Resentment knows no social bounds
I’m
a feminist! Emma Watson’s UN speech has opened my eyes.
In
the dark ages before I watched the Hollywood starlet’s very affecting attempt
to win men over to the cause, I’d assumed that “feminism” was just about hustling
for special treatment for women at the expense of men.
If
you’d pushed me for a specific
definition, I’d probably have defined the word feminist as a “spoiled, whining,
left-wing harpy”.
But
as Emma pointed out feminism is simply: “The
belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”.
If
that’s feminism and my dictionary agrees then count me in. As a matter of fact
no position is easier for a conservative to hold. After all equality under the
law is a bedrock belief for us righties. So I’m a feminist.
But I’m
not sure about Emma.
Firstly,
though, it has to be said that there’s a lot to like in Emma’s speech. It was
refreshing to hear from a passionate feminist who wasn’t angry or just plain
nasty. Then there was the unanswerable plea for equality and the call for an
end to “man-hating”. She was also so
obviously sincere and well intentioned that people were moved in a way that no
feminist has achieved in decades.
That
said, most of the substance of the speech was informed by the usual weird
sister cackling of contemporary feminism. In short it is mad, bad, sad ... and according to Emma’s own definition not even feminist.
The Mad
Emma’s
address to the UN was unhinged because underlying all her thoughts is the mad old feminist idea that “man” and “woman”
are simply social constructs. If only girls and boys were treated the same they
would divide up the world and each profession with it 50:50. Take away the Barbie dolls
and little Charlotte would want to be a coal miner, and take away the toy gun
and little Matt would want to grow up to be a kindergarten teacher.
This
is the original sin of feminism. A good half of the idiocy spouted by feminists
is due to this premise that men and women are essentially identical.
Paradoxically,
the rest of their idiocy arises from their other foundation belief ─ that women
are superior to men.
Schizoid?
You would be too if like Emma you’ve been gathering pearls of wisdom at the
feet of the sisterhood for the last 6 months.
The Bad
The
darkest moment in Emma’s speech came for me when she said the following:
“I think it is right that
women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decisions that will affect
my life. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as
men. But sadly I can say that there is
no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.
No
country in the world can yet say that they have achieved gender equality.”
This
is worse than mad, it is bad.
Bad
because it’s blind to the vast gap between the situation of women in the West
and that in the rest of the world. It is bad because of the dishonest reason
for that blindness. It’s the same blindness that causes British feminists to
have apoplexy over Barbie dolls while ignoring “honour" killings or the hundreds
of thousands of cases of FGM in Britain. So just as with the paleo-sisterhood
Emma’s multiculturalism trumps her feminism, which is sad because they are
usually contradictory.
It’s
also bad because it’s a lie. There is a country in which women have achieved
gender equality ─ her own, Britain. There are a third more women undergraduates
than men in Britain these days, and women in their twenties now earn more than
men.
In
the real Britain of today, rather than in feminists’ dark fantasies, a woman
has at least as much opportunity as a man and possibly more. The reason that
there are fewer women MPs than men is that Britain is a free society. And in
the real world men are more interested in politics and it plays more to their
general strengths.
Later
on she drops a rare fact into her speech:
“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.”
This
once again bears the hallmarks of feminist reality because it has been against
the law for 40 years to pay women less for doing the same work. Every so often
a woman will quite rightly take a case to court and win substantial
compensation from any employer breaking this law. Yes, women still earn less
than men on average, but this is entirely due to choice of occupation, education
level and career disruption through child bearing.
The Sad
This
is the worst aspect of Emma’s speech.
To
personalise the speech she gave instances of her own path to feminism in a
sexist culture:
“I started questioning
gender-based assumptions a long time ago. When I was eight I was confused at
being called “bossy,” because I wanted to direct the plays we would put on for
our parents—but the boys were not.
When at 14 I started to be
sexualized by certain elements of the media.
When at 15 my girlfriends
started dropping out of their beloved sports teams because they didn't want to
appear 'muscly.'
When at 18 my male friends
were unable to express their feelings.”
