Why is it that when a bunch of tossers insult a woman it somehow "proves" that misogyny and sexism and feminism are a big deal but the same doesn't appear to be true if a man gets similar abuse from radical feminists?
Seems, to me, that you're always going to have some men who think that women belong in the kitchen just as you're always going to get some women who think all men should be castrated.
Those people don't really "prove" anything except that some people are tossers.
Why is it that people automatically assume that the word misogyny and patriarchal thinking is limited only to men?
The use of my words patriarchal societies is in the sense of this is not a backward third world country or a country were women are deemed as second class citizens. This is a supposedly forward thinking and enlightened society but these views are still very much prevalent.
I am sure it was - but I don't see why it is dumb...
Putting aside the fact that the quote is apocryphal, misquoting it without any acknowledgment that she was doing so either made her look stupid, or it made her look like she was saying it's ok to re-write history. At least the former is forgivable, the latter only so if there's an error that needs correcting.
You definitely have a point in there. While I think "the world will see she's a **** like all women" (paraphrasing but generally accurate I think) is inarguably a form of misogynist abuse, it's fair to question how deep that motivation runs and is there a true misogynist behind it or someone doing their best just to offend in the worst way possible?
I think there's a germ of truth to the notion that these people are out there on the internet peddling their sexist bile, but at the same time it is vastly overblown to suit the agenda of the moment and the rotten microscopic minority is far too often paraded as the ongoing standard.
There's an element of this, sure, but the only reason they're trying to offend her in the first place would seem to be because she's talking about gender equality.
/b/ used to LOVE Emma Watson (and yeah, I'm speculating, but some of /b/ are usually involved in these mass trollings). Now she's championing gender equality they probably feel a little aggrieved.
Regardless of the gender of the person using the word, the accusation is still the same.
The accusation is a dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. That doesn't mean that it is automatically a man who thinks that about a woman, there are plenty of women who hate other women. As was pointed out before a woman was jailed for threats made to another woman.
If I had said this proves men are blah blah blah maybe but I didn't say that.
I read a transcript of the speech. It seemed reasonable and balanced in my eyes.
Unfortunately I think it's going to be overshadowed by the idiots.
I amazed by the stupidity of the person who's making the threat.
Firstly, a person makes a speech about the need for feminism, so what do they do? They threaten her with based on her gender. It reminds me of a "Behead those who say Islam is violent" banner.
Secondly, the whole the nude images makes a woman a **** winds me up because it doesn't fit the definition of a ****, implies that a **** is a lesser being and that being one doesn't mean you can say things about equality.
Thirdly, the whole "I want women to be sexual but if they are I want them punished for it bullshit" I see a lot of really pisses me off. I'm not a fan of prudery or those who dislike sexual entertainment, but I can respect them when they are consistent. I hate those who have sex with women, go to strips clubs, watch porn, and then express hate towards the women involved or dismiss them.
The accusation is a dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. That doesn't mean that it is automatically a man who thinks that about a woman, there are plenty of women who hate other women. As was pointed out before a woman was jailed for threats made to another woman.
If I had said this proves men are blah blah blah maybe but I didn't say that.
I'm not sure what relevance that has TBH.
The point is that a bunch of dumb-ass, sexist, comments (regardless of the gender of the person making them) don't, by themselves, "prove" that misogyny, sexism and feminist ideals are valid concerns.
It's kinda like starting a campaign to insist that everybody should be free to wear spandex mankini's in public without rebuke and then, when you get abusive responses, claiming that proves that the right to wear spandex mankini's is an important issue.
Anyway, moving along, I think Emma Watson raised the real issue at the start of her speech. The reputation of the "feminist" movement has been damaged beyond all repair by it's more militant members.
If she really wants to encourage change, I'd suggest she campaigns for an entirely new egalitarian movement which embraces men's and women's issues equally.
I personally don't see the point. I would take action against violence and discrimination anyway. Clicking or not clicking a button on a website won't change that.
