Poll: Emma Watson's Speech on Gender Equality

Tawanda

New member
Apr 1, 2010
21
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Tawanda said:
Feminism in theory is about the equal worth of all people male/female/gay whatever but the reality is that its resulted in the empowerment of white women at the expense of everyone else, this is why it has such a notorious reputation, why a lot of women of color and gay/transgender women reject it why most men think its about man hating and male bashing because that's what it is in practice.

I don't think it was intentional or planned but unfortunately that's what its become.
Mainstream feminism has long had a serious problem with intersectionality, yes, and that is a perfect reason for woman of colour and/or LGBT women to reject it (which is why womanism was formed). Just like everything else, unfortunately.

This isn't any reason for it to be associated with hating men, though.
I think it comes from the loud ( not sure if they are a minority I personally think they are but I could be wrong) feminists who subscribe to male bashing and its reinforced by moderates not saying anything to dispute/criticize the radicals.Also Emma Watsons' speech is one of the few times that a woman has even acknowledged that men have problems too and that they are just as important as the problems that women face, the vast majority of the time male gender problems are trivialized by feminists. So again even though in practice feminism is about equality mutual respect for each other, some segments don't practice this and actually promote the opposite.
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,129
0
0
[quote/]Just don't expect me to be a dogged, ass kissing, White Knight. I would rather be alone.[/quote]
Vault101 said:
well with THAT attitude....
What attitude? Of not pledging for anyone without analysis?

"I have realized that fighting for women?s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop."

What has to stop? Feminists hating men or people viewing feminists as man haters? Is this self-criticism or a PR problem?

Also, for a campaign against sex stereotypes, "He For She" looks to be making a cause for chivalrism. Starting by its name.

It is not "He For She and She For He" or as it would be simpler "All for one, one for all". I would have signed that.

Also.

?I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination??


??faced by women and girls.?

Oh. So, not these.


http://www.justdetention.org/en/humanrights.aspx

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujba_college_massacre

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/30/syria-isis-holds-130-kurdish-children

Also after the Rwandan genocide of 1994? 70% of the country was female.

"Two years later UN Special Rapporteur René Degni-Ségui declared that ?women may even be regarded as the main victims of the slaughter.? UN Security Council Resolution 1325, passed in 2000, treats wartime sexual violence as something that impacts exclusively on women and girls, against all evidence."

Source: http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/09/23/the-five-little-words-that-betrayed-emma-watson/
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
I'd hazard to say that we're beginning to derail this thread even though we're discussing a fear I have as a man that women don't have to deal with thanks to gender roles. Let me know if you agree.

thaluikhain said:
Lightknight said:
Some interesting data: Somewhere between 2.5% and 5% of the people in prison are innocent. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/05/01/the-price-of-freedom-what-happens-to-the-wrongfully-convicted/] So 1 in every 200 or 1 in every 400. To put that in total terms, in 2006 there were 7.5 million people in prison. If we use the low end estimate of 2.5% that would be 187,500 people in prison for a crime they did not commit.

False accusations of rape specifically are believed to run between 2% to 8%. David Lisak's 2010 study that was published in a magazine dedicated to violence against women put the number at 5.9% when they only counted cases where actual evidence turned up to show that the claim was false. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Lisak_.282010.29] So it isn't counting other people for whom there was no evidence to exonerate but were innocent. So that 8% may not be that unlikely but study results can vary wildly by who is doing the study and what criteria they use to define a false accusation. That's why I used the study put out by Violence Against Women since I assume they wouldn't want to print particularly high numbers unless they were true.
The proportion of false accusations might be more than the proportion of people, in general, wrongfully convicted? That says nothing about the amount of false accusations leading to a conviction.
What's your point? We have a number presenting the liklihood that a person is in jail wrongfully and we have the liklihood that they were falsely accused.

Both numbers are separately harmful and certainly aren't 0.

We know that 35% of all exoneries were convicted as rapists [http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/21/11756575-researchers-more-than-2000-false-convictions-in-past-23-years?lite]. That requires the highest degree of confidence that the person did not commit the crime.

Look, you may not consider it to be a big enough problem. But for it to run as high as 6% of cases that met real criteria for the accusations is insane. If it's higher? If it's 8% or even 10%? I mean, we're already at more than 1 in 20 being a false accusation and potentially 1 in 10. This not only ruins lives but trivializes or puts into question the people who really are victims. Sorry if you don't think that's a big deal but I'm not sure what your goal is here? What are you trying to prove or disprove?

