Poll: Emma Watson's Speech on Gender Equality

[BiscuitTrouser]

My girlfriend is a feminist, but recognizes the need for gender roles, because if shes having a bad day, if I let her mood ruinine we'd just ***** and moan at each other and then the dogs wouldn't get walked.
.

This just in, without men, women cannot care for animals. News at 4. /s

Nah i get what youre trying to say but that aint a gender role, thats a relationship dynamic. I hate to break it to you but my girlfriend is pretty functional, it sounds like thats just your SO that does that. Mine can care for at least 3 hamsters. Maybe even 4 before the hysteria overhwelms her. Thats definitely a record.

Joking aside, yeah her speech was awesome. Im happy to let Emma Watson speak for me as a feminist, if thats a spokesperson let her do what she do. Awesome speech, really represents my views on feminism.

 

[Princessbabe]

I don't know if it has been posted or not but it would seem Emma Watson is now being threatened that indecent pictures of her will be distributed over the internet. If it does happen I hope the person/people responsible are caught and severely punished. Just because someone dislikes what she says doesn't give that person a right to invade her privacy.

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/emma-watson-faces-disturbing-backlash-over-u-n--speech-181254105.html

With which part of the speech are people taking issue with, it seems pretty moderate to me?

No idea. Just found and read the article on Yahoo.

Hey guess what?!?! [img/]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/203/574/ItsaFake.jpg[/img]

turns out it was all a ploy by marketing agency to frame 4chan now theyre petitioning Obama to censor the internet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/24/emma-watson-nude-photos-hoax-rantic_n_5871730.html

That's good. Happy to see that it is fake and someone isn't going to have their private life invaded. Doubt the internet will be censored.

It actually gets much weirder. The hoax itself is a hoax. Mashable, Huffpo, and even Australia's ABC have all published the story, but it doesn't hold up to even the most cursory examination.

Here is a screen grab from the supposed PR firm, Rantic.

"Clear indication that the internet NEEDS to be censored" Scan that hyperbole. And look at the grammar, "in past 2 months" and "and will be step closer".

It gets worse on Rantic's Twitter account: https://twitter.com/RanticMarketing

"Dear humans, In the digital age we have a new kind of terror going on and it is called 4chan,Help us take down the terrorist group 4chan." More extreme hyperbole here. Maybe you think "SJW's" just fall under Poe's Law, but look at this one:
"4chan is messing with the wrong one, ladies have been suffering, Kids are being exposed to the utterly disturbing content, 4chan IS KILL."

That is straight up chan dialect right there, and most of the twitter feed is pure nonsense:
"How to get your top secret clearance within the US Gov"
"How deep does The rabbit hole go?"
"Working with NASA we learned one thing , Don't send monkeys to fix your stuff."

After seeing this I mentioned it to a friend. Initially I was annoyed by the hoax. I figured all it would do would stoke the perceived victimhood of some of the pro-GamerGate crowd, and give them ammunition for their broad claims that Sarkeesian/Quinn/Gawker etc. were making hyperbolic or outright false claims of harassment. After a chat with my friend and an incredibly cursory poke around google to look for Rantic Marketing's online presence (a viral marketing firm should have a fairly significant one, right?), he remembered where he recognized the name from.

http://www.craveonline.com.au/gaming/articles/751071-grand-theft-auto-v-pc-cancellation-rumor-debunked

It seems Rantic purported to represent Rockstar in a GTAV hoax that was pure PC master race trolling. 4chan apparently hacked Rantic's website, but neither Rantic Marketing nor their supposed chairman John Hoffberger seem to exist.

My take on all this is that Rantic's website and twitter are just some 4channers' trolling apparatus. Given that m00t purged almost all of his pro-GG mods and the whole thing is attracting deletions and bans there, with pro-GG anons and mods apparently moving to 8chan/Masterchan, I'm pretty sure that this whole thing is basically the 4chan offshoots trolling 4chan with a SJW satire. "In the digital age we have a new kind of terror going on and it is called 4chan,Help us take down the terrorist group 4chan" Reads exactly like a satire of the guy who said he had more respect for ISIS than GamerGate.

Now look at Rantic's first tweet, "Some say viral cannot be predicted well we have the recipe." They took one part prominent feminism (Emma Watson talking about feminism at the UN), one part nude photo leak and stirred. This was less than an hour of poking around and about three google searches from some-one who doesn't frequent 4chan or Reddit (this exact kind of appetite for dumb lulz and drama is the reason). I am feeling pretty embarrassed for the ABC right now.

Edit: You guys are having a discussion about masculinity and such, so in the interest of not derailing it too much (and providing some perspective for the other GG threads here) I've copied this post into it's own thread here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861470-The-Rantic-Marketing-Emma-Watson-photo-leak-hoax-is-a-hoax-itself

 

[Zhukov]

Sometimes. A bit.

