UKC

Has anyone got an opinion on Emma Watson's speech?

youtube.com/watch?v=Q0Dg226G2Z8&

" How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation? "

In reply to tlm:

Haven't seen it and I'm at work so no youtube, but I've got a fair amount of time for her...for a girl thrust into the limelight so young, she seems to have a wise and old head on her shoulders. She is also particularly well placed to comment on sexism and women's rights given her treatment in the Red tops - I believe she was given a nice countdown on the daily mail site to the date when she became "legal" - which is a pretty sick thing to do.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

There is a transcript here:

http://www.heforshe.org/EmmaWatsonSpeech.pdf

In reply to balmybaldwin:
Yes - I remember idly flicking through one of the lads mags in the barbers around Christmas the year she turned 16 (might have been a bit later), FHM, or whatever it was. In the top 10 lists of what they'd considered high and low points of the year, the lack of an Emma Watson sex tape was high up the list of disappointments.

In reply to tlm:

Nope... blocked by work as a "Political/Social Advocacy" site. (we have net nazis, not net nannies... but they climb so it's ok!

In reply to tlm:



Christ, it's only 2 pages, I gave up on the video after 5 minutes but had read the transcript twice and that only took 2 minutes. She really is just droning on, like a Head Girl trying to talk up the House sporting achievements at St Cakes day.

"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. I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me."

I believe the expression is Not My F*cking (first world) Problem.

It is interesting that Miliband is asking for votes for 16 year olds, when the UN is asking for the age of majority to be maintained at 18 because they want kids in other countries to achieve adulthood later (this is specifically aimed at wimmin too).

In reply to LastBoyScout:


Ah, that must be why she was addressing the UN.

In reply to winhill:

Are you saying that until the third world catches up, we should pause and put up with things staying the same where improvements could be made in our first world societies?

In reply to tlm:

Was a powerful and enlightening speech.

In reply to winhill:

Mind you she's right

In reply to tlm:

"How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?"

Good that she acknowledges that men need to be part of the discussion on equal rights.

In reply to tlm:

I haven't listened to the speech, but whatever the content (which from the snippets I've seen seem pretty uncontroversial), she doesn't deserve to be threatened with having naked pictures of her posted on the internet as punishment.


" How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation? " appears to me to be overstating matters somewhat, at least in this country.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:

It'd depend on who one speaks to, I guess.

In reply to Timmd:

About what?

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:
About whether men feel like they feel invited to be a part of the solution etc.

You get a few blokes on here posting who come across as if they feel alienated by feminism.

That's what I ment by it could depend on who one talks to...

In reply to winhill:



As a middle aged man with mental health problems that I've only recently begun to address, due in no small part to the fact that even admitting to myself that they existed would be to admit weakness that I perceived a real man shouldn't have, it is my problem.

As a middle aged man with male friends who committed suicide without ever reaching out to me, it is my problem.

As a middle aged man with female friends who get paid less than their male counterparts, it is my problem.

As a middle aged man with female friends so insecure they will spend thousands to go under a surgeons knife and get fake tits to improve their self esteem, it is my problem.

As a middle aged man with friends who's children's choice of path through life will be limited, not by their capabilities but by the roles society expects them to play, it is my problem.

tl;dr whether or not you think it affects you directly, if you care about the people around about you in society, it is your problem.

In reply to Ciro:

well said

In reply to Ciro:

What he said.

In reply to tlm:

I love the idea of inclusive feminism. I would like to think myself a feminist but have experienced a prejudice that I could not be as a man. I think striving for equality is all of our responsibility.

In reply to tlm:

Curious about why I should listen to her particularly? Does she have any special insight or background?

In reply to MG:

It's not about listening to her particularly. Just appreciating what she is saying

In reply to puppythedog:


totally agree

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Nothing new that I can see. Platitudes about equality.

In reply to MG:

So what is your view? Is equality worth talking about?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Maybe. Pretending feminism is about equality, no. It's a tool used by many women to advance themselves at the expense of others, normally men.

In reply to Ciro:

As a middle aged man with mental health problems that I've only recently begun to address, due in no small part to the fact that even admitting to myself that they existed would be to admit weakness that I perceived a real man shouldn't have, it is my problem.

As a middle aged man with male friends who committed suicide without ever reaching out to me, it is my problem.

As a middle aged man with female friends who get paid less than their male counterparts, it is my problem.

As a middle aged man with female friends so insecure they will spend thousands to go under a surgeons knife and get fake tits to improve their self esteem, it is my problem.

As a middle aged man with friends who's children's choice of path through life will be limited, not by their capabilities but by the roles society expects them to play, it is my problem.

Might sound harsh, but I think very few people have had as many negative experiences of life as yourself.

In reply to MG:

I think her 3rd paragraph from the end seeks to address your question:

You might be thinking who is this Harry Potter girl? And what is she speaking at the UN. It’s a good question and I’ve been asking myself the same thing. I don’t know if I’m the right person to be speaking. All I know is that I care about this problem. And I want to make it better. And having seen what I’ve seen – and given the chance – I feel it is my responsibility to say something. English statesman Edmund Burke said: “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men and women to do nothing”.

In reply to FactorXXX:

The stats don't bear that out. We don't talk about it.

D

In reply to MG:


No. No it isn't

In reply to FactorXXX:


Really - hich do you think are uncommon? I mean, I'm clearly not a middle aged man, but I can identify with all of those issues with minor changes.

In reply to IanC:

Engage Pedant Mode: Was Burke not Irish? Disengage Pedant Mode.

In reply to MG:

So when the speech is clearly about equality do you think that it isn't? I will grant that in some areas, let us say child care and maternity leave, where men are disadvantaged. However I would imagine that some one like yourself would be keen to eliminate inequality in respect of both sexes? If some women believe that they are treated unequally then we should surely listen rather than being dismissive, for how can we expect our grips to be taken seriously if we don't take seriously the grips of others?

