Tuesday, 7 October 2014

84 Issues I have with Emma Watson's UN Speech. Video 3 of 3

84 Issues I have with Emma Watson's UN Speech. Video 3 of 3

You won't join HeForShe?!
You won't join HeForShe?!



The Video






 The Transcript       


#76.     One sentence infuriates me in its condescending arrogance:

"18 year old boy not expressing his feelings,"  What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Blurting out all the thoughts non-stop: "I feel like this.. I feel like that..."? By whose standards? Is it enough for them to cry, or are they supposed to "connect to their inner spiritual selves and embrace their feminine side" or what? What the fuck is expressing his feelings? Feminists want to define it for men? This is just the same complaint of "where have all the good men gone" in different designer clothes. "Be the man feminists tell you to conform to!"  Yeah.  Whatever.

#77.     The old tired claim that many people misunderstand what feminism really is, so we're given the dictionary definition. I have found it a generally wise to judge groups by their actions, rather than according to their mission statements, or whatever the dictionary happens to say. Feminists worked very hard to promote the interests of women in the field of education - now that women are outstripping men, are feminists promoting policies that help men and boys achieve equality?  -Stefan Molyneux.

#78.     "I want men to take up this mantle so their daughters, sisters, and mothers can be free." She is basically saying that women cannot free themselves, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the cycle of oppression. Smuggled into this general statement of men taking up this mantle is also an incredible condemnation of men and excusing of women. Men must get involved because only men are bad - women cannot free themselves without men saving them because women are only victims, never perpetrators. Men bad. Women good…    -Stefan Molyneux.

#79.     Women are supposed to be great listeners, so if Watson truly wanted to speak to men about gender issues, why didn't she do, what feminists seem resolutely opposed to doing, which is googling the term "top men's rights issues."?  -Stefan Molyneux.

#80.     If you are a feminist, and you want to enrol and motivate men, lecturing us about our supposed failings - while failing to ask us any questions whatsoever - is mere finger-wagging narcissism.  -Stefan Molyneux.

#81.     Anti-male prejudice is so ingrained in our hive minds that not one mainstream or female commentator - to my knowledge at least - has pointed out the blindingly obvious fact that Miss Watson wants to talk about gender equality and the needs of women, and cannot even conceive of asking men what our needs are.  -Stefan Molyneux.

#82.     Her speech contains no curiosity, no questions, no men's voices or concerns - it was just yet another example of a woman lecturing at men without listening to us - and demanding that we provide resources for the safety, security and comfort of women to boot!

#83.     It repeats the endlessly debunked myth that women make less than men for the same work - in fact, women with the same education have been in the workforce for the same amount of time as men actually make a little bit more than men.

Lastly, #84.       This one is courtesy of Lazlo Underhill.  It's a bit long, but it makes some very clear and troubling points.

Emma Watson was chosen for one reason and one reason alone.  Her handlers know  that there is an entire generation of young people, young men in particular, who admire her, who grew up having little fan boy crushes on her, and this is precisely who the feminist ideologues want to target.  She is the "ideal" set forth for an entire generation of young men and what drives me absolutely insane about this speech is that she is pointing to some nebulous "media" entity that "sexualized" her, but fails to recognize or acknowledge that it is this same nebulous "media" entity that placed her in front of that podium to give that speech.

Feminists realize that the movement has made a terrible error, and He-for-She is a campaign to correct that error.  The "error" essentially boils down to this:  Feminism has in large part destroyed the "protective" instinct of a generation of men prior to the Harry Potter generation.  Chivalry - dead.  This was intentional, but what the feminist movement didn't realize is that by killing chivalry, they set up an entire generation of women (who grew up watching Disney Princess movies) for misery and disappointment in their late 20s and 30s.   So we have a generation of pissed off, disappointed and BATSHIT crazy, histrionic 20-30ish women asking "where are all the good men?" and some of them are beginning to take a critical look, for the first time, at all the bullshit their feminist teachers and professors were telling them (i.e. wait to get married) and so we see a feminist backlash.  A generation of crazy, barren, angry and bitter cat ladies second guessing themselves and feminism.

So the feminists are in a panic, society becomes increasingly critical and doubtful of feminism, young men withdraw in huge numbers to gaming as a social and solitary pursuit.  Feminism has made a whole lotta women miserable as fuck - the answer?  Send Anita Sarkeesian with her lasso of shame to undermine the last refuge for a generation of men, and then NEO-FEMINISM!.  Tah  Dah!

Here's Emma Watson with her olive branch - "We don't hate men, we NEED men (to do and feel exactly what we tell them to do and feel).  We need our BIG STRONG MEN to defend us (because every passing month it seems we're heading closer to World War 3 - and "Gloria Steinem" knows it won't be women out their spilling their guts and coming home by the cargo load in body bags).  No. no. All those feminists who hissed at you in college for opening the door - they were "extremists" - we like chivalry - oh yes we really do - if it means your grim death on some foreign battleground and not mine.

End Quote.

Did I miss any?  Feel free to bring up any omissions in the comments below!
Post a Comment