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

No. I'm not interested in a desultory war of words with strangers on the internet

see, I think you are. I think that's why you rocked up to a feminist board on a predominately female website.

I take that view because you are not giving any indication of wanting an equal exchange of ideas.

Make your self sound as clever as you want. I'm sure your little friends will applaud you.

Interesting how a poster can sound oh so reasonable at the beginning of the debate, and then descend into such a dismissive and patronising tone when people didn't agree with him. Old habits die hard, eh?

Does feminism need some grand unified theory? Particularly one that is designed to appeal to men and not ruffle any feathers? It seems that there are plenty of jobs to do and sometimes the different jobs need different tools. Each of these tools operate under different principles but essentially all toil to reach the same goal.

Basically if your in pick up a spade and start digging, or pick up a pick axe and start breaking down rocks. You don't have to look over and complain someone is using a different tool. Each according to their gifts etc. I am reminded of Andrea Dworkin whom I recall referred to her particular brand of feminism as an essential one of many. I don't think one size fits all here, and neither is it designed to be.

Absolutely sometimes the right reaction is anger and condemnation to an injustice, sometimes you get farther with honey than with vinegar. No one response or approach will be efficacious in all circumstances. Have a toolbox, and try and work out what the best tool for the job is.

I think, and I could very well be completely wrong, that what Woowoo is aiming at is that fighting for women's rights should be done without detriment to men (which is almost impossible in terms of the way the misogynists and MRA think because they like the situation as is and have no interest in changing it, so any change would feel detrimental to them).

I'll see if this forum can support made up graphics:
So if men's rights look like this:

And women's rights currently look like this:

Then the aim, from Woowoo's pov (if I've read her right) is that they should end up looking like this:
Men:
Women:

Rather than this:
Men:
Women:

i.e. bring the women's rights up to the level of the men's without taking the men's away.

I'm just not sure that's actually possible.

So that went:

Estorilian
"Feminists won't like what I've got to say

Other posters
"Please clarify your POV"

Estorilian:
"I knew you wouldn't like what I was saying, I'm leaving"

I think there's a script for some men people Petula, sort of 'you're doing feminism wrong'. It's one of the areas that we men as a class are wrong. We need to learn to listen. Only when we do that can we start to make a change.

My favourite thing about FWR is you take no shit from idiots, but are also endlessly patient with the ignorant but eager to learn.

Thumbwitch, nice graphic , but I think the fundamental problem stopping feminists and the equalist-not-feminist group working together lays in their differing interpretations of who actually has more rights in the current system.

I would argue that the equalist-not-feminist group believe that men and women suffer equally under the current system whilst feminists believe that while indeed men suffer there is still far more advantage to being male than female.

I also reckon that the equalist-not-feminist group do not see society as a patriarchy in the way feminists do. According the feminism (IMO) the root of both men's or women's gender based problems is Patriarchy, a point lost on the equalist-but-feminists and vehemently resisted by MRAs (who believe Feminism is the cause of their problems).

I would love to see the different groups to unite under the same banner but essentially I don't think they can. How can they work together for change when they can't agree on what needs changing or what caused the problem in the first place?

Emma W is basically asking men to support feminism by pointing out the perks to men of feminism. It is still focusing on women first and so it will still be (and has been) rejected by the anti-feminists that it was intended to bring in.

But hey ho...

Another way of looking at it might be that people pitch up, share some genuine views, see their words snidely twisted into the grotesque by a few of the long-term residents that rather enjoy their big-fish / small-pond privileges and then flounce off in a huff, whereupon they are followed out the door by gales of mocking laughter. Strange sort of victory to my mind when you're sending people away with that impression. We're all real people, right, and not virtual characters in some online game.

I also find it interesting that some posters use 'man' as an insult.

There's a link here somewhere from a blogger that trashes EW's speech. I wonder how EW would feel reading that blog.

Which were the snide things that were said to you and which were the snide things you said to others, Est?

A feminist blogger, I should add; EW not being sufficiently hardline for that blogger's taste. I guess my question for, say, Petula and Puffin, is if most of the population is not feminist enough for you and you're not interested in talking with them, how does that advance the rights of women? I'd suggest it sidelines you to a self-imposed exile from the mainstream concensus. A somewhat pyrric achievement, no?