In reply to Dauphin:

The stats don't bear that out. We don't talk about it.

If the vast majority of people knew or suffered from that list offered by Ciro, then that would be an awful lot of people...

In reply to MG:

Which is the opposite of what Emma Watson is saying feminism/equality should be about, she talked about true equality of the sexes meaning that male parents are recognised for what they contribute, using the side lining of her Dad as an example, amongst others.

In reply to tlm:

I ve seen it now. Thought it was very good. Well thought out, balanced, no attribution of blame, exactly what an effective good will ambassador should do. Its made me want to know more about the campaign.

To who ever said she dragged it out a bit: Yes, the delivery is slow, but you could tell she was nervous (its a very different thing exposing your views and beliefs to such an audience compared to playing a fictional character) it was also probably deliberate to some extent due to the majority of the audience not having english as their first language.

I doubt many 24 year olds could have done a better job.

In reply to MG:


I think your cynicism could possibly have stopped you from taking in what she said?

It's easy enough to see things as platitudes if one is already cynical, I suppose.

In reply to Ciro:

hear hear

In reply to MG:

"If not me, who?
If now now, when?"

In reply to MG:


If you watch it, she addresses that very question.

Its probably also worth pointing out that an old woman who has suffered terrible sexism, physical mutilation, been withheld education, inheritance rights, choice over what happens to her body etc wouldn't have the opportunity (nor the ability to attract the required publicity to the campaign) to make a speech like this.

As she said: If not her, then who?

In reply to FactorXXX:



Indeed, it is an awful lot of people. The more open I've been about my mental health issues, the more mates who I thought were pretty happy in themselves have told me of their own problems. Every woman you know will have experienced some form of sexual harassment at one time or another, and many will have been overlooked for promotion or failed to win a job at interview simply because they were born with ovaries. Gender inequality is something that affects all of us.

In reply to MG:

sometimes it is worth listening to platitudes to remind ourselves of what we are ignoring

In reply to tlm:

18 year old girl gets world stage to spout platitudes due to being very good at pretending to be other people. Ginger Weasley not invited to do same.

Ho hum....

In reply to Ciro:


Teenagers with socialisation issues? How very topical.

Good use of MacLeod's Law though - invoking suicide to add gravitas to otherwise trivial comments.

I think you'll find that helping teenage boys express the right feelings (they already express feelings, just not the right ones) is fairly near the bottom of the funding agenda, in fact I think you'll find that there are some serious objections that it gets any funding from the equality agenda at all.

In reply to stroppygob:


Isn't what constitutes a platitude subjective?

I find it slightly curious how you're calling what she has said platitudes, when on another feminism related thread, you kept commenting 'It's all our fault', meaning the fault of men.

Which comments do you see as platitudes?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

These kinds of talks grate a bit.

Despite it all sounding a bit bleeding heart, "can't we all just get along", utopian idealism, essentially she's saying women (in general, making no account for different contexts in different countries) are oppressed. Men are therefore the oppressors. She delivers a few platitudes to males in the speech, more along the lines that being oppressors we become oppressed ourselves and that if we dare to be what I would consider normal we are "inadvertent feminists". I'll pass on that.

Talking in such generic terms about female oppression is a bit like saying blacks commit more crime. Depending on context it may very likely be true, and maybe an accurate assessment of urban life. It isn't however a useful, reliable or effective means for addressing a problem, crime in general, or making value judgements about a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Rich wealthy western white women moaning?

In reply to David Martin:

Well that may be true but I take the view that it is better to say something and make it sound like a platitude than to ignore the problem totally or as some choose (not you) to make off the cuff dismissive comments which only highlight how inequality is an accepted thing.

Indeed world wide men ARE the oppressors, it would be very hard to see otherwise. Here in the protected bosom of the West we have a fairly equal society in comparison. That however doesn't make it equal and if we are to call ourselves a civilised society then it is important to tackle inequality where we can.

I don't really see that "blacks commit more crime" comment is in anyway relevant to this issue. I listened to the speech and thought very even handed

In reply to MG:

wealthy western bloke with his head in the sand? Does that fit? Why do you think that they are moaning?

In reply to winhill:

I think you will find that suicide is the biggest killer in men aged 17-27, which I think Emma also touched upon. Bigger than road accidents....bigger than cancer.... Ciro's mention of the awful act that some people are driven to because of un treated mental illness is not adding gravitas to "trivial" comments. It is a very real and very serious social problem we have.

I don't know if you are a professional troll or just a stirrer as I certainly have rolled my eyes at your comments in the past. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but please at least listen to her speech and get some facts right before you start trying to provoke reactions.

I have had my backside grabbed by grown men as a child. Did a grown woman ever molest you when you were a child?
I have also when I was a student in a busy bar, it left me startled, shakey and so nervous I had to go home.
I have been told "you climb like a man, which is good love". Because I sent a hard boulder problem.
Today I was cycling and what looked like a 12 year old boy told me he liked my mountain bike. I engaged in some chit chat at the lights with him about it and as i cycled away he called out to me that my arse was "perky". This shocked and disgusted me after our innocent chat about my bike. This small child was already objectifying and sexualising women and complete strangers. Has a 12 year old girl ever told you she liked the look of your arse? Would you feel comfortable with that? Is that trivial?
I experience sexism on a daily basis.
Sometimes I don't say anything but more lately I have been trying to pull people up on it, often this puts me at risk.

I hope you do some serious research on this matter. I hold no judgements about you apart from you are ill informed and quick to comment.

In reply to MG:



Was Martin Luther King a wealthy western black man moaning? Is it possible that both Watson and King, despite being relatively wealthy and relatively western suffered discrimination? Is it possible that both of them recognised that less wealthy and less western versions of themselves suffered even worse discrimination, and wanted to do something about it?

My take: wealthy western white women with somewhat better than average articulacy makes speech in a hopeful attempt to improve the world, because she can. Good for her.

