Emma Watson on Feminism

A) Scandinavia is minority of the world. B) It's unlikely that sexism's completely dead over there.

A) I thought Canada, the UK, Australia and generally most of Western Europe(minus France) are pretty progressive and egalitarian?
B) Of course sexism isn't completely dead even in Scandinavia. It's just that it affects men as much as it affects women.
 
I'll go back to my initial point anyway: You don't know enough about feminism, read a book (or the two I suggested, in particular)

What?

Most people are definitely sexist. Most of the world is.
Most of the world maybe, but I guess I should have meant maybe more in the western world.

I'll explain one last time...a group that is all about equality should not be lowering someone else's' worth over another's. Yes there are problems that are worse than others in the world out there, but when it comes to gender in this country there's no reason why combating both gender's problems without one being more important than the other could not work.

I know enough to get by, besides I have enough research as it is with my degree.
 
It is possible that feminism has different meanings in different countries. A bit like the word "black" to describe someone in the UK vs America. Or that negorito word if I may be so bold.

But feminism is important for the UN. Encouraging 3rd world countries to end sexist policies, and discrimination, and ending glass ceilings in the western world
 
Taking me out of context.

Even if you just meant specifically men's and women's. Yes they are. Obviously. Woman have significantly more problems and less advantages than men throughout the world. Less so in the civilised world, sure, but still not quite up to par, and certainly not at a point where it's worth throwing our toys out the pram because "some of them have got it quite good in my neck of the woods." What actual, serious threats are we facing from modern feminism exactly? Where are the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam of modern feminism?

All I see is ancedotal examples, straw women and people off the internet. Even the sentiment of "men have problems too" seems to be less focused on actually addressing that, than complaining that "Noones problems should be solved unless everyone's problems have been solved." Which is a weird way of looking at problems, and as far as I'm aware, a way no problem has ever been solved.
 
Last edited:
It is possible that feminism has different meanings in different countries. A bit like the word "black" to describe someone in the UK vs America. Or that negorito word if I may be so bold.

But feminism is important for the UN. Encouraging 3rd world countries to end sexist policies, and discrimination, and ending glass ceilings in the western world
it has different meanings in the movement let alone the world! Different generations and sub-movements have all different interpretations. My view is it is for women's rights, not men's. Besides, the 3rd world countries definitely could benefit from the feminism that is currently about, but its going to take years. They are basically still in the industrial revolution of sorts, if that makes any sense.
 
Even if you just meant specifically men's and women's. Yes they are. Obviously. Woman have significantly more problems and less advantages than men throughout the world. Less so in the civilised world, sure, but still not quite up to par, and certainly not at a point where it's worth throwing our toys out the pram because "some of them have got it quite good in my neck of the woods." What actual, serious threats are we facing from modern feminism exactly? Where are the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam of modern feminism?
I said we could combat the problems more efficiently if we put them more on an equal footing, that's not trying to say they are the same. Also, where did I say that we are be threatened by it? I'm not feeling personally threatened by feminists or mra's or anyone. The Black Panther types are basically the likes of Feminist Frequency who aren't doing any good for feminism. But these types are trying to and do influence gaming journalism in quite a bad way (though it is a different debate and issue I guess).
 
Most of the world maybe, but I guess I should have meant maybe more in the western world.

I'll explain one last time...a group that is all about equality should not be lowering someone else's' worth over another's. Yes there are problems that are worse than others in the world out there, but when it comes to gender in this country there's no reason why combating both gender's problems without one being more important than the other could not work.

I know enough to get by, besides I have enough research as it is with my degree.
But that rarely happens. Feminists are trying to raise women to the level that men are at but some men seem to think that can't happen without men being worse off. It's not a zero sum game.
 
Feminism is about people being treated the same way regardless of their gender. Women historically and currently face more obstacles than men so by sheer coincidence feminism does focus on womens issues a lot more, and that should be the case because of they're the more subjugated gender.

Egalitarianism is about people being treated the same way regardless of any particular. Feminism is about both men and women having equal rights, but it's a movement based around gender and as such it is different to egalitarianism which focuses on more than gender. Saying you're an egalitarian but not a feminist is like saying "well, I don't really care for those anti racism campaign, see, I'm an egalitarian so I do things better", it's not only ridiculous but it completely undermines the position you're taking.
Oh my god, you live with a feminist. You definitely know everything about feminism now. Anyone who says "I don't need to read anything else" definitely needs to read more.

Women's problems are definitely bigger. Women not getting equal education and opportunities is the single biggest factor leading to poverty. How is that not a bigger problem than what men face? There are few countries in the world where women aren't treated as the inferior sex.

