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.
I didn't see much inequality growing up in the UK, she should have concentrated her speech on certain religious groups but it seems feminists don't seem to want to for obvious reasons.
Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls."
It seems to be saying it's about women's issues only.
I didn't see much inequality growing up in the UK, she should have concentrated her speech on certain religious groups but it seems feminists don't seem to want to for obvious reasons.
Well I did - and it still exists here. As for concentrating on certain religious groups - why? What about the girls and women who lack equality under other religious groups or no religious group? What about the men who are not treated equally in parental care... or health care.. or are forced to conform to roles they don't want?
The UN is about the world, and this is a global matter. Diluting it isn't only unnecessary, it would be wrong.
Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls."
It seems to be saying it's about women's issues only.
Not in this bit she didn't
Men—I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue too.
Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s.
I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less “macho”—in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49; eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.
We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.
If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.
Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals.
I want men to take up this mantle. So their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too—reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned and in doing so be a more true and complete version of themselves.
That is the subtext of this change - that gaining equality for women and girls will free everyone, regardless of gender.
Well I did - and it still exists here. As for concentrating on certain religious groups - why? What about the girls and women who lack equality under other religious groups or no religious group? What about the men who are not treated equally in parental care... or health care.. or are forced to conform to roles they don't want?
The UN is about the world, and this is a global matter. Diluting it isn't only unnecessary, it would be wrong.
There is forced marriages, honour killings and unlawful circumcision happening all over the world and she is talking about girls not participating in sport because of boys? Most girls at my school didn't want to play sport because they didn't like it, the boys didn't care if they were sporty.
I feel for you jesaya. Hostile crowd today. I think it's probably better for people to fix the things they can fix and make life better for those around them than to bang on about what someone else is doing as if it were an excuse for them to sit around with their hands folded.
There is forced marriages, honour killings and unlawful circumcision happening all over the world and she is talking about girls not participating in sport because of boys? Most girls at my school didn't want to play sport because they didn't like it, the boys didn't care if they were sporty.
She was using a personal recollection to make the point. Of course there are massive issues all over the world - which is why she also said
"Because the reality is that if we do nothing it will take 75 years, or for me to be nearly a hundred before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work. 15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children. And at current rates it won’t be until 2086 before all rural African girls will be able to receive a secondary education."
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.
I feel for you jesaya. Hostile crowd today. I think it's probably better for people to fix the things they can fix and make life better for those around them than to bang on about what someone else is doing as if it were an excuse for them to sit around with their hands folded.
For me, she said a good thing that needed saying. We should be working together on gender equality - not whinging because the message wasn't couched in terms that precisely fitted every single person's view on every single thing.
.
For me, she said a good thing that needed saying. We should be working together on gender equality - not whinging because the message wasn't couched in terms that precisely fitted every single person's view on every single thing.
.
Thing is, though, when DO we get to the stage where it's acceptable to get upset about FGM and honour killings and lack of female education in backwater countries?
It's not easy to take somebody seriously when the only stuff they mention is that they've noticed girls being "sexualised" at 15 and deciding not to do sports at 18 while lacking the conviction to actually say what needs to be said about the subject.
Seems like what's happening here, in the field of equality, is that people continually whine about petty perceived injustices in the western world while the biggest arenas of true misogyny go utterly unchallenged.
if men don't have to be aggressive in order to be accepted - women wont feel compelled to be submissive.
if men don't have to control - women wont have to be controlled.
Hmm.
If men are compartmentalised into being aggressive and women submissive then how will breaking the divide solve the problem of the oppressed being subject to the aggressors?
It seems kind of idealistic that if you free men and women from the notion they should act a certain way that the attributes they assert has seen men rise to the top wont just turn into an equilibrium of men and women oppressing those seen as weak instead of the man vs woman paradigm they see as a problem.
Well she's certainly come a long way since Potter, though she sounds nervous as hell in that video (I didn't watch it all). I can understand her nerves, though you'd think an actress of that caliber would have them in check by now.
Still, she does deserve credit where it's due, and she's no doubt made some very good points. I think that she's been heard by the people that matter, for those who'll abuse or threaten her for it, well, you're always going to get lowlifes in this world.
How come when Emma Watson gets trolled on the internet it's misogyny and the patriarchy, but when it happened to Andy Murray last week it wasn't misandry?
Because of the anonymous nature of the internet it can be impossible to tell the gender of the person trolling, after all one of the people sent to prison for abusing the woman who campaigned for putting Jane Austin on our banknotes was in fact a woman herself.