What really is your complaint?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Its just a very blunt tool to address a problem. If she had spoken about specifics I wouldn't have an issue. But she cherry-picks issues in wildly different contexts and draws them together to make her point - that there is a problem with the gender identity and behaviour of males in general.

Sorry, but I get offended by that crap. I don't beat my wife, afford females any less life chances than I have, nor does anybody I know, and in the world around me women have as many, if not more opportunities, than I do. But I should seemingly feel guilty for being a male. Yes, we are assholes. I'm off to self-flagellate.

It pulls out issues and makes them specifically "gender" issues, when in my mind they are not. Take violence in general. Women are targets of certain types of violence no doubt. Men are targets of other types of violence. It all depends on context. One we tend to specifically refer to as "violence against women", while the other is just general thuggery or drunkeness. To use the race analogy, football fans get pissed off with vaguely arrogant behaviour of an opposing player on the winning side and pelt him with abusive twitter messages. The ones that refer to him as a "nigger" make headlines and are apparently a sign of racism, while the rest that might simply identify him as being an a$$hole seem to go without much comment. This sort of thing is repeated in a number of different arenas and essentially and unfairly ascribes a greater moral outrage, or focusses on a particular demographic, in a way that in my mind completely misses the problem.

To that end I don't think its at all accurate to say "worldwide, men are the oppressors". For one, it would be far more accurate and useful to say some of the least liberal minded and advanced states on the planet just happen to be some of the most populous. In those places, the older, the richer, the lighter skinned, you are the more power you have. Being male is also a distinct advantage in such places. But being lighter skinned, richer, older and or male in much of the developed world doesn't make you an oppressor. And a wealthy female living in the West might very well be doing more harm to humanity in general than 1000 men in the developing world...

In reply to Beth-Cath-T:



Beth, I'm a rationalist so when people use dubious stats I point it out. You need to understand what stats mean and how to interpret them or you're just stuck making these moronic comments.

Suicide rates in America are much higher among whites than blacks and hispanics, does that make it a race issue?


You need some fundamental work on understanding stuff, start with the pot - kettle comparison then some reading comprehension then some numbers work.

I've said nothing here about sexism, so the rest of your shit is just that - shit. Keep stirring.

In reply to winhill:
As an employee of the largest mental health organisation in England I have undergone extensive training and attended countless insightful conferences which have scrutinised facts and debated issues like suicide rates. Not to mention my actual qualifications. I am also a postgrad student studying psychology. I have done *some* research.

You are offensive and crude. I don't particularly wish to engage with you anymore and am very pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of people on this thread are respectful to this sensitive issue. Everyone can try to be more kind.

In reply to Beth-Cath-T:
I'm with you here on pretty much every point.

However... There can't be many 12 y/o girls bedrooms up and down the country that are not adorned with posters of half baked boy bands. I'd almost go as far as to say it's perhaps just if not more common than 12 boys who are for the most part probably more into batman or something.

The sexualisation of women by boys appears later and isn't 'grown out of' into maturity the same way.

In reply to Beth-Cath-T:


Once. Yes.

In reply to ThunderCat:

That's really horrible, sorry to hear that (I'm being sincere, it migh come across as sarky). I was asking winhill though.

In reply to winhill:

She said offensive and crude, you said sexism. Looks like you are making shit up.

In reply to winhill:

Yuk. That's how your posts make me feel. Slimy.

In reply to The New NickB:


I'm referring to the little lecture in her first salvo.

In reply to winhill:

How very unpleasant. You are.

In reply to Skyfall:

I think you need to check the thread.

In reply to winhill:

So why did you quote the other bit?

In reply to winhill:


Well, you stated that women getting paid less than men for the same job, women with low self esteem and young girls with limited career paths were trivial issues - that sounds pretty sexist to me.

In reply to winhill:

I think you new to read your posts back to yourself and see bit just how sexist you appear but also simply how nasty. I don't blame Beth one iota for not wanting to continue a debate with you. I'm no bleeding heart liberal or whatever btw.

In reply to David Martin:

You get offended by it? Shit, that's weird. Aren't we grown up and secure in ourselves enough that we can admit that the males of this planet have been running things for predominantly their own benefit for a few thousand years and that there's still a way to go before we can dust off our hands and say it's not an issue anymore?

In reply to Ciro:


You began with a wild extrapolation and you're just continuing it. I stated no such thing. I made a comment about 15 year old girls and 18 year old boys.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Fair point. But in the same breath, perhaps well paid, western women, with lucrative acting careers should stop moaning about how tough life is for women - and by association themselves.

In reply to David Martin:

Who should 'moan' about it then?

In reply to winhill:


Ah, sorry my bad - I thought you'd watched the video and seen those two quotes in context. Perhaps you should do that and we can go back and start again?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Anyone can moan about it I guess. But if so, then I can equally moan about her gross generalisations about men.

You say "males of this planet have been running things for predominantly their own benefit for a few thousand years". What relevance does that have to millions of males who, for their entire lives, have treated women as equals? Banging on about how men, i.e. those very same people, are the problem doesn't do much to solve the problem in my opinion. I just lose interest when I hear it.

And it all sounds a bit much when women who are placed in the top 1% of humankind in terms of wealth and opportunity carry on as if they are burdened by a system of oppression that impacts all those other women (and men) who really do suffer under unjust social structures. Mulala or Rigoberta Menchu, if they have something to say, I'm likely to listen. But when well paid celebs, Angelina Jolie or Bono, start preaching about how I am part of the problem and need to change my behaviour, it smacks of hypocrisy.

In reply to David Martin:

What were they then?


It gives context as to why you might suffer to listen to someone 'bang on' about getting men involved in the cause of gender equality. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, or nothing to do with me, guv?


She's well known, she's articulate, she's been asked to talk and I imagine that (like nearly every woman I've ever spoken to about it) she has been harrassed, objectified, belittled, patronised, ignored, or vilified, in passing or systematically for the simple reason she is a woman.

