Have you seen the Emma Watson Speech?

[Sallystyle]

Awesome

www.upworthy.com/her-voice-might-tremble-but-emma-watsons-message-is-strong-and-clear?c=ufb1

I don't know how old it is or anything but it is really good

The interests are aligned if one looks at the issue as a whole. They are aligned if one considers the problem to be the patriarchy rather than men themselves. Men and women are both complicit in reinforcing the patriarchy. By focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause, divisions are created. Aggression comes from both sides when met by opposition. If both sides wish to set the terms of the debate, no debate is had. Ignore 'sides' and take a holistic approach and that won't happen.

Ah... So let men/those who uphold Patriarchy choose the terms of the debate? Or let those oppressed by Patriarchy choose the terms?

I'll admit to finding your language problematic as well.

it all seems very abstract, like you're trying to rationalize all context away.

Est, I'm not sure if you are male or female but whichever, I'd be interested in how you personally feel affected by patriarchy, positive or negative?

Ally Fogg, for example, is a misogynistic dickhead.

If he wants men's problems solved, what, apart from whining, is he doing about it?

"By focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause, divisions are created." Eh? I don't see how one follows the other. Would looking at the cause not cause divisions? You're trying to sound all reasonable, but you're saying nothing substantial or enlightening. I would call it waffle.

And anyway, what is the cause of it? Would you say patriarchy? Can you tell me where it lives then, we'll have a word.

Patriarchy is an abstract term that describes how society is organised. How would you like to tackle that, if not bit by bit, with the numerous little things that are unfair. The symptoms if you like.

I do expect to achieve resonance with people that have a long established position on this; I am well-used to their superscillious sarcasm. But those people that do not see the world in the way the majority of people in RL see it. For me many of these issues are becoming mainstream, even if we don't all see eye to eye on them; this is evidenced by EW's speech doing the rounds on Facebook etc. It is the people in RL that are coming to this fresh that will take the matter forward and it is my hope that they will do so in an open manner, sharing the reposnsibility for doing so.

People that mock this share a boat; they may see themselves of being opposite sides of the debate, but in reality the vocal and vitriolic elements actually sits opposite only those in the middle.

With luck some of the non-FWR elements attracted here by the EW link will understand even if you just think it's rubbishy waffle.

Have a lovely rest of the week.

"It is the people in RL that are coming to this fresh that will take the matter forward"

do you mean to imply that those long-standing feminists who are working tirelessly (and have done for decades) to combat things like violence against women and girls, rape myths and gender stereotyping are of no use at all?

One of the good things of EW speech is that she implies there are not necessarily sides when engaging in feminism. Equal rights and freedom of gender stereotypes is beneficial for both genders. She is specifically pointing out that the idea that feminism is a fight against men is a myth.

Estorilian, please stop perpetuating this myth by complaining that feminism is too much about women and not enough about men. You are the one who is creating sides here.

The reason why feminism is focusing on women's rights is obvious. They are the group that have to catch up. It is not about being against men's rights, it's just focusing on where the most gains will have to be made, where most of the structural inequalities lie. Demanding we have to fight equally against men's hardships with gender stereotypes, or else it is not worth your time, is a bit shortsighted in my opinion.

My DSS have grown their hair long, had pink as their favourite colour when they were young, played with dolls, like to cook, I have a male Au Pair, they think our puppy is the cutest creature in the world, etc. They can be who they want to be. I am totally comfortable with that, and I would like it to be the same for all boys and men. Because I'm a feminist I believe that perceived female behaviour (it is human behaviour, really, but not everybody gets that) is not inferior, I am not going to reinforce the stupid idea that these things are not good enough for my sons, solely because they're boys. That's my bit, and I hope it will pay off by them understanding that feminists are not the enemies of men. Even when feminists focus on the position of women.

Est, I hope with you that people coming new to this debate will do so in an open manner, and sharing responsibility for doing so. And that they recognise that if they come across vocal and vitriolic elements, that they are not representative of most feminists and not of feminism either. If this is what you mean I agree with you. I also hope that you are not implying that you've encountered vocal and vitriolic on this thread, because in my view, this was a good and open debate (even if I called your post waffle). I've enjoyed the discussion on this thread.

I do hope you have a nice week too.

Now let's hope this doesn't kill the thread. Back to the OP. Great speech, Emma!