Most men are sexist though. Most women too, coincidentally, but men more so. It's a pretty big world and we're not all Swedish.

The majority of men in 2014 are still pigs. There is a lot of need to raise awareness for women's equality as women not getting equal opportunities is one of the main reasons there is poverty in much of the world. The pay gap still exists in developed countries. Rape culture is a thing. Women aren't particularly well represented in the arts. And society as a whole still treats them like second rate citizens.

I find that posts like this go a long way to getting people aboard the feminist agenda.
 
I said we could combat the problems more efficiently if we put them more on an equal footing, that's not trying to say they are the same.

All struggles for equality have been addressed from the standpoint of the less enfranchised. Are LGBT rights nonsense because they don't address the rights of straights on an equal footing?

The Black Panther types are basically the likes of Feminist Frequency who aren't doing any good for feminism. But these types are trying to and do influence gaming journalism in quite a bad way (though it is a different debate and issue I guess).

Yep, that sounds like the Panthers.
 
But that rarely happens. Feminists are trying to raise women to the level that men are at but some men seem to think that can't happen without men being worse off. It's not a zero sum game.
I don't think it can happen with men being worse off. There's no reason why it can't. I don't think the pay gap can be completely finished in 75 years, it could take a lot less than that in the western world imo.

All struggles for equality have been addressed from the standpoint of the less enfranchised. Are LGBT rights nonsense because they don't address the rights of straights on an equal footing?



Yep, that sounds like the Panthers.
Yeah there's been a scandal with them,have you heard of Anita Sarkeesian?

The LGBT is slightly different, there is hardly anything limiting the sexual lives of straight people (anti-abortion laws, does that count?), whereas at one point homosexuality was illegal, and quite rightly people campaigned to end that. Being straight has never had that problem, ever.
 
Women couldn't vote less than a hundred years ago. And even then not on the same level as men. Being a man has never had that problem, ever.

The idea that everything's completely fine now, it's all done and dusted and there's no need for any kind of woman focused lobby anymore is a bit bonkers IMO.

Yeah there's been a scandal with them,have you heard of Anita Sarkeesian?

What this Anita Sarkeesian?

Sarkeesian was forced to leave her San Francisco home due to an ongoing tirade of abuse and threats. Members of a vocal minority of online trolls had threatened to kill her parents, drink her blood, and rape her – all while publishing her personal details online.

Sarkeesian was the victim of image-based harassment (Photoshopped pornographic-style images of her were passed around various internet forums, and personally emailed to her), and attempts were made to hack her email and social media accounts.

Most disturbingly, an interactive game was created in her likeness, in which players were encouraged to “beat up Anita Sarkeesian” by virtually punching an image of her face until it was black and blue.

Yeah, what's she complaining about?
 
Last edited:
Women couldn't vote less than a hundred years ago. And even then not on the same level as men. Being a man has never had that problem, ever.

The idea that everything's completely fine now, it's all done and dusted and there's no need for any kind of woman focused lobby anymore is a bit bonkers IMO.
If you were white.
 
Women couldn't vote less than a hundred years ago. And even then not on the same level as men. Being a man has never had that problem, ever.

The idea that everything's completely fine now, it's all done and dusted and there's no need for any kind of woman focused lobby anymore is a bit bonkers IMO.

Actually if you were a man who did not own property you could not vote. Which means being a rich man who owns his own home/land has never had that problem ever. Why do you think Peterloo happened in Manchester?

I didn't say that.

EDIT: And as @Mogget said, and white (depending on the country)
 
If you were white.

True say.

Actually if you were a man who did not own property you could not vote. Which means being a rich man who owns his own home/land has never had that problem ever. Why do you think Peterloo happened in Manchester?

None of which is to do with being a MAN though is it? It wasn't their gender that was discriminated against. Whereas women couldn't vote entirely because they were women.

I didn't say that.

Ok. What are you saying? We may be arguing cross purposes.
 
A) I thought Canada, the UK, Australia and generally most of Western Europe(minus France) are pretty progressive and egalitarian?
B) Of course sexism isn't completely dead even in Scandinavia. It's just that it affects men as much as it affects women.
Somewhat, but still not that progressive. Have you not noticed the rise of the far right in Europe? And even if they were, they'd still account for a minority of the world.
 
Most of the world maybe, but I guess I should have meant maybe more in the western world.

I'll explain one last time...a group that is all about equality should not be lowering someone else's' worth over another's. Yes there are problems that are worse than others in the world out there, but when it comes to gender in this country there's no reason why combating both gender's problems without one being more important than the other could not work.