Have you actually watched the video or read the transcript? I'm interested as to where you think she's preached that all men are the problem. I'm interested because she didn't. At any point.

*Edtied for spleling.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I think it's really weird how some on here think what she said is either anti men or contained platitudes.

Platitudes implies a certain amount of (perceived) insincerity I'd have thought?

In reply to Timmd:


Obviously


Pretty much all of it.

In reply to MG:


That's my point about her speech. What experience, or knowledge, or qualifications does she have to make it? Why does she think she's qualified? Perhaps she's making the classic mistake of thinking that because she succeeded in one area, she's qualified to talk about another area*. I would listen to her talking about the world of movies and making them.

*Edit, and the point is, she's talking to the UN - not in the pub where we all ramble on about what we don't know, and it doesn't matter because it's the pub.

In reply to tlm:

Isn't this just another facet of our "sleb" culture, where sticking a well known pretty face up with a "message" is seen as some sort of good advert for the cause?

Bono, whilst playing a gig in Glasgow, got the whole crowd to be silent and then began slowly clapping his hands. He got the crowd to clap along for a while, the stadium quiet except for the rhythmic clapping...

After a short period Bono spoke, saying that everytime he clapped his hands a child in Africa died ...

Suddenly, from the front row of the venue a voice broke out in thick Scottish brogue, ending the silence as it echoed across the crowd, the voice cried out to Bono "Well stop fu**ing doing it then!!"


(I know.)

In reply to David Martin:

I appreciate the thought in this post.
A few replies (short of time here)


I can appreciate that.

>that there is a problem with the gender identity and behaviour of males in general.

I didn't get that from her message but to go on.


Then you are to be applauded but that does not mean such things occur. I have witnessed. Women being denied work specifically because they are women, women being attacked (verbally) for simply being women in a male environment, women denied promotion, practically every woman I have spoken to has spoke of sexual harassment in work or social situations. the list could go on.

>But I should seemingly feel guilty for being a male. Yes, we are assholes. I'm off to self-flagellate.

That is how you perceive it. Hence you take offence


A good point and one i would say IS a gender issue. If someone wants to take a pop at me because I am a bloke then that is a gender issue.

>unfairly ascribes a greater moral outrage, or focusses on a particular demographic, in a way that in my mind completely misses the problem.

Well yes and no. It is symptomatic of a way of thinking. One might even say that the abuse that doesn't include the "N" word is also racist just not overtly so.


See that handily skips over the issue while absolving yourself of the problem. It is like saying only barbarians do this in far off place it couldn't happen here. Female GM happens here, sexual abuse happens here, men get beaten up over here, etc. It does happen. I don't have to fell guilty about being a man all I have to do is recognise that there are gender issues and deal with them in my own small way.

And a wealthy female living in the West might very well be doing more harm to humanity in general than 1000 men in the developing world...

Really? seems a bit disingenuous to me

In reply to Beth-Cath-T:


Fantastic, insightful post. Thank you.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

As that legendary philospher Homer Simpson once said : "Celebs - is there anything they don't know about?".

The logical fallacy of "the argument from authority". There is no good reason why tennis players shouldn't have opinions about Scottish independence, or footballers about economic policy, or actresses about relations between men and women, but equally there is no reason why we should pay any more attention to them than the people next door or on the Clapham omnibus.


She has had an extraordinarily priveledged life, as a child star who is also blessed with good looks. No reason to think anything particularly bad has ever happened to her. Imagined victimhood, vicarious victimhood in your case.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Really? So the only grounds for refusing these people work was that they had the wrong genitals? “Sorry love you don’t get the job, we wanted someone with a dick and balls”I do hope they complained to the relevant body.


Women meet assholes, hold the front page.


Stop the world I want to get off, a woman was denied promotion. Oh the huge manatee.


I think that speaks volumes about the women you speak to.



...and probably will.

In reply to Timmd:

You get a few blokes on here posting who come across as if they feel alienated by feminism.

This thread is a classic example of why that is the case.
The way it is put across by some people, is that every single female is subjected to some sort of gender orientated attack on a daily basis and to such an extent that it is life altering.
In my experience, this just isn't the case and by getting so emotional about it and exaggerating what is happening is making many people just turn away, shake their heads and basically say "Oh, f*ck off".
Then again, I'm a bloke, what do I know about it...

In reply to Simon4:


Except having her snatch targeted for up skirt photos on the night of her 18th birthday!

And then know these photos will be on the net for all to see forever!

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Link?

In reply to FactorXXX:


Really? Sounds like a description of a pretty ordinary life with ordinary friends to me.

Lucky you.
jk

In reply to stroppygob:


Nae chance. That would send this thread into meltdown!!

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
LOL!! Curses, foiled again....

In reply to IanC:
English statesman Edmund Burke said: “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men and women to do nothing”.

Nice how she has to misquote Burke to ensure she isn't offending any women! How petty can you get?

There are serious problems affecting women and their place in some societies. Having pretty actresses on their high horses complaining how terrible it is they couldn't play hockey, or whatever, isn't the solution.

In reply to jkarran:

Really? Sounds like a description of a pretty ordinary life with ordinary friends to me.

So everyone knows at least two people that have committed suicide, had cosmetic surgery due to peer pressure, know two or more females that get paid less for no other reason than that they are female (losing out on the wage front due to childbirth doesn't count).

In reply to Beth-Cath-T:


Oh, ok. No problem.

<hides back under rock>

In reply to winhill:

She said you're offensive and crude, nothing about your views on feminism.

I'd say she hit the nail on the head and showed impressive restraint stopping at that. You on the other hand as usual have been quick you your standard response: Rude, arrogant, hectoring.

jk

In reply to FactorXXX:


Why 2 of each, feeling the need to start adding caveats to defend you bluster?

I can only really speak for my own pretty ordinary, short and comparatively privileged experience of life but I suspect the vast majority of us have lost someone we know to suicide or at the very least have friends that have suffered directly.

