look like a princess", girls tend to get encouraged to fine tune their appearance for men whereas boys tend to get encouraged to be more ambitious.
 
Mad Winger said:
@Silva

So if you for instance agree with the main message of a political party, but hate the execution of the theory, you still have no choice but to identify yourself with them?

Being a feminist isn't a boolean value that's either true or false, where false suggests that you are against gender equality. To say so, is a cheap shaming tactic to silence critical thinkers.
Click to expand...
Agreeing with a theory doesn't mean you agree with everyone who agrees with that theory.
 
Silva said:
I meant more in terms of expectations. A better one to use would have been "You look like a princess", girls tend to get encouraged to fine tune their appearance for men whereas boys tend to get encouraged to be more ambitious.
Click to expand...
Really? Not saying your wrong but that a very acute example and not something I've seen really (Not saying it doesn't happen though).

I do think there some truth in this advert.

 
Last edited:
Mad Winger said:
Here's the thing though: even feminists in Norway scream about the exact same things as the Americans. They use American statistics to prove their point, often adding comments like: "and people think we don't need feminism in Norway anymore?" It's because modern day feminists tend to have a victim-mentality, and thus grasp at straws to prove their point. They are just as bad as these Men's Rights Activists. What will happen when the US reach Norway-level gender equality? Are feminists over there going point to Iranian statistics to prove their point?
Click to expand...
I know right! What idiot feminists would ever want to help Iranian women?
 
Silva said:
Agreeing with a theory doesn't mean you agree with everyone who agrees with that theory.
Click to expand...

Well, let's say you consider yourself a capitalist,and your country has two political parties who claim to be capitalist It's highly possible to hate one of them and love the other. You don't have to say that you agree with one of them, just because their so-called "main message" appeals to you.

Feminists, MRAs and egalitarians all claim to be for gender equality. But the latter strikes me as the most balanced group of people by far, and thus I choose to identify with them. Feminists and MRAs supposedly share my view, but oddly enough both sides annoy the crap out of me...
 
Mad Winger said:
@Silva

So if you for instance agree with the main message of a political party, but hate the execution of the theory, you still have no choice but to identify yourself with them?

Being a feminist isn't a boolean value that's either true or false, where false suggests that you are against gender equality. To say so, is a cheap shaming tactic to silence critical thinkers.
Click to expand...
Its a good point, you can agree with their aims but hate the party.

Equally though, is there the possibility that you will one day realise the "man-haters" that you fear (may not apply to you) do not exist, the "feminism for women only" agenda is made up, and that their struggles of glass ceilings and institutionalised sexism are real and apparent? That you had misplaced anger towards a ghost? That the party was good all along?

Or, alternatively, if you call yourself an equalist and egalitarian, and hold a deep suspicion of feminism but can admit that it might not be as bad as you fear,

Why comment? What drives you to pronounce feminism as unnecessary (which you have) and evil (which you implied). If you fight for equalism, but are skeptical of feminism, why decry it? Why post that women are NOT paid less in one country, which warps your opinion of all feminist causes. What do you decry women looking to solve gender issues?

If you are a conservative, you might dislike Lib Dem supporters but agree with many lib dem policies. As a socialist you might bemoan a proper Labour, from when socialism had a chance, but not hate labour with a passion
 
Mad Winger said:
Well, let's say you consider yourself a capitalist,and your country has two political parties who claim to be capitalist It's highly possible to hate one of them and love the other. You don't have to say that you agree with one of them, just because their so-called "main message" appeals to you.

Feminists, MRAs and egalitarians all claim to be for gender equality. But the latter strikes me as the most balanced group of people by far, and thus I choose to identify with them. Feminists and MRAs supposedly share my view, but oddly enough both sides annoy the crap out of me...
Click to expand...
It's possible to be an egalitarian and feminist as the same time, I'd actually argue that all egalitarians are feminists. Just that some of them (a minority, mind you), seem to think that feminism is somehow a bad thing, which doesn't make sense to me.
 
Mad Winger said:
Well, let's say you consider yourself a capitalist,and your country has two political parties who claim to be capitalist It's highly possible to hate one of them and love the other. You don't have to say that you agree with one of them, just because their so-called "main message" appeals to you.