The thing is that feminism doesn't want to go around stripping rights from men willy nilly. There will be a net loss, but only in the same sort of way that white people no longer benefit from white-only education, jobs, or slavery. I think most white people are glad of this, and don't see it as a loss at all. I'd like to see a time when the vast majority of men don't see equality as a loss to themselves.

Everyone's so keen on whataboutery Yonic. Does it really matter who started it? Same conclusion isn't it? Drawing up an after-the-fact summary that always goes, 'well they started it - what a misogynist dickhead' (or whatever) gets everyone where exactly?

Classic reponse:

New-comer, "I think abcdefghi"

Someone else, "So what you're saying is mnop. ."

Whatever. It's not important.

There's an interesting underlying assumption there Est, about wanting to change the world and this forum being one of those springboards.

I don't see it that way. We don't sit around and plot activist interventions into society. We just discuss things that have a feminist implication and what we think about them. The intention isn't to mount a PR campaign with the "right" words and convince everyone in the world.

It's also a robust discussion and certain approaches from some posters will be recognised as coming from a somewhat familiar and scripted place. And treated accordingly. It's a free, open forum. No one should expect to be accorded the status of special snowflake and have their opinions automatically respected.

It's not whataboutery to ask you, personally, which posters you, personally, were snide towards and vice versa.

Incidentally, if I was in a conversation with a few people and 3-4 of them said they were uncomfortable with the way I used language, I would respond to that and try and understand why. Wouldn't you, in real life, in a bar or at a night class or whatever you do in your spare time?

That's what this is: a conversation. It's not parliament or Newsnight.

Oh god it's so annoying how these threads always descend into an argument over tone!

The content is always forgotten!

That works both way and I'm glad, VeryLittle, that you acknowledge that there's a script many posters work to. Perhaps people are shooting first and asking questions later? Couild that be possible? Behaviour breeds behaviour and if you think grown adults with their own experience and opinions are going to come here cap in hand hoping for approval then you're mistaken. This is often a problem when people think they're an authority isn't it?

I ask my question again; imagine EW had posted here instead of speaking to the UN. Are you telling me that a fair few posters wouldn't have developed something along the lines of:

Rubbish. I think you're a troll. Feminist indeed. Pay attention to men's rights? Fuck that! This is an another example of men wanting to control women and dominate the debate. I suppose you think soap adverts are as important as rape. Have a and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out. Byeeee.

Yeah well, byeee indeed.

I don't think it's about "approval" cap in hand or not. It's not even about seeking consensus, that's not the point. People are diverse and have many opinions.

I think there's general agreement that (a) men hold a disproportionate amount of power in the world, not commensurate with innate ability; and (b) this isn't a Good Thing.

What we do about it is up for ongoing discussion. If you were looking for people to tell you how right you are, this may not be the place.

"There will be a net loss, but only in the same sort of way that white people no longer benefit from white-only education, jobs, or slavery. I think most white people are glad of this, and don't see it as a loss at all. I'd like to see a time when the vast majority of men don't see equality as a loss to themselves."

See I think a lot of white people really aren't glad of this. At one end of the scale you'll get white people who genuinely don't see equality as a loss because they are decent reasonable people and they understand that actually, racism has given them personally privilege: if I walk into a job interview, I have an unfair advantage over a BME woman of the same age, education, qualifications etc., purely because of my white skin. If I'm involved in an altercation in public and the police are involved, all other things being equal I am likely to be heard and listened to by the police more attentively and respectfully than a BME woman - I have that advantage. I think I shouldn't have that advantage. Many, many white people are totally unaware that they have these advantages and when it's brought to their attention that they do have, they deny it and might even get angry with whoever has pointed it out that they do have and if the person who has pointed it out is BME, they will accuse them of having a chip on their shoulder. But they don't buy into white supremacy, they genuinely believe they're anti-racist and in favour of fairness and equality. I think a lot of white people are in that camp and a lot of men are in the equivalent camp vis a vis sexism.