Obviously
self knowledge is not Emma’s strong point. Presumably this pathetic litany is supposed
to convince us of her own victimhood. Could she possibly not realise that
everybody, man or woman, no matter how privileged and fortunate their
upbringing could come up with such a list? In reality this pathetic list of
irritations and minor slights proves the opposite of her intention. Anyone man
or women whose life was marred by such trivial stuff is truly blessed. She
should be performing cartwheels of delight.
Does
she also not realise how offensive these sufferings sound to millions upon millions
of women who live in real as opposed to imaginary sexist societies? I guess
not, because she gives no indication in her speech that gender inequality might
be more of a problem in India than it is in Britain. Presumably, to Emma an
eight-year-old Emma being called “bossy” in Oxford equates to Anji in Bombay being
burned to death because her dowry hasn’t arrived.
It’s
sad because in the context of the liberated equality that women in Britain enjoy
it leads to the inescapable conclusion that no matter what men do, they will
never appease this resentment. And if the opinion and comments pages of British
newspapers are any guide at all the resentment of a privileged Hollywood star
is typical of women across Britain.
But
let’s take seriously as very many commentators did the validity of her sufferings
in patriarchal Britain. How exactly do you go about achieving the Nirvana where
no one ever calls an eight-year-old “bossy”? And how exactly do you go about
making people appreciate the beauty of muscly women? To achieve that sort of
precision social engineering would even tax the creativity of a Kim Jong Un?
Clearly
Emma’s beef along with the rest of the sisterhood is with free societies.
Freedom
is all very well just as long as no eight-year-old should ever suffer the
catastrophic loss of self-esteem from being called “bossy”.
Cat’s Paw
Thanks
Emma for the reminder that I am a feminist. But I don’t want to brag about it,
because in truth it doesn’t make me at all remarkable among British men. In
fact I have met very few men who believe in the inferiority of women. I’d say
that a higher proportion of British men agree on this than almost anything
else. Very likely more men believe in women’s equality than women who return
the favour.
That’s
why the sexual revolution was so bloodless in the West. Western men have accepted
the obvious truth that women are equal and should have equal rights.
Compare
that to what has happened in Turkey since the Islamists came to power in 2003.
Murders of women have increased more than 10 times. And that’s merely the tip
of an iceberg of suffering.
Consider
that in the Palestinian authority area that two thirds of murders are “honour
killings”. Maybe it’s those evil Joos that put them up to it?
Perhaps
religiously inspired misogyny should have had a mention in your speech, Emma?
So
we western men are feminists. But I can’t say the same for Emma. Her equal
position in a western society and the fabulous success it enabled was not
enough to wean her from the delights of victimhood and resentment. For Emma and
her fellow pretend feminists pedestrian equality will always be a glass half full.
The
vast monolithic western patriarchy of our grandfathers suffered the same fate
as the plains bison. It has been hunted almost to extinction. But then the very
success of the sharpshooters threatened their own livelihood. Somehow the
remaining few dozen bison have to support thousands of great white feminist
hunters. Last week brought a hilarious example of the result.
Emma’s
speech was preceded by an internet threat to release nude photos of her. Any
Google search will reveal dozens of feminists gunning for this particular bison.
As one put it “It makes me furious that these men, these boys, are attempting
to grind you down.” The feminist feeding frenzy resulted from just one not very
credible post on a message board. That’s what the patriarchy amounts to these
days. One saddo in his underpants tapping away naughty things on his keyboard in
his mummy’s basement. One lonely bison staring extinction in the face.
But
I can’t bring myself to condemn Emma entirely. Whether she knows it or not her
popularity and idealism are being exploited by the hard-faced great white
misogynist hunting ideologues of feminism. In short she’s just a cat’s paw for
the whining harpies in the background.
"It’s also bad because it’s a lie. There is a country in which women have achieved gender equality ─ her own, Britain. There are a third more women undergraduates than men in Britain these days, and women in their twenties now earn more than men. " So if men have it worse its equality?
ReplyDeleteTwo statistics don't tell the whole story. It's also possible to quote statistics of male dominance. My case is that there is broad equality and that in Jack Nicholson's film line that is "as good as it gets" in a free society. The basic problem with feminists is that they are always leftists fighting against freedom.