Because it helps support the policies and the pressure that the UN can bring to bear. It's amazing how significant these sorts of things can be to decision makers... hence why they spend so much money on polls.
The point is that a bunch of dumb-ass, sexist, comments (regardless of the gender of the person making them) don't, by themselves, "prove" that misogyny, sexism and feminist ideals are valid concerns.
It's kinda like starting a campaign to insist that everybody should be free to wear spandex mankini's in public without rebuke and then, when you get abusive responses, claiming that proves that the right to wear spandex mankini's is an important issue.
Anyway, moving along, I think Emma Watson raised the real issue at the start of her speech. The reputation of the "feminist" movement has been damaged beyond all repair by it's more militant members.
If she really wants to encourage change, I'd suggest she campaigns for an entirely new egalitarian movement which embraces men's and women's issues equally.
I'm sorry but the fact that it is something that has to be addressed at the UN would suggest that it is still a very big problem. The comments that were made after that just reinforced it regardless of it being 1 person or 1 million people who said something a woman should not automatically be vilified for daring to speak out against gender inequality.
Also the fact Emma has spoken about what men can do to help the issue as you rightly said will fly in the face of militant feminists and that's what should be focused on rather than it's not misogyny, it's not patriarchy argument when it very obviously does have undertones of both of those things.
Putting aside the fact that the quote is apocryphal, misquoting it without any acknowledgment that she was doing so either made her look stupid, or it made her look like she was saying it's ok to re-write history. At least the former is forgivable, the latter only so if there's an error that needs correcting.
No, she is using a quote to further her point - misquoting people is not always dumb... it can be used as a mechanism to demonstrate a particular message (like men AND women must work together). She isn't 're-writing history', she is using a tool to make a point. The message is what matters here and I am pretty sure that whoever did say that first (and Edmund Burke) would agree with it.
The point is that a bunch of dumb-ass, sexist, comments (regardless of the gender of the person making them) don't, by themselves, "prove" that misogyny, sexism and feminist ideals are valid concerns.
It's kinda like starting a campaign to insist that everybody should be free to wear spandex mankini's in public without rebuke and then, when you get abusive responses, claiming that proves that the right to wear spandex mankini's is an important issue.
Anyway, moving along, I think Emma Watson raised the real issue at the start of her speech. The reputation of the "feminist" movement has been damaged beyond all repair by it's more militant members.
If she really wants to encourage change, I'd suggest she campaigns for an entirely new egalitarian movement which embraces men's and women's issues equally.
Because it helps support the policies and the pressure that the UN can bring to bear. It's amazing how significant these sorts of things can be to decision makers... hence why they spend so much money on polls.
OK I'll do you a deal. I promise to click on it, if you promise to PM me 4 months from today's date with a full account of exactly what differences this poll has made between now and then.
Oh, I'm sure the usual suspects will be along shortly to tell you it's all feminism's fault and that you really shouldn't worry your pretty little head about it.
She seems to be making all the right noises but she's still doing it under the banner of "feminism"; a movement which has been irredeemably corrupted to the point where a lot of reasonable people will refuse to have anything to do with it.
No, she is using a quote to further her point - misquoting people is not always dumb... it can be used as a mechanism to demonstrate a particular message
That's fine, as long as you acknowledge what you're doing. But she straight up misquoted him, and when you misattribute words like that you set a dangerous precedent. The past is what it is, times were different. Things that were intentionally said or written should not be re-phrased as if they were mistakes that ought to be corrected according to modern sensibilities.
OK I'll do you a deal. I promise to click on it, if you promise to PM me 4 months from today's date with a full account of exactly what differences this poll has made between now and then.
Ok, not a problem. I'll make a note in my calendar
That's fine, as long as you acknowledge what you're doing. But she straight up misquoted him, and when you misattribute words like that you set a dangerous precedent. The past is what it is, times were different. Things that were intentionally said or written should not be re-phrased as if they were mistakes that ought to be corrected according to modern sensibilities.
A dangerous precedent? Isn't it a bit late to think that precedent hasn't already been set by the thousands of people who have altered famous quotes in the past - including this one? Exactly what danger is there in doing this change?