The cosmetic surgery point is not about the surgery, it was about people suffering from low self esteem and objectification, about people who've come to feel for whatever reason that they're not good enough in some particular way. You know these people, I know these people. You might not know who they are, they often hide it but they sure as hell suffer for it.

And yes, I know women who are underpaid for their work vs men in the same role. We all do, it's getting better but it's not gone away.

jk

In reply to jkarran:


I think the original claim was plural, which does imply more than 1. Regarding cosmetic surgery, you are making a pretty big assumption if you think it is the result of low esteem all the time, or even commonly. Everyone (men and women) are biologically driven to look attractive and will always make efforts to do so. Cosmetic surgery is just one aspect of this.

In reply to MG:

Ciro was we presume sadly speaking from experience when he chose to use the plural. His experience rings true to me.

I'm not making assumptions, I'm taking Ciro's post about people he knows and their situation at face value, he said it was about low self esteem.

jk

In reply to MG:

Agreed. The ONLY person I know who has had cosmetic surgery had her knockers enlarged from 34 A to 34 C, she is one of the most (excuse pun) well adjusted women I know. She had it done as she wanted to do it for herself, she'd always been modestly endowed, and wanted to feel more proportional. Her husband disagreed with her having it, but was supportive (Finbar Saunders.)

The only grief she got for it was from some of the "sisterhood" where she worked. They accused her of all sorts of things, from "making herself a sex object for men" to ”having low self esteem/body dysmorphia."

Mind you, the same bunch of cows turned on my Mrs for not reporting me to the police, when she showed up at work with huge purple bruises on her arms. These were "obvious signs of domestic violence and male brutality."

She got them on her first paragliding lesson, from front launching.

In reply to Simon4:



No. There's no reason to listen to her over any person with a more normal life, but not everyone thinks like that and so perhaps she seemed like a better fit to front a campaign than someone off the Clapham omnibus. Criticising her for accepting the offer to try and do something positive rather than just sitting and counting her bucks is a bit mean-spirited.


"Imagined victimhood"? Wow, that's a bold statement after starting your previous sentence "No reason to think..." Why do you have reason to think she's lying? Her stated experience sounds upsettingly common for a woman. I'll take the vicarious victimhood arrow, if the alternative is only caring about anything that directly affects you.

This whole thread is pretty much underlining why more male advocates for gender equality can only be a good thing.

In reply to tlm:

I do not really think she truly knows what inequality is. I am sure she is well intentioned but the whole thing just seems bogus to me.

In reply to MG:

So what you are saying is that you feel as though a privileged person is complaining about trifles and putting blame for these things in the wrong direction, rather than taking personal responsibility, and that this sticks in your craw?

I sort of thought because she was talking to the UN, she was talking about initiatives like this:
http://niger.unfpa.org/docs/SiteRep/Ecole%20des%20maris.pdf
but I do admit, I could have got it wrong.

In reply to tlm:

I think a (I'm sure well-meaning) privileged, successful person who has clearly not been held back in any meaningful way by sexism is using trivial examples from her life to somehow try and further an "equality agenda".

The whole "goodwill ambassador" scheme strikes me a flawed. All of them are western, privileged, successful with no obvious knowledge, experience or insight in to any of the problems the UN is seeking to address.

In reply to stroppygob:

I think the problem with using personal examples is that they're individual cases so can't really be used to make broader assumptions - for instance, I know two people who've had cosmetic surgery: one thought her bumpy nose meant she wasn't pretty (by any normal standards, she was definitely what one would consider attractive), and the other was utterly f*cking hatstand and had a boob job because apparently her A cup boobs were the only thing letting her down and making her feel less of a woman (no, that would be the alcoholism, the stealing from the till, the letching at customers...).

In reply to MG:

Do the UN not do briefings to their ambassadors, in the same way our politicians are often recruited into roles for which they have no prior experience, but are supported through teams of people who are able to inform them?

In reply to MG:

I imagine all the women who'd been held back in a meaningful way (whatever your definition of that is) by sexism weren't able to make it.

In reply to MG:


The companies who market such surgeries seem to think it's a fairly big driver for their custom. Walk around London these days and you'll see posters blatantly advertising breast implants as a way to boost your confidence... and I assume they've done their market research.

In reply to Ciro:

I was taking low self-esteem to refer to depression or feelings of overall inadequacy, not simply lacking in confidence. I am sure for some having big tits makes them more confident, like for others having a large shining exhaust on their car does. Such is life.

In reply to MG:

I would suggest that anyone who needs a large shining exhaust to feel confident in themselves is indeed inadequate.

In reply to MG:

Without wishing to state the obvious, 'lacking in confidence' can encompass a pretty large scale of feelings - at one end it's pretty frivolous and at the other end it's debilitating, is tangled up with anxiety and depression, and can significantly limit a person's life.

In reply to Tall Clare:

True Claire.

My riposte was only a counterbalance to all the "Well I've known women who have had jobs denied/promotion refuses/experienced aggression/cosmetic surgery because they are women" posts.

But you’re only denying me my right to post this as I’m a man!

In reply to Ciro:


and I would suggest that from looking at the huge market in prestige cars and prestige products in general, that you do are denying a fundamental facet of human nature.

In reply to SCrossley:

You see no benefit in a prestige car other than making the owner feel confident?

In reply to jkarran:


Why 2 of each, feeling the need to start adding caveats to defend you bluster?

The message I was replying to was in the plural and that should be taken into account for all subsequent posts.


I can only really speak for my own pretty ordinary, short and comparatively privileged experience of life but I suspect the vast majority of us have lost someone we know to suicide or at the very least have friends that have suffered directly.

That's a very evasive answer and having friends that might have suffered directly has got nothing to do with you being affected by it.