Are you trying to put my fears at ease or just trying to trivialize me?

That's assuming that the authorities take the allegation seriously, mind, which is also far from a given.
I would appreciate you returning the same courtesy I did in presenting actual data to back up your claim. I've seen specific examples here and there of it not taken seriously and I've also seen examples of prosecutions carried out that should not have been taken seriously but were (situations where enough evidence of innocence was present to prevent booking but the police just forwarded it to the court system anyways and put them through months of hardship just waiting for a judge to throw it out and chastise the officer for doing so).

I have seen articles on policies that are set in place that wantonly dismiss cases that it shouldn't just because they meet certain criteria. For example, the article that comes to mind was about a police agency that just entirely dismissed cases where the woman had been drinking at all. So that kind of crap has to stop, I have no problem with pursuing legitimate cases and I'm in favor of harsher punishments. I think our legal system is being a bit silly when it leaves no room for degree of certainty. Like, there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and then there's absolute certainty as in there he is on camera with a name tag and we have DNA evidence. If we ever instituted that I'd like harsher limits imposed across a number of crimes consistent with blatantness while the regular ol' beyond reasonable doubt can continue to be pursued regularly.

It's something to be afraid of, in that it is bad when it happens, yes. It happening once is too many.

However, it's not something any given individual is going to need to be particularly concerned with, it is very rare.

Now, the fear of this is very real, of course, our society has a real dread of false rape accusations, but that's a problem that is almost separate to the reality of them.
In order for them to have met the requirements set forth in David Lisak's 2010 study, they had to have been seriously investigated. These weren't just dismissed cases. They had to have investigated everything. Questioned witnesses, acquired DNA evidence where relevant, etc. This doesn't even include the cases where an allegation was made and thrown out. These are the ones that were investigated and in order to be counted as a false allegation it actually had to have acquired evidence that the allegation was false. Not merely a dropping of charges.

"Applying IACP guidelines, a case was classified as a false report if there was evidence that a thorough investigation was pursued and that the investigation had yielded evidence that the reported sexual assault had in fact not occurred. A thorough investigation would involve, potentially, multiple interviews of the alleged perpetrator, the victim, and other witnesses, and where applicable, the collection of other forensic evidence (e.g., medical records, security camera records). For example, if key elements of a victim?s account of an assault were internally inconsistent and directly contradicted by multiple witnesses and if the victim then altered those key elements of his or her account, investigators might conclude that the report was false. That conclusion would have been based not on a single interview, or on intuitions about the credibility of the victim, but on a ?preponderance? of evidence gathered over the course of a thorough investigation."

That's why a study that came up with a 6% false allegation percentage was published in Violence Against Women. Because this followed the most stringent guidelines available.

So that's 6% of allegations that were actually investigated that were found to have actual evidence indicating them as false. These aren't the ones that don't have direct evidence falsifying them and these aren't the ones that make it all the way through being convicted that we find out are false years later.
 

Jesterscup

New member
Sep 9, 2014
267
0
0
Grahav said:
?I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination??


??faced by women and girls.?

Oh. So, not these.


http://www.justdetention.org/en/humanrights.aspx

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujba_college_massacre

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/30/syria-isis-holds-130-kurdish-children

Also after the Rwandan genocide of 1994? 70% of the country was female.

"Two years later UN Special Rapporteur René Degni-Ségui declared that ?women may even be regarded as the main victims of the slaughter.? UN Security Council Resolution 1325, passed in 2000, treats wartime sexual violence as something that impacts exclusively on women and girls, against all evidence."

Source: http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/09/23/the-five-little-words-that-betrayed-emma-watson/

You know what, while I understand, and fight this point on a far too regular basis, and get my licks for it from some who would call themselves 'feminists'.
We have to stand up and be better.
Just because men suffer from violence does not mean there isn't a problem with violence against women, and vice versa. This is a deeply emotive thing, and who wouldn't be emotional if you/your friend/sister/mother/daughter had been raped/abused. Wouldn't you rabidly stand up and shout and scream and do everything you could to ensure it stopped happening?

If fact, the chances are if you know 3 women you know someone who's been raped or sexually assaulted shouldn't we be fighting that?
Yes there is a narrative that is damaging ( men bad, women victim) especially when you consider that 15% of men have survived/will survive abuse as well, what we need is a better narrative, not to fight those people fighting the good fight.