Or should we just concentrate on what she said and why she said it - ie the actual message that hopefully will help to make a real difference to billions of people across the world... who probably have the danger of mis-attributing or adapting quotes fairly low on their list of issues?
She seems to be making all the right noises but she's still doing it under the banner of "feminism"; a movement which has been irredeemably corrupted to the point where a lot of reasonable people will refuse to have anything to do with it.
No, she said that she was a feminist and gave the definition of the word as it is, not what others have decided it should be. Then moved on to say it didn't matter what the word people used was... they should be taking action on what was actually wrong. She was saying don't get hung up on the word feminism... do something because it is right, not because you don't like the actions of some of those who also happen to support it.
By the way - you think it has been 'irredeemably corrupted' but I don't, and nor do millions of others, including, from the standing ovation she received, the UN. I don't like much of 'radical feminism' either, but I am damned if I will stop using a word that describes my belief in equality of treatment and opportunity just because of some fringe idiots who tried to make it something else. Nor will I stop using it because others can't see the difference between my views and those of fringe idiots.
A dangerous precedent? Isn't it a bit late to think that precedent hasn't already been set by the thousands of people who have altered famous quotes in the past - including this one? Exactly what danger is there in doing this change?
Or should we just concentrate on what she said and why she said it - ie the actual message that hopefully will help to make a real difference to billions of people across the world... who probably have the danger of mis-attributing or adapting quotes fairly low on their list of issues?
Ah but misogyny and sexism aren't issues. Some of them men on this forum keep telling us that, so it must be true. ;-)
Ahh, sorry I forgot. I'll go back to my sewing and organising my fripperies and gewgaws.
Yes, I'd better get back to the kitchen myself. After all, they're men, so obviously they must know better than we do. Best not worry our silly little heads about it, eh?
Did she mention the Middle East and the terrible way women are treated over there?
She wasn't specific about any area - she did say that there is not one single country where women and girls had achieved equality of treatment and opportunity... and that is the right message in my view - making it about one place or one group would risk ignoring the others.
Comments
Why is it that people automatically assume that the word misogyny and patriarchal thinking is limited only to men?
The use of my words patriarchal societies is in the sense of this is not a backward third world country or a country were women are deemed as second class citizens. This is a supposedly forward thinking and enlightened society but these views are still very much prevalent.
Putting aside the fact that the quote is apocryphal, misquoting it without any acknowledgment that she was doing so either made her look stupid, or it made her look like she was saying it's ok to re-write history. At least the former is forgivable, the latter only so if there's an error that needs correcting.
Umm, because they are.
Regardless of the gender of the person using the word, the accusation is still the same.
There's an element of this, sure, but the only reason they're trying to offend her in the first place would seem to be because she's talking about gender equality.
/b/ used to LOVE Emma Watson (and yeah, I'm speculating, but some of /b/ are usually involved in these mass trollings). Now she's championing gender equality they probably feel a little aggrieved.
The accusation is a dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. That doesn't mean that it is automatically a man who thinks that about a woman, there are plenty of women who hate other women. As was pointed out before a woman was jailed for threats made to another woman.
If I had said this proves men are blah blah blah maybe but I didn't say that.
Unfortunately I think it's going to be overshadowed by the idiots.
I amazed by the stupidity of the person who's making the threat.
Firstly, a person makes a speech about the need for feminism, so what do they do? They threaten her with based on her gender. It reminds me of a "Behead those who say Islam is violent" banner.
Secondly, the whole the nude images makes a woman a **** winds me up because it doesn't fit the definition of a ****, implies that a **** is a lesser being and that being one doesn't mean you can say things about equality.
Thirdly, the whole "I want women to be sexual but if they are I want them punished for it bullshit" I see a lot of really pisses me off. I'm not a fan of prudery or those who dislike sexual entertainment, but I can respect them when they are consistent. I hate those who have sex with women, go to strips clubs, watch porn, and then express hate towards the women involved or dismiss them.
