Sorry, Emma Watson, but HeForShe Is Rotten for Men

Submitted by Mastodon on Fri, 2014-09-26 22:10

Article here. Excerpt:

'Watson clearly believes that feminism — which, she stressed, is about equality and not bashing men — will also solve men’s problems. But, unfortunately, feminism in its present form has too often ignored sexist biases against males, and sometimes has actively contributed to them. Until that changes, the movement for gender equality will be incomplete.
...
Men must, indeed, “feel welcome to participate in the conversation” about gender issues. But very few will do so if that “conversation” amounts to being told to “shut up and listen” while women talk about the horrible things men do to women, and being labeled a misogynist for daring to point out that bad things happen to men too and that women are not always innocent victims in gender conflicts. A real conversation must let men talk not only about feminist-approved topics such as gender stereotypes that keep them from expressing their feelings, but about more controversial concerns: wrongful accusations of rape; sexual harassment policies that selectively penalize men for innocuous banter; lack of options to avoid unwanted parenthood once conception has occurred. Such a conversation would also acknowledge that pressures on men to be successful come not only from “the patriarchy” but, often, from women as well. And it would include an honest discussion of parenthood, including many women’s reluctance to give up or share the primary caregiver role.

It goes without saying that these are “First World problems.” In far too many countries around the world, women still lack basic rights and patriarchy remains very real (though it is worth noting that even in those places, men and boys often have to deal with gender-specific hardships, from forced recruitment into war to mass violence that singles out males). But in the industrial democracies of North America and Europe, the revolution in women’s rights over the past century has been a stunning success — and, while there is still work to be done, it must include the other side of that revolution. Not “he for she,” but “She and he for us.”'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Miss W is a 24-YO whose entire life has been sheltered as she's been processed through one movie location after another depicting a fantasy world for the masses' child-like fantasy consumption. The closest thing she's had to reality is life at Brown, where campus feminists apparently took little time in recognizing her as a relatively clueless girl and immediately knew they had an outstanding opportunity in front of them. The recruitment and programming of Miss W began and here we see the result.

Now comes the disillusionment phase. It'll take a few years. Let's hope she is able to get enough distance between herself and her programmers to read a few things they haven't pre-screened.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2014-09-27 12:51

It's obvious that poor Miss Watson is an oppressed female who's suffered greatly under the burden of Western patriarchy. Proof: she was once called "bossy." OMG! The horror, the horror.

Maybe it's just me, but it's hard to feel sorry for a 24-year-old woman whose net worth is roughly $32 million and who now complains about how badly she's been treated. Would that I had been treated so badly.

At some point her advocacy almost becomes a parody of itself.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sat, 2014-09-27 14:28

Indeed!

I once saw on a PBS "Newshour" episode a report re the effect of wealth/status on people. The researchers were expecting to find that an increase in wealth had a "corrupting" effect on some ppl in terms of making them less likely to be patient, etc., but not on others. To their surprise, they found it affected all the test subjects, even the interviewer, the same way, when he allowed himself to be an experimental subject. It's viewable on-line at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june13-makingsense_06-21/

Should come as no surprise. It's been observed throughout history by many. Those that gots, get (and think they ought to get) more, while those that don't gots, don't. If it's true such holds for everyone, incl. those born into or raised in a wealthy environment as well as those recently-wealthy (mimicked in the experiment), there's no reason to expect women like Miss W, feminist or not, to be any different. Enough is never enough for the human ego, whose needs are limited but whose wants are not. Feminists are no different and thus they'll never be happy with what they have.

I think when ppl talk abt 'spirituality', what they're really saying is the pursuit of happiness that isn't context-dependent but is generated from oneself. How to do it varies I guess, but I think the common denominator is a lack of dependence on possessions to provide a sense of validation or empowerment.

Just a SWAG. :)

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2014-09-27 15:01