Stand up and shout this happens to men too, try and talk calmly to those using that narrative and say "look you're hurting these people". Talk about how the "abused becomes abuser" trope is propagated too often ( this isn't propagated per-se it's "abuser was abused" , but that only has one end, it's reverse trope), talk about how male survivors suffer in silence, often never telling anyone ( anyone, at all, ever ), with no help resources or support.

And yes, as with everything on the internet, there are those who 'get their hate on' ( on both sides), they are trolls, ignore them, move on and discourse with others with more moderate view, don't dismiss those who would listen, engage with them.
 

Smiley Face

New member
Jan 17, 2012
704
0
0
Questioning and disregarding convention is second nature to me, and because I live in a fairly tolerant environment, people usually come to terms with that fairly quickly. As a result, despite there sometimes being those expectations there, they haven't really been an issue for me in the past. However, that's not true of everyone, and I feel for those people who feel pressure to conform and don't have the situation or tools to handily overcome it. If I didn't love arguing beyond the point of reason, I'd probably fall into that camp, given that I'm also somewhat shy.

I suspect it's more difficult for women, because argumentative and stoic natures are generally encouraged in men and discouraged in women, and so the traits that make it easier to overcome these barriers are both nurtured for men and cause fewer problems for us upon becoming parts of our identity, and that really is an injustice that I hope to see fall away more as we become more tolerant. We're pretty good where I live, but there's still a ways to go.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
I can honestly say I've never felt stereotyped as any of those things. Either I don't present as violent or greedy or dumb, or I don't travel in circles where those presumptions are leapt to. I have run into the "be a man" bullshit, though, which to her credit I called her on and she later apologized for.
Well, I haven't personally been treated that way as if I were literally dumb or an idiot. But I have been the butt of cultural jokes regarding this. Sure, they're treated as a joke. But joke or not it's offensive and it is regularly perpetuated in media now that the woman is the smart and capable one and the husband wipes his elbow because he couldn't find his asshole. I don't like being treated like I'm evil one moment by society and then getting treated like I'm an incompetent fool the next moment that only makes it through each day through the tired and stern look of my wife when it couldn't be more opposite from the truth.

I then get to have the joy of being called chauvinist for wanting games with avatars that look like me or get immediately trivialized if I have the gall to mention that not all men are X.

Seriously, women win at social structuring.

Whoa, that video is remarkable. Had not seen it at all.

And I've had many relationships end because of my failure to manifest sufficient career ambition or the kind of "take charge attitude" that apparently caused their panties to fly off mid-stride. I've always been more of a caretaker. I would've made someone a good wife hurr hurr hurr.
Interesting. I've always found it pretty novel to see certain women complain that men aren't womanly enough in one breath only to turn around and complain about the men they're actually dating not being manly enough.

Fortunately my chesthair naturally grows in the shape of an eagle and my shoulders are as broad as the day is long.

Come on man they do more than that. This one has a tray you can put drinks on, and it kind of wheels them around.
Can it carry fluids while crotch punching or does it have to set the fluids down first?
 

cikame

New member
Jun 11, 2008
585
0
0
It's nice to hear about equality for men for a change.

My personality is of the weaker male, i like video games and intelligent things, i try to speak properly and be quiet instead of being loud and aggressive, i have a bad job and live alone.
I haven't noticed any sort of advantage in being this way, i've watched horrible bullies from my childhood buying flashy cars and marrying beautiful women, friends of mine don't stay in contact as they've moved on to new upper class social circles.
I'm not competitive in the slightest, i let people win to make them happy, my last two relationships ended specifically because i was "too nice".

But enough about me, there are plenty of men out there with their own issues, parents who have split up and the father doesn't get to see his children because our society always leans on the side of the mother.
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,129
0
0
Jesterscup said:
You know what, while I understand, and fight this point on a far too regular basis, and get my licks for it from some who would call themselves 'feminists'.
We have to stand up and be better.
Just because men suffer from violence does not mean there isn't a problem with violence against women, and vice versa. This is a deeply emotive thing, and who wouldn't be emotional if you/your friend/sister/mother/daughter had been raped/abused. Wouldn't you rabidly stand up and shout and scream and do everything you could to ensure it stopped happening?

If fact, the chances are if you know 3 women you know someone who's been raped or sexually assaulted shouldn't we be fighting that?
Yes there is a narrative that is damaging ( men bad, women victim) especially when you consider that 15% of men have survived/will survive abuse as well, what we need is a better narrative, not to fight those people fighting the good fight.

