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

This is the link to that follow-up piece:

freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/09/26/when-is-it-acceptable-to-ask-but-what-about-teh-menz/#more-677

I'm just thinking, if this guy is a misogynist dickhead', from a language perspective, what do will call the real idiots?!

I totally agree Buffy.

i don't disagree with you at all buffy - as i said, if he disagrees with heforshe then i see it as a fairly positive indication for that project

"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."

Yes, more women are subject to DV than men, but men are subject to more violence in general. Violent men are dangerous to both men and women. (As are violent women of course, there are just a lot less of them). Understanding why men are violent, and trying to reduce it, is clearly a big benefit for men as well as women.

That is just considering violence. On matters of pay and so on it is clear that men do have an advantage, so will naturally want to preserve it.

Are you saying what'sthat that because more men are victims of violence ( murder rates in 12\13 being 69% male victim) that men suffer more because its patriarchy that is the cause of a lot of the violence?

Could this be because men are the default? Violence by men against men is generally not thought of a gendered issue. It's like it is violence of people against people, so it simply doesn't occur to research this in terms of a problem that possibly patriarchy could cause. When looking at causes at a societal level, things like poverty, social acceptability of violence, availability of guns, exposure to violence in media, political unrest, are researched. Gender roles are usually only mentioned in relation to domestic violence, i.e. violence by men against women.

I liked the speech on the whole

The saving grace, maybe, of Emma's speech is that it has a lot more people talking about it than previous speeches about gender equality than I've seen before.

and the above is why I'm glad she made it

"It's like it is violence of people against people, so it simply doesn't occur to research this in terms of a problem that possibly patriarchy could cause."

Good point.

I don't know whether it is the patriarchy that causes male violence to be more prevalent than female. I'm not even sure that patriarchy is the cause of male DV. In general I think violence (and other forms of abuse) are about exertion of power and control. For some reason for some people if they have the opportunity to get that power they will take it. Why it is men who are more prone to this who knows exactly? There are various possible reasons: genetical disposition, physical characteristics, societal expectations (ie patriarchy) etc.

i would say that male violence upholds the patriarchy, so it is a symbiotic relationship

Yeah, on the whole it's a positive thing.

She was addressing a mixed audience of all stripes of interest, not a RadFem conference full of people who've read all the books, done all the marches and have had all the arguments already.

Her place was to pique interest and be inclusive, and she's done it. Let other people take their roles as they see fit too.

Interesting, Brewster.

In some parts of Africa, you can't spend long observing poverty without concluding that patriarchy is a major part of the problem. It's overt: eg traditional law forbids women to hold land; societal expectation is that the land is worked by women; the disconnect inhibits investment and efficient work.

I'm not sure whether this obvious effect of the patriarchy means most research in these areas does pay more attention to gender issues. Or whether it means poverty is even more intractable because some researchers (and governments) would rather dodge anything that threatens the patriarchy. (I suspect the latter in some cases.)

Whichever, things do look rather different in other parts of the world.

Not a bad thing to bear in mind generally, of course, given this speech was to the UN.

I am going to copy this to all the men I know who believe there is no need for feminism. We don't hate men we just hate mysoginists.

"I don't think anyone suggested that anyone would be allowed to make an unvetted speech. But I just don't believe that she's a half wit who just read a prepared statement, and I don't think it's fair to suggest that."

I'm sorry you read what I wrote that way, it's certainly not what I meant, or in fact what I wrote:
"does anyone think that Emma wrote that speech all by herself, completely unaided and unvetted? cos I don't."

Certainly wasn't suggesting she was a halfwit or that someone else wrote it in its entirety.

You know what would be really interesting for EW to do? Critique the Harry Potter empire for its diabolical sexism.

I wonder if, when she describes being called "bossy", she thinks of Hermione who was constantly portrayed as a bossy humourless know it all (who could have done so much better than that man child Ron)

At least both Hermione and EW emerged as great characters from HP but it was still very stereotypical to the few female characters it had.