Its a shame that women such as Emma need to keep clarifying what feminism is actually meant to be because there are others who have subverted it, those others being the feminists who have taken issue with Emma because they don't think men can really be feminists.
Because Andy Murray was not targeted because of his gender or because he was speaking out on gender-related issues. He was attacked because he was a Scot declaring support for Scottish independence despite being popularly known as a representative of Great Britain in sporting events. The abuse towards him was in a nationalist context, albeit a very ugly kind of nationalism.
Emma Watson is being attacked because she is a woman speaking out in favour of gender equality. The manchild scum of 4chan don't like it when women support feminism or gender equality so resort to fascist tactics by bullying them into silence & submission. This sort of attitude towards feminist women is absolutely not the fault of feminists - it's the fault of childish immature people who don't like someone else's point of view. The 4chan lot who engage in this kind of abuse are some of the worst kind of cowardly human beings. If they were caught by the police or confronted by somebody with any kind of authority, they'd buckle down in tears in seconds.
I didn't see much inequality growing up in the UK, she should have concentrated her speech on certain religious groups but it seems feminists don't seem to want to for obvious reasons.
If you don't like the way she's delivered her message, that's your problem. It's not for them to molly-coddle their arguments so they don't offend or frighten men who aren't sexist. This kind of response is something I like to liken to the "starving kids in Africa" fallacy - i.e. unnecessarily bringing up something totally irrelevant to what's currently being discussed because you perceive it to be a worse problem.
If you're not a sexist or misogynist, why get so defensive when feminists discuss the issues that they do? (Not saying you specifically are in your post) It's the tedious response of "not ALL men" that tends to irritate a lot of feminists because it's not really the point that not all men are sexist. The point is that a lot of men ARE, and we see it every day. Look no further than the vile abuse women (especially those who declare a feminist point of view) receive online which is a very big problem and totally proves their point.
It's the tedious response of "not ALL men" that tends to irritate a lot of feminists because it's not really the point that not all men are sexist. The point is that a lot of men ARE, and we see it every day.
It isn't a tedious response because the assertion is that the problem is inherent to men and it isn't.
Here you have millionaires and successful business women being labelled with the same things they say are the problem with "the patriarchy". Those perceptions and qualities aren't the domain of men they are the domain of people who strive to succeed because you wont get there if you aren't ruthless in your pursuit.
If you don't like the way she's delivered her message, that's your problem. It's not for them to molly-coddle their arguments so they don't offend or frighten men who aren't sexist. This kind of response is something I like to liken to the "starving kids in Africa" fallacy - i.e. unnecessarily bringing up something totally irrelevant to what's currently being discussed because you perceive it to be a worse problem.
If you're not a sexist or misogynist, why get so defensive when feminists discuss the issues that they do? (Not saying you specifically are in your post) It's the tedious response of "not ALL men" that tends to irritate a lot of feminists because it's not really the point that not all men are sexist. The point is that a lot of men ARE, and we see it every day. Look no further than the vile abuse women (especially those who declare a feminist point of view) receive online which is a very big problem and totally proves their point.
That's strange then because when I read the showbiz section of this forum, it is usually females making most of the derogative comments about other women.
Because Andy Murray was not targeted because of his gender or because he was speaking out on gender-related issues. He was attacked because he was a Scot declaring support for Scottish independence despite being popularly known as a representative of Great Britain in sporting events. The abuse towards him was in a nationalist context, albeit a very ugly kind of nationalism.
Emma Watson is being attacked because she is a woman speaking out in favour of gender equality. The manchild scum of 4chan don't like it when women support feminism or gender equality so resort to fascist tactics by bullying them into silence & submission. This sort of attitude towards feminist women is absolutely not the fault of feminists - it's the fault of childish immature people who don't like someone else's point of view. The 4chan lot who engage in this kind of abuse are some of the worst kind of cowardly human beings. If they were caught by the police or confronted by somebody with any kind of authority, they'd buckle down in tears in seconds.
So much anger.
And that's the sort of response the trolls are after, therefore it worked.
Thing is, though, when DO we get to the stage where it's acceptable to get upset about FGM and honour killings and lack of female education in backwater countries?
It's not easy to take somebody seriously when the only stuff they mention is that they've noticed girls being "sexualised" at 15 and deciding not to do sports at 18 while lacking the conviction to actually say what needs to be said about the subject.