Stand up and shout this happens to men too, try and talk calmly to those using that narrative and say "look you're hurting these people". Talk about how the "abused becomes abuser" trope is propagated too often ( this isn't propagated per-se it's "abuser was abused" , but that only has one end, it's reverse trope), talk about how male survivors suffer in silence, often never telling anyone ( anyone, at all, ever ), with no help resources or support.

And yes, as with everything on the internet, there are those who 'get their hate on' ( on both sides), they are trolls, ignore them, move on and discourse with others with more moderate view, don't dismiss those who would listen, engage with them.
Agree with almost everything.

I have just doubts about the 1 in 3 and the 15% statisc. Simply because there are a lot of research in this area with conflicting results, bias and interest attached. I don't know what the hell is the real number anymore.

Also about: "who wouldn't be emotional". Carefull, because emotion is a good tool to manipulate well-intentioned people. Politicians are great at it. Also in the other side the lack of an emotional response to man's suffering piss me off.

Spot1990 said:
So if you were alive say in the 1950's would you have just been pissed that MLK wasn't focusing enough on white issues? Do you go to gay pride marches and complain that they're not doing enough for straight people?

Feminism exists to fight for women's equality. Often things that benefit men fall into that wheel house and they fight for that. But it isn't their job to fight for men's rights. Complaining about feminism being for women't rights is akin to complaining that there isn't just one massive rights group fighting for everyone at once.

Just like white people should support the rights of ethnic minorities, straight people should support the rights of LGBT people and men should support the rights of women without asking "But what's in it for me?"
Dictionary first google result:

1
: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2
: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

By your writing, the definition of feminism is 2 and not 1. And I am fine with that.

When I hear a feminist saying it is 1, I get suspicious. The root of the word feminism is feminine, saying that is about equality when it starts with an unequal word... Also, too generic and propaganda-like.

Now when I hear 2, it is okay. It is the most sincere definition of the movement and allows discussion of its ways. Rights and interests of a group can be good or bad and should be supported or countered.
 

DANEgerous

New member
Jan 4, 2012
805
0
0
You know what confuses me? The very idea that some thing as masculine and others are feminine. Why? I do not get it why is cooking feminine despite the fact most professional chefs are male. In fact why are most professional anything male? why is blue for boys but if it is is for a girl it MUST be pink? I like pink and I am a guy why is my 3ed favrote color a female exclusive? Why is any thing a female or for that matter male exclusive? Am insane for thinking that is bullshit? I doubt it I think the world is fucking mad.
 

Jesterscup

New member
Sep 9, 2014
267
0
0
Grahav said:
Agree with almost everything.

I have just doubts about the 1 in 3 and the 15% statisc. Simply because there are a lot of research in this area with conflicting results, bias and interest attached. I don't know what the hell is the real number anymore.
Yeah it is spurious conjecture at best, there is not a single publication that comes up with anything other than an vague estimate. it's also been estimated that over 75% of male abuse survivors never come forward, again just an estimate.

From personal experience however10-15% seems about right, and 75% never admitting it also seems right. I get to this from the number of men who have related their stories to me out of the people I know, and the number of them who say " I've never told anyone else..."



DANEgerous said:
why is blue for boys but if it is is for a girl it MUST be pink?
Historical baggage on the professional side. On the blue/pink divide I believe in victorian times they were reversed. But standing up and saying "this is bullshit" is how we progress ^.^
 

koichi

New member
Sep 22, 2014
11
0
0
DANEgerous said:
You know what confuses me? The very idea that some thing as masculine and others are feminine. Why? I do not get it why is cooking feminine despite the fact most professional chefs are male. In fact why are most professional anything male? why is blue for boys but if it is is for a girl it MUST be pink? I like pink and I am a guy why is my 3ed favrote color a female exclusive? Why is any thing a female or for that matter male exclusive? Am insane for thinking that is bullshit? I doubt it I think the world is fucking mad.
I believe Macy's or some other major retailer was responsible for the Pink=Girls, Blue=Boys things. Prior to the 1900s or so they were interchangeable and before that reversed. As for the chef thing think about it like this: Cooking is a domestic task normally delegated to the mother. Being a chef however is a profession, you're not cooking for your family, you're crafting a meal for someone else. Meanwhile certain things being masculine and feminine probably has some untraceable history in Latin or something due to the need for nouns to have gender. Remember the concept of zero was revolutionary to the ancient world and I'd wager the idea of something not being a boy or a girl would have been as well.
 