My position is that the nub of the problem is that way back in the recessed of prehistory we tore what should be a complete human psyche in two. Assigned one half masculine and the other feminine.

We then compounded that sin by marginalizing the feminine, subjugating it, belittling it and seeking to control and to dominate it.

I think when Emma Watson talks as she does is that it beneficial to everybody, she is talking about the opportunity for all people to be whole human beings.

I also feel once such advances have been made we'll be a lot more in tune with one another, our planet and a lot of current global problems we face will either be resolved or greatly mitigated.

In essence thanks to feminism we have seen legions of women succeed and thrive although not to the extent we have full equality. Men on the other hand have barely begun to start the journey towards this.

Also society itself hasn't really advanced beyond this masculine default in how we structure society and run things. Some women can and have succeeded in this system which is proof that we are all a lot more similar than we are different.

Actually Est, you were asked serious questions. For my part, there was no supercilious sarcasm, just enquiry. I'm sorry you were unable to answer the question and preferred instead to attack.

dismissing my comments on use of language as "supercilious sarcasm" is an example of the kind of problematic language i was talking about

Well, quite, Petula.

" I don't want to be part of a movement that fights for change on one side and not the other."

Do you feel the same about disabled rights?

Do you think that disabled rights activists should focus on able-bodied people's access to buildings, services and jobs as much as they focus on disabled people's rights to those things?

Because that would be the equivalent of feminists choosing to focus on men's rights as much as women's.

I'm not disabled and I don't know very much about the disability rights movement, but my guess is that they would calculate that as able-bodied people are not disadvantaged by bad access because they are able bodied (though they may be disadvantaged for other reasons), it would not be a good use of their time and energy to fight for the rights of able-bodied people. We can do that for ourselves and we're not being denied rights as a result of our able bodies. Similarly, men can fight for their rights (where are the marches in favour of paid paternity leave? where are the legions of fathers demanding employers give them part time or flexible hours?) and on the whole, men are not being denied rights because they are men.

It's perfectly reasonable for any disadvantaged group, to fight for their own rights. In doing so, they may also get rights for the advantaged group (able-bodied people with prams find it easier to get around as a result of disability rights groups fighting for accessible access, men are allowed to develop proper relationships with their children, not just be the distant disciplinarian), but I find it quite bizarre to argue that they should put as much energy into fighting for the rights of the group with the power and advantage, as they do into fighting for the rights of their own disadvantaged group.

WooWoo, I'm glad to hear your new perspective on feminism, because this is what I also believe feminism to be. But I'm still struggling massively with your comment that (individual) men suffer more under patriarchy. I just can't see any truth in this at all. Just on a UK level, even, domestic violence is such a problem that 2 women die per week at the hands of a partner or ex partner. Now I know that men suffer DV as well but they are simply not being killed in the same numbers and I don't believe that the reason for this is a difference in body strength. Presumably, that plays a part, but look back at patriarchy again.

Patriarchy says that men are naturally more aggressive and that violence, dominance, toughness, "beating" the bad guys/the other side, using your manly power to overpower another, are all desirable and important for men. Look at tv programmes and toy adverts aimed at boys. It encourages men not to talk about their problems but to "dealwth them" - by confronting and possibly defeating another person.

By contrast women are expected to nurture, to heal. We're told that love can tame a bad boy, and that it's our duty to stick at a relationship and make it work. Women are criticised for being too picky about relationships whereas men are encouraged not to put up with anything, not to behe thumb" or "pussy whipped" and to be far pickier/judgemental about appearance than it's accepted for women to be.

While it may seem more daunting for a man to admit he is a victim, this doesn't follow in stats, which tell us men on average leave on their first or second attempt and tend not to go back, whereas women on average take seven attempts to leave an abusive partner, and tend to return toausive relationships (if not the same one). Patriarchy effectively sets the scene for intimate partner violence against women, by men. (the second highest group is gay men).

That is just DV alone. If you look at the everyday sexism site you can see many more personal, individual effects of sexism against women. As far as I know there is no such site for men. If there were, I think most points would point back towards patriarchy (and i think it would be far less busy).

Good illustration, Basil. I'll steal that if I may?

Phone about to die. But patriarchy quite clearly harms women, individually and collectively, far more than it harms men. It does harm motoo, though of course.

It's not stealing Puffins, it's drawing on shared resources...

motoo? Men too. (I'm home now on my trusty computer )