I know it's poor form to pull other threads into a discussion but it is sort of relevant to the violence by men theme - there is a thread from someone whose DS (2) is a toughie, who pushes other kids over, stands up to bigger kids and is heading towards being the class bully unless he's made to see that this isn't a good thing; except that his mother sees it that it IS a good thing, that he's turning out to be a "proper man" and she is happy for him to be like this. She therefore has no interest in trying to stop him being rough (violent) because she thinks this is what proper boys are like, and the other children of similar age who cry when pushed over are "crybabies".

The "violence by men" as an accepted "thing" is so entrenched in so many people's views, and similarly, sensitivity and non-violence seen as signs of weakness, that it's hard to see how this is going to change, especially as some women are culpable for perpetuating these beliefs.

If the father still sees the son's violence as him showing signs of "proper boy/manhood", who is to tell the boy different?

I think I've already said similar on this thread, probably repeating myself, but what do we DO about this? What does ANYONE do about this? How do we get rid of the stereotype of what "proper boys/men" should be like?
And should I really not have bothered posting this particular post on this particular thread?

Not all mean by any means feel that being a real man involves being violent. There are plenty of pacifist men about. All we can do is work within our families so boys do not see gender stereotypes and teach children of both genders that using your brains not your brawn tends these days to get you further in life.

I read today that most women most fear on a first internet date that they will be abducted and beaten up or raped and most men most fear on a first internet date that the woman will be fat according to a recent survey.

Hmm, I used to be very good friends with a "pacifist" man who now spends his time posting angry violence filled diatrabes on facebook, usually against feminism. It's sad really.

I know lots of gentle/normal men who don't see violence as a manly thing but don't label themselves pacifists, though.

That internet date thing is just ... gah. I see this all the time now. The casual confidence men have, that the worst thing that could happen to them (and they literally fear ie think it's likely to happen) is generally nothing and yet women are constantly in low level fear or at least awareness. I'm afraid all the time and I'm so used to it I stopped noticing it. When I'm sexually active I'm constantly low-level afraid/aware of the fact I might be pregnant and worried about that. When I was pregnant there's always that fear that something might happen to the baby. Then there's the general fear that strangers might want to harm you, or in that dating phase of a relationship, that something crazy or violent is going to come out in the man you're seeing.

I mean I don't live in fear obviously, I'm not suffering from anxiety (well I do but that's not the same as these things, it's a totally separate feeling). But I keep reading stuff - a blog where a man travels to different parts of the world just to find out stuff about that place, no plan, just turn up there and see what happens. He stays in strangers' homes, gets shown around refugee camps, etc. I'm sure women do travel like this but I can't imagine somehow a woman being so blase and "sure, whatever!" about the whole thing. In several situations that he blogs about it's clear he was only safe in a particular situation because of his maleness. And a Danny Wallace book where he travels around randomly, meets up with strangers, does a load of stuff "for a laugh" that again I can't imagine being such a laugh for a woman because you would attract so many more psychos and nutters (and not be so able to laugh it off when you did). It's a kind of easy confidence which comes from knowing "I have perfect right to be here". Of course that should be the case for women as well but I think we are constantly subconsciously aware of the fact that a small but dangerous minority of men really believe that women don't have the right to be anywhere.

Sorry to dredge this up again but this I'm just thinking, if this guy is a misogynist dickhead', from a language perspective, what do will call the real idiots?! has been really pissing me off. I've been looking for a collection of Mr Fogg's misogynistic dickheadery since. I have now found it.

Please, read this, read what he has written and then do the twee little grin face. He is the real idiots. He is a dickhead. He is consistently misogynistic.

Not so much the blog post, although that in itself makes me want to scream in his smarmy face, but at the bottom there is a comment. Have a read, read his own words and then come and snark at me.

elegantgatheringofwhitesnows.com/?p=2012

Ally Fogg is indeed a misogynistic arse and I resolved long ago to ignore everything he says.