I can play the part passably well, but I am hardly the manliest of men, so I guess it's kind of inevitable. A definition, standard or expectation that one does not live up to is always going to seem confining on some level.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Hey guess what?!?! [img/]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/203/574/ItsaFake.jpg[/img]

turns out it was all a ploy by marketing agency to frame 4chan now theyre petitioning Obama to censor the internet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/24/emma-watson-nude-photos-hoax-rantic_n_5871730.html

Haha. Oh boy, there's absolutely no chance of that developing into a full blown shitstorm, right?

 

[Erttheking]

Christ. Christy Christ Christ yes. Male gender roles are such bullshit it isn't even funny. I always felt like I didn't fit in that well with other guys at my school because I wasn't very athletic. By the point I had gotten to high school, I had developed the opinion that 50-75% of the male population was made up of douche bags. To be honest I still think that. I just never bought any of the bullshit about "being manly" Fuck sports, fuck toughing it out, fuck "be a man". In the words of Senator Armstrong "Fuck...ALL OF IT!"

Nah I'm pretty sure gender roles exist because of biology, not social pressure.

Citation needed.

 

[Beliyal]

Well, I'm not a guy, but I know many men who do have these kinds of issues.

Many of them are gay or bisexual and feel ashamed of not being 'real' men.
I've only really had discussions about this with men like this.

But I also come from a background where you are not considered a 'real man' unless you can build a house, so at the very least many younger men who live in cities I know have had to redefine masculinity.

Pretty much this. I'm not a man, so I don't experience this directly, but I see it in society. Over here, men often get accused of being "gay" (used as an insult) if they don't participate in traditionally male things like watching sports and cheering for the national team while drinking beer in a exclusively male group, or if they dare to show interest in art or studies that are perceived as traditionally female like languages or psychology. Also, if you're a man, you're required to comment on passing women, calling them an equivalent of "bitches" and "sluts" and then rating them by how much you would do them. And if you are gay for real, well... Let's just say that my country voted for putting "marriage is only between a man and a woman" in the constitution. And when civil unions were legalized recently, there was a huge backlash (still is). Most news about this contain more than 2000 comments of people saying terrible things about homosexuality. Not just petty insults, but actual calls to violence that I can't take as empty threats because there have been plenty of attacks (including once on a gay parade with stone and bottle throwing on the participants). Hopefully, things will get better with new generations that are largely supportive.

There's nothing wrong per se with being a "typical man" though, but for it to be required of everyone, regardless of their interests and personality simply isn't beneficial in any way. Same with women. I'm glad that Emma's speech is gaining popularity, even though everything she said was pretty tame common sense and almost a basic introduction to feminism. But I guess people need to hear this from someone they like and if that's what it takes, then by all means. Speak away, Emma.

Captcha: "I know nothing!" .... Jon Snow? Is that you? Are you trapped in captcha?

 

[Guffe]

Feminists aren't for equality, they are for female advantage at any cost, and without regard for reason, so her attempt to rehabilitate the label is going to fall on death ears.

WRONG, WRONG and WRONG!!!!! (sory about the aggressive start)

Seriously? Feminism is about female advantage at any cost?

No, feminism is for equality between genders.
It's been shown several times in my country (Finland), which is supposed to be a country with welfare and equality and bla bla bla that women actually get only about 80% of what a man gets in salary/wages for doing the same job (does of course not apply to 100% of the jobs, but in several cases).
Now a feminist would like that to be 1/1 equal, which I for example do. What am I? I am a white guy in my mid 20s who think women and men should be treated equally, does nothing about it, but sits at home gaming when not at work.

As a football fan, what you described above, is what I would call "ultras".
The ones that take a perfectly good thing, and take it too far. Those are the ones who scream about men being assholes and rapists and whatnot. But please, don't go around blaming everyone who wants equality in society and calls themselves a feminist for someone who wants the male gender to vanish from extinction. These ultras excist in everything, sports, the gaming community, religion, politics etc. All those groups mentioned have their assholes, and unfortuanetly they are often the most vocal, but don't call every football fan a hooligan, don't call every gamer a fat nerd, don't call every religious person a terrorist and same applies to feminists.

On Topic:
Not really, I've been able to "cut the crap" from a pretty young age. I am otherwise not the most talkative person but if I need help in something I ask for it. If I want to talk about how difficult work or school is I call my mom etc.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

Christ. Christy Christ Christ yes. Male gender roles are such bullshit it isn't even funny. I always felt like I didn't fit in that well with other guys at my school because I wasn't very athletic. By the point I had gotten to high school, I had developed the opinion that 50-75% of the male population was made up of douche bags. To be honest I still think that. I just never bought any of the bullshit about "being manly" Fuck sports, fuck toughing it out, fuck "be a man". In the words of Senator Armstrong "Fuck...ALL OF IT!"