I know enough to get by, besides I have enough research as it is with my degree.
Feminism doesn't lower anyone's equality.
 
No it wasn't, as other men of different standing could vote. The disqualifying factor wasn't their gender.
I'm not saying I was the disqualifying fact, I probably read you wrong. Just the quotes I read it was all about all men should vote.
 
I do yes. I also think that most blacks are thieves and most women are less productive than men.
You're just being facetious now. Even in progressive countries people prefer to have sons to daughters. In less progressive countries like China baby girls are thrown off buildings or left to starve. In some Asian, African and Middle Eastern countries rape is used as punishment for Lesbians, promiscuous women and even girls who so much as dare to fall in love. In most countries women losing their virginity before marriage is considered shameful whereas men are encourage to shag around. And even in so called progressive countries women are shamed for expressing their sexuality and rape culture is an actual thing. Women are literally treated like second class citizens almost everywhere. But no, most people aren't sexist at all.
 
You're just being facetious now. Even in progressive countries people prefer to have sons to daughters. In less progressive countries like China baby girls are thrown off buildings or left to starve. In some Asian, African and Middle Eastern countries rape is used as punishment for Lesbians, promiscuous women and even girls who so much as dare to fall in love. In most countries women losing their virginity before marriage is considered shameful whereas men are encourage to shag around. And even in so called progressive countries women are shamed for expressing their sexuality and rape culture is an actual thing. But no, most people aren't sexist at all.


You want me to put stats out on the number of crimes by blacks vs by whites to prove that most blacks are robbers? Its the exact same argument that you have just made there.
 
I'm not saying I was the disqualifying fact, I probably read you wrong. Just the quotes I read it was all about all men should vote.

Ok, to be more accurate, rich white men have never had that problem. But by the same token straight men have also been targeted for other reasons.

Men of all kinds have never had the problem strictly because of their gender.
 
You want me to put stats out on the number of crimes by blacks vs by whites to prove that most blacks are robbers? Its the exact same argument that you have just made there.
You could, but I'd actually be able to point to the majority of black people not stealing. Whereas you can't point to the majority of the world not being sexist.
 
Ok, to be more accurate, rich white men have never had that problem. But by the same token straight men have also been targeted for other reasons.

Men of all kinds have never had the problem strictly because of their gender.
I agree with you on that. never strictly. Although could you say when it comes to divorce, domestic abuse (when they are the victim) and child custody their gender does play a role?
 
You could, but I'd actually be able to point to the majority of black people not stealing. Whereas you can't point to the majority of the world not being sexist.
You are also implying that being sexist means these guys hate women, which isn't always the case.
 
I agree with you on that. never strictly. Although could you say when it comes to divorce, domestic abuse (when they are the victim) and child custody their gender does play a role?

Yes I would agree that in custody specifically men get a rougher deal, but that's not enough to disqualify the merits of feminism. The playing field isn't level just because we take a few knocks. I'd also argue that things like Fathers For Justice manage to fight for that without having to denigrate the work of feminists.
 
Can you point out the sentence where it says men get paid more for the exact same job than a woman would? Thanks. I know it hasn't happened anywhere I've worked.
That'd mean posting a whole essay, to paraphrase it though, adjusting for things like family commitment and ability to perform a job, there are various pay gaps in various sectors. Most notably in part time jobs, where women should be getting paid more than men due to being better qualified and are are only working part time because they're raising their kids, they still make 5% less.
 
Yes I would agree that in custody specifically men get a rougher deal, but that's not enough to disqualify the merits of feminism. The playing field isn't level just because we take a few knocks. I'd also argue that things like Fathers For Justice manage to fight for that without having to denigrate the work of feminists.
I don't denigrate what the first and second generations of feminism did, but I do question what role the newer ones have now in Western Society.
 
That'd mean posting a whole essay, to paraphrase it though, adjusting for things like family commitment and ability to perform a job, there are various pay gaps in various sectors and, most notably in part time jobs, where women should be getting paid more than men due to being better qualified and are are only working part time because they're raising their kids, they still make 5% less.
Just copy and paste the sentence where it says that man get paid more than women for doing the exact same job.

I glanced at that link very briefly and it actually said women got paid more for part time jobs. From page 10:

On the other hand, the situation for part-time workers emerged to be somewhat different. While the raw gap was assessed to be just under 6 per cent, this increased to 10 per cent when differences in various personal and employment attributes were taken into account. This result suggests that, based on their characteristics, part-time females should, in fact, earn slightly more than their male counterparts.
 
dc2a43fca8e5af80cc07c0e3ec4fb4de.jpg