Then there's the ones who declare they're not racist, but they're pissed off with the "advantage" they perceive BME people get in housing, jobs, etc. - the top-down equal opportunities policies that were introduced to level the playing field and will in fact mean that the white people who had an advantage before, no longer have that unfair advantage and as a result, perceive that as an injustice - giving unfair "privileges" to the people who were being systematically disadvantaged by rules which had the effect of excluding them. This group has as its equivalent the sort of men who resent maternity leave because it gives women a "perk" they don't have - they don't see maternity leave as levelling the playing field, they see it as giving women a privilege. They were happy with the uneven playing field before and they tend to still pay lip service to the idea that they believe in equality - as long as every structure in society stays the same and women try and fit themselves into a man-made structure as best they can and don't try and change it so that it fits the other 50% of humanity (which these men perceive as giving an unfair advantage to that 50%) then they're happy.

Then there are groups like the KKK at one end and the BNP at the other, who are either outright white supremacists and are furious that any attempt at equality was ever made because they genuinely believe that they are superior and society being organised with white people at the top and everyone else at the bottom was right, or who pretend not to be white supremacists but are really in effect. When it comes to sexism, MRA's are in the equivalent of that group.

And here’s the thing: whichever group you’re in as a man (or as a white person), you will benefit from equality because society will be better. However, there’s no getting away from the fact that yes, you will lose unearned, unfair privilege and that will hurt – you will no longer be automatically more likely to be considered more credible, more rational, more reliable, more honest, more capable etc., just because of your skin colour or genitalia. That is a loss and we should be honest about that. If you’re a decent person, you’re prepared to take that loss, because the gains outweigh the losses and it’s simply outrageous to know that that unfairness is there. But lots of people really aren’t that decent when it comes down to it. They’ll hang on to their privilege for as long as they can, all the while denying that that’s what they intend to do. Feminists need to recognise that that is a reality and that while hedging your language, pandering to the egos and insecurities of many men and trying not to put them off is obviously a necessity and what most of us reluctantly have to do in RL, to do that to the detriment of actually gaining fairness and equality, is pointless.

The feminist movement has been doing that for at least a quarter of a century and there has been very little real progress in our status in that time. It’s a very fine line we have to walk between getting men on board and watering down our demands for equality to a level that is so unthreatening for men who want to hang on to their unearned advantage, that the demands are granted because they are meaningless. I’ve got the right to take my clothes off and dance naked round a pole while men appraise my body and dancing skills. Yay! Go me! But I still can’t take it for granted that I can walk down the street without being either assaulted, threatened, propositioned or simply insulted by a man who believes he has the right to remind me I have no right to be in a public space without a male owner and can punish me for it by doing one of those things. Guess which right no man quibbles with? And guess which right mainstream liberal feminism has been focused on for the last couple of decades? If we continue to tailor our message to only demand stuff men want to give us anyway and don't push further for the stuff they don't want to give up, then our great-granddaughters will still be having this bloody conversation in a century.

Sorry for the essay btw. Couldn't say it any shorter because I'm in a hurry.

If you had spent time here Estorilian you would know that the thoughts expressed by EW have been expressed on these boards many times.

Just because men's rights aren't feminists main focus doesn't mean they are unsupportive of them.

I have a DS who would benefit enormously from EW's type of feminism and I see it as no different to the feminist opinion on these boards.

Yes feminists might get pissed off when their movement has to be made to appeal to men to be successful but that is natural. Like I said it would be good if you could cut through the tone that you don't like and look at the message of what feminists are saying. (Of you're interested in Fm that is)

yet again that assumption that posters on this board have no interaction with the outside world, or with other sites on the internet. it's such a strange assumption to make.

"Perhaps people are shooting first and asking questions later? "

You were asked questions.

No one on this board would respond to EW's message in the completely made up way you suggest; indeed, no one responded to you in that way.

the thing about authority is interesting too... most people on here go out of their way to emphasise that they are not the authority on feminism. for most it's still a learning process. i certainly learn something every day by hearing about another woman's experience or a viewpoint i hadn't considered. that's why the board is so active in many ways - people asking questions and asking to explore certain topics, articles, events from a feminist POV. my assumptions are frequently challenged, my opinions altered or reinforced depending on how the discussion develops. i don't see why any newcomer shouldn't be asked to do the same.

i should add, i myself am a newcomer. i haven't been posting in this section for very long at all