The cosmetic surgery point is not about the surgery, it was about people suffering from low self esteem and objectification, about people who've come to feel for whatever reason that they're not good enough in some particular way. You know these people, I know these people. You might not know who they are, they often hide it but they sure as hell suffer for it.

I personally don't know anyone that has had cosmetic surgery on the grounds of low esteem. You make it sound as if these people feel that they are inferior and to such an extent that it effects their daily lives. There are obviously people like that, but the vast majority just decide to splash some cash on looking better.


I know women who are underpaid for their work vs men in the same role. We all do, it's getting better but it's not gone away.

All the places I've worked have had pay structures for the role regardless of gender. There may be differences for length of service, etc. but never for gender alone.

In reply to SCrossley:


Of lots of people who spoke she gained the most media attention due to her profile. I can't really say if she's been the victim of inequality because I don't know her but she has got a load of people talking about it, which can only be a good thing.

And for standing up she's also become a target for some pretty sick people.

In reply to Ciro:

No, can you?

In reply to tlm:

So desperate to edit that transcript...

Anyway, while it might be based on equality I think that feminism has been diverted into a negative movement by some. "We are struggling for a uniting word". I'm not sure a new term would be easy or appropriate, but one that doesn't appear to relate to only one sex might make these things appear more acceptable. This does concern me, I'm not sure I've noticed being victimised (this may merely indicate that I am sufficiently degrading to women) but I appreciate that the issues voiced exist and I do care for the welfare of my friends and relations. Even the female ones.

In reply to stroppygob:
>

of course that speaks volumes about your view of women. and confirms in my view the very problem that exists. You just don't see that some people have a problem and that is the problem.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


I think some of it's a mindset thing. On the extremes you have people who seek victimhood in every situation, and people with unhealthy levels of stoicism. I'm much more like the latter than the former, and as such I find it hard to sympathise too much with people who are vocal about their problems - especially where it appears to me that there are much worse / more important things for me to be concerned about.

I also think that many people have an instinctive reaction against being preached at, so if people are trying to influence others' thinking, they need to go about it sensitively and gently. I, personally, thought Emma Watson's speech was pretty well-measured (although I don't know why she used the word "equality" rather than "feminism"), and I was disgusted by the online threats she received.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:

Thank you Malcolm I agree with all you have said.
I do realise that there are extremes in both camps. I believe that there are very much areas where men get a raw deal and there are certainly some militant women who harbour views I would not agree with.

I too thought Emma's speech was well measured and find it interesting that she got so much stick for it from certain quarters based, seemingly, not on what she said but because she was perceived as "rich" "western" as if people in that catagory are some how not supposed to have an opinion or that their position somehow lessens what they say. In fact I get the distinct impression that some people did not even listen to the speech before criticising it

In reply to stroppygob:

So tell me.. why do always seem to be dismissive of female concerns? Whenever such issues arise you appear to be very quick to criticise, for instance you criticise me for using personal examples (as if that somehow invalidates them ) and then go and do exactly the same yourself (the only woman I knew who had improved breasts was well adjusted etc.) I am curious as to why it is that you feel the need to stamp on any complaint?

In reply to stroppygob:

24 year old woman.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:




Well said.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Well having people with different views is what debate is all about isn't it? I'm not "dismissive of female concerns", I work in an environment which is 95% female, I spend the majority of my day working with female colleagues and female clients in an in depth and personal manner. Their experience is nothing like the way some here describe it. You take a broad brush approach "female concerns" yet then dismiss any alternatives, "females" are not a homogenous mass.

As MTSA says above; "On the extremes you have people who seek victimhood in every situation," yous seem to argue for that camp. Understand that others may see life differently.

In reply to tlm:

Normally I find gender issues interesting, but I didnt make it past the 6 minute mark.

I found it boring, uninteresting and uncompelling. Surprised it got so much attention.

Side note, why can't people talk about 'equality' instead of the already female centric 'feminism', if it is equality everyone wants.

In reply to JMGLondon:



The threat was fake. It was just some bullshit viral marketing. No one cares about the speech, she's just a bit more likely to get trolled.

In reply to abseil:


She is qualified as she is a woman, isn't that obvious?

Obviously she is not the worst treated woman but she is still a woman. It seemed to me that the speech was quite good, judging by the text which I read. It's quite possible to be cynical about it given her wealth and where she lives and also the likelihood that this speech at the UN will do much good but as she was apparently asked to make the speech before hundreds of people I think she did quite well, better perhaps than most of us.

In reply to stroppygob:
Very true
And I appreciate that some people do seek victim hood
Have a good weekend
It may get heated but I enjoy debate

In reply to MG:


In fairness, misquoting Burke (and also changing him from Irish to English), is probably fair game - there is no evidence he ever said it, it is one of the worlds great "ought to have said" quotations, rather like Churchill never having said that life in the nave (sic, I meant to type "navy"), was "Rum, sodomy and the lash".

Besides, misquotations are normally better than the original. Lord Acton did NOT say "all power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", but that has more of a ring to it than what he DID say.

In reply to stroppygob:

also I ought to make it clear that the personal examples I mentioned were not reported to me by women, but my observation of the actions of men who confided in me that they couldn't give a (certain) job to a woman, thought university education for women was a waste of resources and were critical of women collegues for not being pretty enough.

I do appreciate that people are all different, that certainly not all men are like that (I include myself in that)and also I have met women who have been just as irrationally scathing about men.

The concept of victimhood is interesting as a broader theme (I might start a thread on that)

In reply to stroppygob:

Why is that?

I find that an interesting response given that she definitely *didn't* say that it was all the fault of men.

Which bits did you think weren't platitudes?

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Oh for Gods' sake - that is the worst that has ever happened to her?

Tacky no doubt, unpleasant, paparazi are not very nice people - who knew? Young film starts are hot photographic property, especially pretty female ones, but that is what you get when you sup with the devil and fail to use a long enough spoon. Riding the tiger of fame always has the hazard that you might end up inside the beast, not riding it. That sort of stuff and the "some of my friends didn't want to carry on playing sport because they might get muscles" really is elevating trivial annoyances to the level of major outrages. Quite apart from the obvious that quite a lot do carry on playing hockey, climbing or whatever.