Seems like what's happening here, in the field of equality, is that people continually whine about petty perceived injustices in the western world while the biggest arenas of true misogyny go utterly unchallenged.
And, that's actually kind of selfish.
But that wasn't the only stuff she mentioned of course. I posted what she actually said above. Have you read it?
She was talking about a principle - about men and women working together against gender inequality... all of it... everywhere.
She was talking about a principle - about men and women working together against gender inequality... all of it... everywhere.
Yes the principle was that men and women should be free from expectations yet she placed the obligation on men by saying if men weren't aggressive women wouldn't need to be submissive.
Yes the principle was that men and women should be free from expectations yet she placed the obligation on men by saying if men weren't aggressive women wouldn't need to be submissive.
It was a speech about getting more men to join in... I am sure if it had been a speech about getting women to join in then different points would be made. The point is that if men were part of this in greater numbers then they would be freed from the gender constraints they suffer AND women would benefit from that as well.
Personally I can't understand why people are not saying 'great speech, where do I sign' - if not me, who... if not now, when?
Yes the principle was that men and women should be free from expectations yet she placed the obligation on men by saying if men weren't aggressive women wouldn't need to be submissive.
And that's the sort of response the trolls are after, therefore it worked.
I'm sorry, are you saying there's so much anger in my post? I thought it was pretty measured. Why, because I'm describing the 4chan trolls as scum? I can't think of any more appropriate words to describe cowardly little boys who send abuse & rape threats to women who publicly speak out against gender equality - can you?
Here you have millionaires and successful business women being labelled with the same things they say are the problem with "the patriarchy". Those perceptions and qualities aren't the domain of men they are the domain of people who strive to succeed because you wont get there if you aren't ruthless in your pursuit.
Who's saying it's inherent to men? I think you're putting words in the mouths of people who have feminists views - no one is saying that. To get defensive and believe they think sexism is "inherent" in men is what's part of the problem - too many men who feel threatened by feminists. No one is out to get you. If you're not sexist, great! No one is targeting you - so there's no need for a lot of men to keep apologizing for the people feminists are criticising. That's why the "not all men" response is so tedious to deal with. It's so often use as a bad faith argument in an attempt to derail a discussion to shift its focus instead of directly engaging with it.
I don't see any issue with that video. The tendency to call a woman "bossy" can be seen as part of a backward attitude that women can't lead and shouldn't have authority. The idea that to be a "boss" is solely for men. I think you've missed the point of what it was trying to say.
Comments
I didn't see much inequality growing up in the UK, she should have concentrated her speech on certain religious groups but it seems feminists don't seem to want to for obvious reasons.
Really?
From heforshe.org
"The HeForShe Commitment
Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls."
It seems to be saying it's about women's issues only.
Well I did - and it still exists here. As for concentrating on certain religious groups - why? What about the girls and women who lack equality under other religious groups or no religious group? What about the men who are not treated equally in parental care... or health care.. or are forced to conform to roles they don't want?
The UN is about the world, and this is a global matter. Diluting it isn't only unnecessary, it would be wrong.
Not in this bit she didn't
Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s.
I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less “macho”—in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49; eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.
We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.
If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.
Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals.
- See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emma-watson-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too#sthash.1USJp6Lf.dpuf
or this bit
That is the subtext of this change - that gaining equality for women and girls will free everyone, regardless of gender.
There is forced marriages, honour killings and unlawful circumcision happening all over the world and she is talking about girls not participating in sport because of boys? Most girls at my school didn't want to play sport because they didn't like it, the boys didn't care if they were sporty.
She was using a personal recollection to make the point. Of course there are massive issues all over the world - which is why she also said
"Because the reality is that if we do nothing it will take 75 years, or for me to be nearly a hundred before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work. 15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children. And at current rates it won’t be until 2086 before all rural African girls will be able to receive a secondary education."
No I actually agree with her. It's the militant feminists I am against (thought that was obvious
For me, she said a good thing that needed saying. We should be working together on gender equality - not whinging because the message wasn't couched in terms that precisely fitted every single person's view on every single thing.
.
Thing is, though, when DO we get to the stage where it's acceptable to get upset about FGM and honour killings and lack of female education in backwater countries?
It's not easy to take somebody seriously when the only stuff they mention is that they've noticed girls being "sexualised" at 15 and deciding not to do sports at 18 while lacking the conviction to actually say what needs to be said about the subject.
Seems like what's happening here, in the field of equality, is that people continually whine about petty perceived injustices in the western world while the biggest arenas of true misogyny go utterly unchallenged.