I'm not sure what relevance that has TBH.
The point is that a bunch of dumb-ass, sexist, comments (regardless of the gender of the person making them) don't, by themselves, "prove" that misogyny, sexism and feminist ideals are valid concerns.
It's kinda like starting a campaign to insist that everybody should be free to wear spandex mankini's in public without rebuke and then, when you get abusive responses, claiming that proves that the right to wear spandex mankini's is an important issue.
Anyway, moving along, I think Emma Watson raised the real issue at the start of her speech. The reputation of the "feminist" movement has been damaged beyond all repair by it's more militant members.
If she really wants to encourage change, I'd suggest she campaigns for an entirely new egalitarian movement which embraces men's and women's issues equally.
Because it helps support the policies and the pressure that the UN can bring to bear. It's amazing how significant these sorts of things can be to decision makers... hence why they spend so much money on polls.
I'm sorry but the fact that it is something that has to be addressed at the UN would suggest that it is still a very big problem. The comments that were made after that just reinforced it regardless of it being 1 person or 1 million people who said something a woman should not automatically be vilified for daring to speak out against gender inequality.
Also the fact Emma has spoken about what men can do to help the issue as you rightly said will fly in the face of militant feminists and that's what should be focused on rather than it's not misogyny, it's not patriarchy argument when it very obviously does have undertones of both of those things.
No, she is using a quote to further her point - misquoting people is not always dumb... it can be used as a mechanism to demonstrate a particular message (like men AND women must work together). She isn't 're-writing history', she is using a tool to make a point. The message is what matters here and I am pretty sure that whoever did say that first (and Edmund Burke) would agree with it.
Which is what she is doing, isn't it?
OK I'll do you a deal. I promise to click on it, if you promise to PM me 4 months from today's date with a full account of exactly what differences this poll has made between now and then.
Feminazis = bad
Poll dancing = GREAT!
Well, no.
She seems to be making all the right noises but she's still doing it under the banner of "feminism"; a movement which has been irredeemably corrupted to the point where a lot of reasonable people will refuse to have anything to do with it.
That's fine, as long as you acknowledge what you're doing. But she straight up misquoted him, and when you misattribute words like that you set a dangerous precedent. The past is what it is, times were different. Things that were intentionally said or written should not be re-phrased as if they were mistakes that ought to be corrected according to modern sensibilities.
Probably by complete idiots.
Ok, not a problem. I'll make a note in my calendar
A dangerous precedent? Isn't it a bit late to think that precedent hasn't already been set by the thousands of people who have altered famous quotes in the past - including this one? Exactly what danger is there in doing this change?
Or should we just concentrate on what she said and why she said it - ie the actual message that hopefully will help to make a real difference to billions of people across the world... who probably have the danger of mis-attributing or adapting quotes fairly low on their list of issues?
No, she said that she was a feminist and gave the definition of the word as it is, not what others have decided it should be. Then moved on to say it didn't matter what the word people used was... they should be taking action on what was actually wrong. She was saying don't get hung up on the word feminism... do something because it is right, not because you don't like the actions of some of those who also happen to support it.
By the way - you think it has been 'irredeemably corrupted' but I don't, and nor do millions of others, including, from the standing ovation she received, the UN. I don't like much of 'radical feminism' either, but I am damned if I will stop using a word that describes my belief in equality of treatment and opportunity just because of some fringe idiots who tried to make it something else. Nor will I stop using it because others can't see the difference between my views and those of fringe idiots.
Ah but misogyny and sexism aren't issues. Some of them men on this forum keep telling us that, so it must be true. ;-)
Ahh, sorry I forgot. I'll go back to my sewing and organising my fripperies and gewgaws.
Yes, I'd better get back to the kitchen myself. After all, they're men, so obviously they must know better than we do. Best not worry our silly little heads about it, eh?
Here's her speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iFl4qhBsE
She wasn't specific about any area - she did say that there is not one single country where women and girls had achieved equality of treatment and opportunity... and that is the right message in my view - making it about one place or one group would risk ignoring the others.