Auron225

New member
Oct 26, 2009
1,790
0
0
Good speech, but I don't understand why she didn't mention anything about the campaign itself. What happens if I sign up? What are the campaigns goals? Don't say "gender equality", that's too vague. What does the campaign want to target first? Equal pay? Forced marriages of girls to men? The media's perception and corrupt message of male/female roles? Feminists who actually do hate men (they exist)? How is the campaign going to tackle these issues?

It all sounded like a beautifully put idea with little-to-no explanation as to how to make it happen. It's like someone making a speech about how terrible war is and how great world peace would be, with the chance to sign your name and say "Yes, war is not good", and offer no other solution to help the cause.
 

Inglorious891

New member
Dec 17, 2011
274
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Eh, kinda yeah.

I've had several male friends come to me to help them through with whatever emotional issues they've been having, some have even come to me crying, and I've helped them out. With helping them out though I realized I would never go to someone else for emotional help unless someone forced me to. Hell, the only times I've allowed myself to cry or even be visually upset about something is if I'm completely alone, otherwise I get the feeling people are going to look down on me because of it. I'unno, part of the reason is due to gender rolls 'n such (it's not OK for a man to be emotional, etc.). There are other things, I suppose, but nothing I'd like to talk about over a public forum.


Although in response to that whole UN campaingn...


Oh boy, another feminist campaign riding the whole, "See, men? We want to help you too!" horse while not actually doing anything to actually help men. I'm seeing these type of campaigns pop up more and more, and it's pretty... dissapointing, especially since this campaign is currently recongized by the freakin' UN. I realize Emma stated in her speech she wants to help men who truly do suffer due to gender inequality, but the entirey of the campaign she's tied to is dedicated to women, not men. I'd be shocked if HeForShe made even the slightest effort to help men versus just recruit them. I wouldn't have a problem if the campaign didn't advertise itself as egalitarianist, but it does, which is why this is so dissapointing and intellectually dishonest.. They say they want to help men, but really they just want men to support them; they couldn't care less about actually helping men with legimitate issues that Emma's speech actually brings up.

Hate to turn this into yet another "fuck feminism!" thread, but for some reason I felt the need to say this.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Grahav said:
Dictionary first google result:

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

By your writing, the definition of feminism is 2 and not 1. And I am fine with that.

When I hear a feminist saying it is 1, I get suspicious. The root of the word feminism is feminine, saying that is about equality when it starts with an unequal word... Also, too generic and propaganda-like.

Now when I hear 2, it is okay. It is the most sincere definition of the movement and allows discussion of its ways. Rights and interests of a group can be good or bad and should be supported or countered.
When there is a disparity in power and influence between two groups, and you believe in equality between those two groups, it naturally stands to reason that the vast majority of your activity will be on behalf of the underprivileged group. That is how equanimity is eventually achieved. This is not a perfect process, and you will hear constant bleating from one side that certain problems are still not rectified, and constant bleating from the other about pendulums swinging too far.

That you get "suspicious" when people refer to an ideology by using the actual leading dictionary definition of that ideology is a lot more telling about you and your personal attitude towards the ideology than it is about the ideology itself.

Inglorious891 said:
They say they want to help men, but really they just want men to support them; they couldn't care less about actually helping men with legimitate issues that Emma's speech actually brings up.
Who is "they" and "them"? Feminists? I'm a feminist. I'm also a man. Do you think I have an active lack of interest in having my own problems addressed?

Is it women? Do you believe that women are so universally united that "they" can be said to "not care" about any particular issue en masse?
 

Winnosh

New member
Sep 23, 2010
492
0
0
She has to be careful or she'll be stigmatized by being associated with MRAs I agree with what she's saying Female rights and Mens rights should be linked. But most organized Feminism seems to hate people talking about actually doing it.
 

Inglorious891

New member
Dec 17, 2011
274
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Inglorious891 said:
They say they want to help men, but really they just want men to support them; they couldn't care less about actually helping men with legimitate issues that Emma's speech actually brings up.
Who is "they" and "them"? Feminists? I'm a feminist. I'm also a man. Do you think I have an active lack of interest in having my own problems addressed?