As for the "some women have cosmetic surgery because they want to look more beautiful" - give me a break! That is a sign of a free society not a repressive one, that people get to do to things that others think are silly, wasteful and ill-thought out, others might disapprove, but those who are thought to be trivial or superficial are allowed to do it. I might not like tattoos (in fact I don't, I think it is foolish and gratuitous self-mutilation, given that we only get one skin in this life and it is far more beautiful than any "art"), but I neither have nor would wish to have the power to prevent people from getting them. Not sure what motivates people to get tattoos, nor why they are intrinsically better than boob jobs. Some women are trivial, superficial and easily influenced, so are some men. But that does not show they are in some way "repressed", rather the reverse.

Female genital mutilation at an early age (or at any age really), forcing women to spend their lives wrapped in black bags - now that really is oppression, as was the destruction of children's childhoods by gang rape in Rotheram (and other towns, no-one should imagine Rotherham was unique). But those are all rather "dangerous" subjects, much easier to concentrate on off-colour language or tacky but essentially harmless behaviour, normally directed at those who will get annoyed at expressions of "collective guilt", rather than those who will get all shouty and threaten or carry out beheadings.

Without undue whataboutery, some sense of proportion is called for.

In reply to Beth-Cath-T:

As male with a mother, sister, wife, 3 daughters and a granddaughter , I don't hope to understand women's views on anything, however....

If almost anyone had called out to say my wife (at 55 ) that her "arse was "perky", I can't see her being disgusted (as a first reaction.)

I wonder what your reaction would have been if the 12 year old had said your arse was 'porky' , would you still have been disgusted, (or just offended?)

In reply to tlm:

The reaction to her speech, and the trail of comment on this thread, is a pure-blood example of what Mary Beard was on about.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n06/mary-beard/the-public-voice-of-women

Women speaking up in public (unless on the subjects still regarded as the proper women's field), attract a characteristic form of misogyny. It goes back to the ancient Greeks. I think Emma may have her work cut out.

In reply to hedgepig:

I don't know about that. There have been a higher proportion of men speaking in support of her talk on this thread than there have been on any threads about feminist issues for a long time on ukc, which I have found very heartwarming.

The thing I always loved about climbing was how unsexist it was. People have always been taken on their own merits.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


But there are male advocates for gender equality - it's just that they're not the *right* advocates for gender equality and they're not saying the *right* things.

The Men's Rights Movement has a list of equality grievances as long as your arm and they're totally excluded from the conversation. I can't see the UN engaging with them soon. Even Erin Pizzey, scourge of the feministas joined AFVM last year but she was granted persona non grata status by the feminist movement decades ago for her analysis of violence, even though her experiences have be shown to have some validation in the numbers.

Some of those grievances have managed to carry a bit more weight, mainly I think due to a more evidence based approach to things like healthcare which have pushed the identity politics to one side, but the biggest issue is that the MRM don't generally approach gender from a critique of masculinities, so they're ignored as mostly misogynistic. Globally though there are traditional cultures that would qualify as far more misogynistic but are still engaged with, so it looks a bit biased.

This part of the huge problem, the difference between the wealthy west and trying to do work in much poorer countries. Between the 2 though I would have thought there are obvious problems with rich women telling men to woman-up to solve issues that are mainly defined by class. (Especially things like risky health behaviours, suicide, substance abuse, rock climbing).

In reply to tlm:

While it has been challenged, I think hedgepig is right - there has been a characteristic form of misogyny displayed on the thread. Educated, establishment males lining up to dismiss both the speaker and her experience; and doing so with much greater levels of energy and irritation than seem warranted, given that they are discussing a fairly unremarkable speech by a woman they do not know. Protesting too much?

As far as I can see Emma Watson has been criticised simply for being a young, rich actress giving a speech calling for empathy between sexes. Easy target. Criticism, meanwhile, of the UN for asking a young, rich actress to give the speech in the first place has, tellingly, been much more muted.

In reply to Wicamoi:

Nail on the head.

In reply to Wicamoi:

Come on. Her speech could be ripped apart line by line. I started doing so intending to post and ended up with a near essay.

I doubt anyone here has issues with equality for women. What annoys is the almost juvenile whinging about minor issues ("it's just not fair!") and misrepresenting them as gender inequality.

In reply to Wicamoi:


While it has been challenged, I think hedgepig is right - there has been a characteristic form of mysandry displayed on the thread. Educated, establishment females lining up to dismiss both the posters and their experience; and doing so with much greater levels of energy and irritation than seem warranted, given that most of the men here are just enjoying a light hearted banter, and are just discussing a fairly unremarkable speech by a woman they do not know. Protesting too much?


I love it when these pseudo-psychologists come out of the closet.

Does this chump "Wicamoi" actually understand how bloody offensive an accusation of "misanthropy" is? Or are wimmin allowed to do make offense due to their “years of subjugation by the phalocrats?”

http://www.lisacherry.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Millie-Tant-209x300....

In reply to Wicamoi:



Ditto. Well put.

In reply to David Martin:


You must have read a different thread, it's blatantly evident that many do, but anyone who reads this forum a while knows that.

In reply to stroppygob:


The sad thing is you may even believe this.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The sad thing is you may not.

In reply to stroppygob:


Curiously this has not been the case. Are you sure you are reading the same thread?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

"Curiously this has not been the case", in your humble opinion, I take it?

In reply to stroppygob:
Well a quick skim up the thread tends to show blokes having a go at blokes with few dismissive females and not so much light hearted banter as unthinking put downs. I have to say though it is reasonably balanced on the whole.

An accusation of misanthropy might be offensive to some but then why is it being levelled in the first place? As the old saying goes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is probably a duck. But then if you only have a platitude response to go on rather than what other opinion can be drawn?