ReplyDeleteHi, John. I found a link to this piece at American Thinker. This is a great piece of analysis. I'd like to republish at StubbornThings.org if I could. Let me know. You can contact me at brad@stubbornthings.org. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to defend Islam but my only disagreement with this piece has to do with freedom of religion; albeit, in a civil society, I believe that immigrants should be required to conform to the law and otherwise culturally assimilate, albeit your geography radically differs from mine. Refugees who bring the problems of their host country with them don't have much of my sympathy except that obviously cronyism, nepotism, and the appeal to sentimentality are the only consistent avenues of material success in our world today. That said, it seems to me to be the height of idiocy for white women to deliberately attempt to emasculate their own men particularly those who they claim to love. The same would apply to women of any race except for those who deliberately cross race lines for their domestic and romantic arrangements and many first world women do just that in which case, their capability for loyalty invites scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteI believe that rather than simply demonizing religions in general, instead belief systems that appeal to unconscious fears and desires need a little daylight shone on them, and such belief systems don't exclude any of the economic pyramid schemes including those which call themselves "free" of religion. There are plenty of irrational fears and desires in play with all the various ideologies going around in desperation to retain relevance and dominance in a world of resource scarcity.
While it may seem like chivalry to rescue a third world woman from her willing "subordination" it is nothing but imperialism. However when that same woman immigrates, her subordination to the culture and laws of the host country ought to take precedence; otherwise, it is sort of a reverse imperialism with the same effect--cultural and economic degradation for all. How to reverse a border that has been like a sieve due to manipulated sentimentality is a job for those more calculating than I.
Meanwhile human beings are not "equal" in a mathematical sense in terms of rational, civil, observable phenomena. However, the irrational and invisible clearly has an effect even if to measure it and observe it changes it. It is unfortunate that a few of the remaining "bison" have figured out how to herd irrationality to their own civic and economic benefit. In my view however the only "right" to herd, guide, and protect such irrationality belongs with persons who *love* their charges. Such cannot be said of most ideologues nor authoritarians which is why revolution is occasionally necessary and occurs in myriad ways regardless of human sophistication.
Secretly I find that women fear each other more than men for after all, as you so eloquently point out, there aren't a whole lot of "bison" left to devour. As for your Indian woman who arrives without a dowry, who do you suppose lights the match and who orders that the match be lit? If men are forced into either role it is on the behest of women who don't want to get their hands dirty. If women do it themselves it is because they have already succeeded in emasculating their own men and the only "bison" left to slaughter is the father of the new bride by a metaphorical stab to the heart. First world-ers assume that "education" will magically create resources and that more births and more longevity is "superior". Apparently math ability isn't the strong suit of interventionists or perhaps it is after all if only the light were shone on it.
All the talk of “equality” (they’ve quietly stopped going on about equality of opportunity, you’ll notice) is merely the most effective piece of bullshit feminists have hit upon recently to help them get their way - they don’t actually BELIEVE any of it very strongly.
ReplyDeleteOr at least those who pretend to themselves that they believe in it haven’t thought about it. They’re striking a pose, acting a part. If you act a part you can sometimes convince yourself that it is true.
The problem comes, of course, when men are on the wrong end of inequalities, and the feminists, those brave warriors for equality, um...don’t mind all that much, don’t seem to be making any fuss at all about it. They don’t put enormous numbers of petitions and new websites online, or cooperate on twitter, on blogs or in the real world to defeat these equalities - only for the ones that will benefit them.
Not only do they not give a monkey’s bum about issues like men’s health, employment, or father’s relations with their children; feminists cannot disguise their hostility and resentment towards men. It’s really one of the building blocks of feminism. Women working together wouldn’t be nearly so fun if they couldn’t blame men for everything - and work against them.
When Emma Watson says “This has to stop” she doesn’t mean feminists should stop hating men, she means people MUST stop pointing the fact out…. And don’t you dare call her “bossy” either!
I could go on about the dishonesty of mixing up the issues of women in Saudi, Iran, etc with the more minor concerns of the rather cosseted women who live in the West - who seem to just want more of what they want - but that will do for now
"Yes, women still earn less than men on average, but this is entirely due to choice of occupation, education level and career disruption through child bearing"
ReplyDeleteAnd hours worked, and job decisions like where to work, wanting to be close to family, and social life etc