Feminists, MRAs and egalitarians all claim to be for gender equality. But the latter strikes me as the most balanced group of people by far, and thus I choose to identify with them. Feminists and MRAs supposedly share my view, but oddly enough both sides annoy the crap out of me...
Click to expand...
You hate (is a strong word) something that annoyes you, that you agree with, but you don't like the implementation of (which in my opinion, doesn't exist the way you think it does).

Sounds like a waste of effort to me
 
Emma Watson leaked pics in a few days apparently according to the hacker.
 
Mockney said:
Except it's a phantom threat in this case. The ubiquitous "some" feminists people like to use as examples of this insiduous man hating extremism that's overruning the movement are almost always anecdotal and largely made of straw. And when they're not it's not like they're powerful and organised. My comparison falls down not because MLK was willing to pander to whites, but because there are no remotely comparable organisations to the Panthers or the NoI. It's always just "this girl I know" or "someone on the internet"

To give them credit, at least racist whites had something tangible to be scared of. Essentially, people opposed to feminism are actualy worse than racists.
Click to expand...

Jesus fecking Christ, I just compared annoying feminists on twitter to the Black Panthers (well you did, but I took that analogy further).

I need to lie down a bit
 
Mockney said:
Except it's a phantom threat in this case. The ubiquitous "some" feminists people like to use as examples of this insiduous man hating extremism that's overruning the movement are almost always anecdotal and largely made of straw. And when they're not it's not like they're powerful and organised. My comparison falls down not because MLK was willing to pander to whites, but because there are no remotely comparable organisations to the Panthers or the NoI. It's always just "this girl I know" or "someone on the internet"

To give them credit, at least racist whites had something tangible to be scared of. Essentially, people opposed to feminism are actualy worse than racists.
Click to expand...

Jesus fecking Christ, I just compared annoying feminists on twitter to the Black Panthers (well you did, but I took that analogy further).

I need to lie down a bit
 
If you want to be paid equally, why don't you start working equally (and I mean start doing the hard labor most men do). If you want to be treated as a female, don't expect them to pay you equally.

Most women gets preferable treatment at work (not being given night shift, not being given labor job, etc) and to be fair, some professions are being discriminatedly set aside for girls (e.g. receptionist) just as some jobs are more suited to men (bouncer, grave digger, stonemason, etc)

It's just a method for efficiency , and i don't think there's this segregation of work because they're woman, that's in the past.

As an employer, I do set aside some roles in my company for both males and females, not because of gender preference, but logically you'd want males to do the heavy work and woman to do the more finesse part
 
To echo what's been said in parts, I completely agree that the word feminism is half the problem. It's become associated, rightly or wrongly, with men hating, which puts so many people off.

There are still obviously issues with gender equality but Watson can't just include male struggles under the banner of feminism because that's ridiculously artificial. Feminism had been a tremendously powerful tool over the last century or so but in today's world I'm not convinced it's a particularly rational school of thought for the future.

It's an excellent speech, which I agree with in parts, but I just hope it has a positive effect because feminism seriously needs rebranding.
 
Sky1981 said:
If you want to be paid equally, why don't you start working equally (and I mean start doing the hard labor most men do). If you want to be treated as a female, don't expect them to pay you equally.

Most women gets preferable treatment at work (not being given night shift, not being given labor job, etc) and to be fair, some professions are being discriminatedly set aside for girls (e.g. receptionist) just as some jobs are more suited to men (bouncer, grave digger, stonemason, etc)

It's just a method for efficiency , and i don't think there's this segregation of work because they're woman, that's in the past.

As an employer, I do set aside some roles in my company for both males and females, not because of gender preference, but logically you'd want males to do the heavy work and woman to do the more finesse part
Click to expand...
Of course, your argument falls apart when you realize the jobs you're talking about are minimum wage jobs to begin with, and that even in jobs which aren't considered physically demanding, like receptionist, men get paid more, despite there being zero evidence for women doing the job any worse than men, in fact women being afforded the same respect as men everywhere actually leads to greater efficiency and a boosts economy. It's not that men do jobs with higher wages, it's that men get paid more than women in almost every single profession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.