And, that's actually kind of selfish.
Hmm.
If men are compartmentalised into being aggressive and women submissive then how will breaking the divide solve the problem of the oppressed being subject to the aggressors?
It seems kind of idealistic that if you free men and women from the notion they should act a certain way that the attributes they assert has seen men rise to the top wont just turn into an equilibrium of men and women oppressing those seen as weak instead of the man vs woman paradigm they see as a problem.
Still, she does deserve credit where it's due, and she's no doubt made some very good points. I think that she's been heard by the people that matter, for those who'll abuse or threaten her for it, well, you're always going to get lowlifes in this world.
Because Andy Murray was not targeted because of his gender or because he was speaking out on gender-related issues. He was attacked because he was a Scot declaring support for Scottish independence despite being popularly known as a representative of Great Britain in sporting events. The abuse towards him was in a nationalist context, albeit a very ugly kind of nationalism.
Emma Watson is being attacked because she is a woman speaking out in favour of gender equality. The manchild scum of 4chan don't like it when women support feminism or gender equality so resort to fascist tactics by bullying them into silence & submission. This sort of attitude towards feminist women is absolutely not the fault of feminists - it's the fault of childish immature people who don't like someone else's point of view. The 4chan lot who engage in this kind of abuse are some of the worst kind of cowardly human beings. If they were caught by the police or confronted by somebody with any kind of authority, they'd buckle down in tears in seconds.
If you don't like the way she's delivered her message, that's your problem. It's not for them to molly-coddle their arguments so they don't offend or frighten men who aren't sexist. This kind of response is something I like to liken to the "starving kids in Africa" fallacy - i.e. unnecessarily bringing up something totally irrelevant to what's currently being discussed because you perceive it to be a worse problem.
If you're not a sexist or misogynist, why get so defensive when feminists discuss the issues that they do? (Not saying you specifically are in your post) It's the tedious response of "not ALL men" that tends to irritate a lot of feminists because it's not really the point that not all men are sexist. The point is that a lot of men ARE, and we see it every day. Look no further than the vile abuse women (especially those who declare a feminist point of view) receive online which is a very big problem and totally proves their point.
It isn't a tedious response because the assertion is that the problem is inherent to men and it isn't.
Take the "bossy video".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dynbzMlCcw
Here you have millionaires and successful business women being labelled with the same things they say are the problem with "the patriarchy". Those perceptions and qualities aren't the domain of men they are the domain of people who strive to succeed because you wont get there if you aren't ruthless in your pursuit.
That's strange then because when I read the showbiz section of this forum, it is usually females making most of the derogative comments about other women.
So much anger.
And that's the sort of response the trolls are after, therefore it worked.
But that wasn't the only stuff she mentioned of course. I posted what she actually said above. Have you read it?
She was talking about a principle - about men and women working together against gender inequality... all of it... everywhere.
Yes the principle was that men and women should be free from expectations yet she placed the obligation on men by saying if men weren't aggressive women wouldn't need to be submissive.
It was a speech about getting more men to join in... I am sure if it had been a speech about getting women to join in then different points would be made. The point is that if men were part of this in greater numbers then they would be freed from the gender constraints they suffer AND women would benefit from that as well.
Personally I can't understand why people are not saying 'great speech, where do I sign' - if not me, who... if not now, when?
You've changed her words?!
I'm sorry, are you saying there's so much anger in my post? I thought it was pretty measured. Why, because I'm describing the 4chan trolls as scum? I can't think of any more appropriate words to describe cowardly little boys who send abuse & rape threats to women who publicly speak out against gender equality - can you?
http://youtu.be/p-iFl4qhBsE?t=9m12s
Who's saying it's inherent to men? I think you're putting words in the mouths of people who have feminists views - no one is saying that. To get defensive and believe they think sexism is "inherent" in men is what's part of the problem - too many men who feel threatened by feminists. No one is out to get you. If you're not sexist, great! No one is targeting you - so there's no need for a lot of men to keep apologizing for the people feminists are criticising. That's why the "not all men" response is so tedious to deal with. It's so often use as a bad faith argument in an attempt to derail a discussion to shift its focus instead of directly engaging with it.
I don't see any issue with that video. The tendency to call a woman "bossy" can be seen as part of a backward attitude that women can't lead and shouldn't have authority. The idea that to be a "boss" is solely for men. I think you've missed the point of what it was trying to say.