Nah I'm pretty sure gender roles exist because of biology, not social pressure.

Citation needed.

No citation needed imo - the fact of it doesn't make it helpful, however.

I mean when you're talking in an absolute sense biology is the cause - because we are all biological cells made up in large numbers to make a more impressive creature/intelligence. But then if *I* was writing I'd say that mathematics (mathematics begat physics begat chemistry, begat biology) was the root cause. Mathematics is the most "pure" science. But that doesn't mean a damn thing if it isn't given context.

Of course everything can be said to be the cause of the "human condition" (biology, genetics, parenting et al) But ultimately that is totally unhelpful.

Surely there cannot be any doubt that there is a problem to be answered? (In my opinion not). Therefore what *is* helpful is discussion of solutions to any perceived problem - not speculation on where the problem started.

The root cause of the problem is only helpful if you can tackle that root cause. In this case i don't believe you can - since the problems we're talking about originated millennia (or even longer) ago. In this case I believe that any solution will come through education of societies and cultures and that will bring about change.

It isn't much good to tell people that "biology is the problem" when fuck all can be done about it.

 

[JetVypre]

I wouldn't say I find them confining as such...having grown up around these expectations I can only assume I've been moulded into them, I'm used to feeling awkward about asking for help, used to suppressing my grief to keep my cool, all of it really.

I imagine this is probably why I have no real desire to wear pink and practice ballet (thank you kind stranger earlier in the thread for this example), etc. But I imagine some guys probably do and should be able to without being judged by their peers.

I suppose even if I don't want to do those things, the fact that I don't have the option to, even if I wanted to, would be a kind of confinement in a sense.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The root cause of the problem is only helpful if you can tackle that root cause. In this case i don't believe you can - since the problems we're talking about originated millennia (or even longer) ago. In this case I believe that any solution will come through education of societies and cultures and that will bring about change.

Well...they originated millennia ago in societies markedly different from our own.

Maybe the gender roles were relevant in the Classical Age, but the world is a very different place now. Hell, the invention of the contraceptive pill led to a massive change in the way our society treats gender, because the things the rules were supposedly there to deal with suddenly weren't the same anymore.

 

[Kingjackl]

I'm glad this speech is getting out there. The fact that feminism is about gender equality as opposed to replacing men with women as the dominant gender is a misconception that badly needs to go away. It was good that she addressed the effect of feminism on reducing societal pressures for men as well as women.

The only issue I might have with it is the example of the difference between men and women in leadership positions, where a man who pushes his workers hard is praised for being tough, while a women who treats them the same way is criticised for being bossy. That's a common feminist argument and it's not one I particularly agree with. I think any boss who pushes their employees is going to be considered an arsehole whether they're male or female. There isn't any real hatred behind it, it's just that people don't like getting bossed around.

Then again, experiences always differ, and I'm basically cherry-picking flaws here. On the whole, it was a pretty good speech. It was just the thing to listen to after watching the Jacqui Lambie interview train-wreck.

 

[carnex]

-snip-

That's really nice, I mean all that you wrote there. Sadly what movement you identify with pushed into laws, rules and legislation either on governmental or company levels since they achieved significant political power is significantly more for inequality than equality. You know that talk of "talk is cheap, actions count"? I sincerely agree with that. Actions is why I'm staunchly anti-feminist and I declare myself egalitarian.

I would also encourage you to dig deeper into things like wage gap etc. Nothing is really that clear cut. For example there is a clear correlation between disparity between value of regular hours and overtime in business field with wage gap size in that field. There is a lot of food for thoughts if you are willing to look at problem from both sides.

Remember, when two sides are fighting over some issue, most often truth is close to the middle line.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

The root cause of the problem is only helpful if you can tackle that root cause. In this case i don't believe you can - since the problems we're talking about originated millennia (or even longer) ago. In this case I believe that any solution will come through education of societies and cultures and that will bring about change.

Well...they originated millennia ago in societies markedly different from our own.

Maybe the gender roles were relevant in the Classical Age, but the world is a very different place now. Hell, the invention of the contraceptive pill led to a massive change in the way our society treats gender, because the things the rules were supposedly there to deal with suddenly weren't the same anymore.

Agreed and agreed - although I would add an addendum that only SOME parts of the world are a very different place now.

What I think I was trying to say is that "causes" (for the most part) are only relevant academically. Because you can always go to "the before". You may very well be correct that the "Clasical Age" (I have no idea when that started or finished btw) was where things began to change.

But to say they are not relevant I think is incorrect. It is particularly relevant now because we KNOW about it - and because it's ok to acknowledge it. Before maybe the last century (at least in the UK) people who brought up these problems were laughed out of the house. It may not seem like a massive step but just getting a conversation (read:shitstorm) going is actually progress.