Is it women? Do you believe that women are so universally united that "they" can be said to "not care" about any particular issue en masse?
"They" and "them" is the HeForShe organization. And I can't speak for you because I don't know you; I never said I knew about your thoughts on addressing problems you face. The HeForShe organization, on the other hand, is only for helping women. I spent some time looking at the website and it's all for getting men to help women, not for women to help men, or men to help men, etc.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Inglorious891 said:
"They" and "them" is the HeForShe organization. And I can't speak for you because I don't know you; I never said I knew about your thoughts on addressing problems you face. The HeForShe organization, on the other hand, is only for helping women. I spent some time looking at the website and it's all for getting men to help women, not for women to help men, or men to help men, etc.
As the UN is a global organization, I'm not terribly surprised.

Also, I actually believe in helping women. I also believe that in helping address hostile/antiquated gender notions that I'd be helping men as well. Much like I might have felt in the 50's that in helping, say, the Civil Rights movement, that I was helping humanity in general, making communities healthier, etc, etc.

I'm a white male who was born into a middle class family in one of the most peaceful, wealthy countries in the world. I accept that my list of personal needs and tragedies...while highly relevant to me...aren't necessarily going to be at the top of a priority list for a UN organization. That doesn't mean I withhold my support, or take a zero-sum attitude towards their efforts.
 

Inglorious891

New member
Dec 17, 2011
274
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Inglorious891 said:
"They" and "them" is the HeForShe organization. And I can't speak for you because I don't know you; I never said I knew about your thoughts on addressing problems you face. The HeForShe organization, on the other hand, is only for helping women. I spent some time looking at the website and it's all for getting men to help women, not for women to help men, or men to help men, etc.
As the UN is a global organization, I'm not terribly surprised.

Also, I actually believe in helping women. I also believe that in helping address hostile/antiquated gender notions that I'd be helping men as well. Much like I might have felt in the 50's that in helping, say, the Civil Rights movement, that I was helping humanity in general, making communities healthier, etc, etc.

I'm a white male who was born into a middle class family in one of the most peaceful, wealthy countries in the world. I accept that my list of personal needs and tragedies...while highly relevant to me...aren't necessarily going to be at the top of a priority list for a UN organization. That doesn't mean I withhold my support, or take a zero-sum attitude towards their efforts.

Considering HeForShe is a global, UN campaign, I'm not surprised it's just for women. My issue isn't with that, it's with the fact that it advertised itself as a campaign to help men when it's not to help men. It's just the dishonestly that gets me, and the fact that most egalitarianist campaigns are actually feminist campaigns that just advertise themselves as helpful for men when in reality the main thrust of their campaign is purely for women, not men. I'd consider supporting a UN feminist campaign if it wasn't for this dishonesty, but because of it I'm cautious to throw myself behind them.
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,129
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
That you get "suspicious" when people refer to an ideology by using the actual leading dictionary definition of that ideology is a lot more telling about you and your personal attitude towards the ideology than it is about the ideology itself.
Basically, what Inglorious891 says.


Inglorious891 said:
Also, I actually believe in helping women. I also believe that in helping address hostile/antiquated gender notions that I'd be helping men as well. Much like I might have felt in the 50's that in helping, say, the Civil Rights movement, that I was helping humanity in general, making communities healthier, etc, etc.

I'm a white male who was born into a middle class family in one of the most peaceful, wealthy countries in the world. I accept that my list of personal needs and tragedies...while highly relevant to me...aren't necessarily going to be at the top of a priority list for a UN organization. That doesn't mean I withhold my support, or take a zero-sum attitude towards their efforts.

Considering HeForShe is a global, UN campaign, I'm not surprised it's just for women. My issue isn't with that, it's with the fact that it advertised itself as a campaign to help men when it's not to help men. It's just the dishonestly that gets me, and the fact that most egalitarianist campaigns are actually feminist campaigns that just advertise themselves as helpful for men when in reality the main thrust of their campaign is purely for women, not men. I'd consider supporting a UN feminist campaign if it wasn't for this dishonesty, but because of it I'm cautious to throw myself behind them.
Yep.

And that is the the "best" kind of dishonesty. It can get worse when people use good causes just to get fat with money, or disguise the less savory aspects of an ideology.

Aplies to anything, not just feminism.

Here in Brazil, there is a thing called the "industry of drought". Basically, getting tax money that should be directioned to combat the water shortage on the northeast of the country to get rich.

Or, in case of feminism, pretty words convicing us to join in unlike #killallmen.

My problem with the movement is how their supporters hold anybody that says it is a feminist in almost sacred standards.
It lacks a lot of self-criticism and quality control.

That is why I love Christina Sommers. Based mom is awesome.