At least now there are vast swathes of societies across the globe willing to discuss the issue. You know the first rule of addiction? You first need to admit that there is a problem.

Which is to say there is a motherfuck-ton of a ways to go yet before humans, as a species, realise it's better for everyone

Please understand I'm not arguing with you - just trying to present in a way that makes sense to me.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Agreed and agreed - although I would add an addendum that only SOME parts of the world are a very different place now.

What I think I was trying to say is that "causes" (for the most part) are only relevant academically. Because you can always go to "the before". You may very well be correct that the "Clasical Age" (I have no idea when that started of finished btw) was where things began to change.

Ah, well, the Classical Age was just something I picked at random, as it was millenia ago.

But to say they are not relevant I think is incorrect. It is particularly relevant now because we KNOW about it - and because it's ok to acknowledge it. Before maybe the last century (at least in the UK) people who brought up these problems were laughed out of the house. It may not seem like a massive step but just getting a conversation (read:shitstorm) going is actually progress.

At least now there are vast swathes of societies across the globe willing to discuss the issue. You know the first rule of addiction? You first need to admit that there is a problem.

Ah, definitely agree to that. So many people refuse to take that step.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

Yeah because as we all know all men are evil overlords that feed feed on privilege while sitting on their patriarchal thrones and if you don't challenge and demonise them at every opportunity you're a traitor to the feminist cause.
They're not entitled to common courtesy, respect or the right not to be judged by their gender. Only women are entitled to that.

The 70's are over, you should leave your man-hating bullshit at home and start treating men (and people in general) as individuals. Because all you're doing is shitting all over the public image of feminism, putting off anybody (male or female) who isn't looking for a movement that exists simply to justify their hate.
She even says in her speech that feminism needs to stop being synonymous with man-hating, well that's never going to happen as long as people like you are acting (or in this case writing) the way you are.

OT: Oh fuck off Miss Watson.
"I'm a millionaire who's practically a figure of worship and I'm here to lecture you about equality."
I tell you what, why don't you start sharing some of that £30 million of yours and then I might believe you have the slightest interest in equality.

And the reaction to it, oh the reaction is fucking depressing. "Look how amazing she is, what an awesome speech." Rich, attractive white women can do fucking anything and get praised for it. And that seems to include making a speech that's all style, no substance that you would expect from your average high school student. You think someone who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth and went to the most expensive and elitist schools could manage more than that but apparently not.

As always showmanship is readily available but ideas are just too much to ask for.

Really?

What is it that you want her to do?

Sit in a diamond encrusted mansion and just well . . . nothing?

Or maybe do you think it's better that people in such a privileged position would at least TRY to do something to affect change for those of us who are not so fortunate?

Am I really to understand that you would refuse her position of wealth and fame in the same shoes?

Hmmmmmmm

As for ideas I got a real doosy:
"Love one another"
Or if aren't feeling that one:
"Be cool"
et al

PS:
fyi bringing race into this ("Rich, attractive white women . . .") is just silly and made me lose all respect for anything you may have said. I recognise you may be a *expletive deleted* but cmon.

PPS
"U wot m8? Cum an av sum if u tink ur ard enuff! U an ur mum n'all! U bleedin ****!" Above not related.

 

[StorkV]

May I say I found Emma Watson's speech dumb...simply useless.... a speech that didn't have a real message....more like ''I'll talk about this subject in a vague way not actually cause I care about this.''

Her speech doesn't bring nothing... just :

''I am famous, media has it's eyes on me and I will talk about this...not that I actually have something to say.''

 

[Guffe]

-snip-

snap

Remember, when two sides are fighting over some issue, most often truth is close to the middle line.

With that sentence I can agree.
The... "truth(?)" is never just black and white.

Just thought to quote you and write that small wall of text because I thought your last sentence I quoted was waay too aggressive.
I like to see myself as a pretty open minded person and I usually like to hear arguments from both sides before taking a stance, or at least try to find some answers to questions about something before I take a stance.

But if we go into the original meaning, and what feminism is at it's core. That is equality for people. Basically what Christianity has been saying since, well, forever. All that stuff: treat others like you like to be treated etc etc. That is something I identify with.

I am not a religious guy, and I am not into politics.
But anything I think has most likely been thought of before, so why should I not identify with that?

So yeah, but I don't think you can be angry at Emma Watson for trying to do something good.
In that speech she even acknowledges that "feminism" today makes people think of "man haters". That's why I like the term "ultras", because they excist in every movement and every group. More often for the bad than for the good unfortuanetly.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In that speech she even acknowledges that "feminism" today makes people think of "man haters". That's why I like the term "ultras", because they excist in every movement and every group. More often for the bad than for the good unfortuanetly.

What you call "ultras" are useful for that sort of thing, sure, but hardly essential. When people want to hate, to think they are being hated and it's a reasonable response, they will find a reason, whether it exists or not.