In reply to Wicamoi:



The OP was specifically asking for opinions on her speech. Is fawning adoration the only acceptable response?


Criticism, meanwhile, of the UN for asking a young, rich actress to give the speech in the first place has, tellingly, been much more muted.

I, for one, was explicit about having doubts about any celeb being given a platform to spout at the UN. What if the topic had been something else? Would you really be arguing we should all listen politely and attentively to a speech from Watson saying, for example, hunger is bad thing and should be stopped and she knows this because she forgot her lunch money at school once?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Its certainly not misogyny.

I get the impression this is a thread mostly populated by males, debating and disagreeing between them about what constitutes equality. That's a far cry from "a hatred of females". Playing the misogyny card is not much different from calling those who oppose Gaza's bombing antisemites.

In reply to David Martin:

I quite agree in the main and you in particular have offered up some good arguments. Which is why I have not accused anyone of misogyny, and going back through the thread I can't see that anyone has actually been accused of misogyny. A few have been accused of being sexist, which is not necessarily the same thing.
I would say that if someone accused me of being a misogynist I would probably conclude they were wrong but look to myself to try and understand why they had reached that conclusion. Tit for tat insults don't lead to enlightenment but yet are easy to get into

In reply to tlm:

Don't know if anyone saw this. Raised a smile

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/29/george-clooney-wedding-faceboo...

In reply to toad:

I found that one amusing too.

But it would illustrative of the point being made here if the more "typical" headlines regarding their wedding (i.e. focussing on Clooney) were taken as a sign of an imbalance and unfairness in the way genders are dealt with.

Clooney is holding the limelight and understandably so. He is an actor, known by millions, many of whom will have devoted dozens of hours of their lives captivated by him. A human rights lawyer, though arguably more important (and in my mind impressive) as an individual, is not the reason why most people know of the wedding.

In reply to David Martin:

Hi David, you're a grown up, so you can rip apart any speech line by line if you want to - the question is, why on earth are you so exercised about this particular speech that you nearly wrote an essay in trying to rip it to shreds?

She was asked to speak on behalf of heforshe by the UN, and had the courage to do so, despite likely knowing that as a young, pretty, privileged actress she'd be an easy target. An easy target, not just for the everyday sexism, which she'd be used to, but for a novel attack by privileged, rational but unempathetic, grown up men, getting aggressive about all the flaws in her speech from their point of view, and effectively acting to silence her.

However, privileged, grown up men were not her target audience. A young woman who plenty of other young women, young men and adolescents have grown up with, in the news and at the cinema, is perhaps someone who could make a small difference at the stage when it really matters. Because it does matter, right? Just to remind you, her speech, whatever its flaws, was a call for young men to try to imagine what it's like to be a young woman, to their mutual benefit.

In reply to stroppygob:


Hi stroppygob - dry your eyes, pet - when I accused some "educated, establishment males" on this thread of characteristic misogyny - I was quite plainly not referring to you.

In reply to MG:

Hi MG, of course there's no need to fawn over and praise her speech - I certainly haven't - but to dismiss her speech and her experience as trivial betrays, I think, the lack of humility and empathy to realise that
1) you were not the target audience
2) Emma Watson, having been the object of public sexualisation at the hands of the press while still an adolescent (did you see the post about Loaded (or similar) magazine's countdown to her becoming "legal"?), probably has a much better working knowledge of genuine sexual inequality in the UK than, say, you or me.

In reply to Wicamoi:

Err, because we were asked what I thought of it. Then when I commented, the response was doubt that I had even listened to it. Dissecting the speech line by line seems to have been the request.

And she's the UNs Women's Goodwill Ambassador. I should hope she has the courage to make a speech and do a half decent job of it. If she had delivered a speech that didn't sound so much like a "woe to me, it's all so unfair" rant I would give her credit - it wouldn't matter a jot about her background, weath and education. Instead she sounded like a preaching celeb.

It was interesting that the assembly didn't react to her speech until several minutes in when she made the point about women having control over their own bodies. This was the UN, where real issues of hardship for women are discussed and dealt with and no doubt she was addressing delegates involved in these programmes. I can't help but feel her speech wasn't resonating with them either until she got over herself and started addressing real issues...but then all she did then was skim past it. Hardly inspirational stuff.

In reply to tlm:

It seems to me that this entire thing is a little bit like global warming. People either,
a) deny it vehmently, stating that there is absolutely no way that women are discriminated against and that they will not contemplate changing because why should they change.
b) sit on the fence and don't make a decision either way, which is more or less as bad as a) because what happens if women are actively discriminated against? Their lack of willingness to do anything just means the problem continues
c) believe it 100% and do something about it.

So the question is,

if you believe a) what happens if you try to change your ways, even if you don't believe it? If women truely are paid the same, then surely they won't be paid more. Surely they won't get employed over you if you are genuinely better than them. And surely the concept of respecting them won't bring you to physical harm. If you decide not to do anything, and its real, then women are disadvantaged, and your unwilling to accept it, and unwilling to compromise in any shape or form. Which just makes you a dick, and makes them right.

If you believe in b) then acting on it and making sure that women aren't discriminated against means that they will have a fairer lot in life. Not acting means that you just contribute to people who believe in a) and theres no momentum for change. And will it harm you? Can you afford to be wrong?

And if you believe in c) congratulations, your not an idiot. Even if you're wrong, trying to make sure that equality exists and is real is not going to cause a problem to anybody, it just makes the world a better place. Which is not as bad a thing as group a will have you believe.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


In your humble opinion I take it?


Because it's a knee jerk response from some to anything said about a female which is not wholly positive.



You do not see the irony in that post? Seriously?

In reply to Wicamoi:


Hi again, your response if a fine example of the divisive nature of your viewpoints.

In reply to Wicamoi:



Maybe they should issue a caveat on who is allowed to have opinion on her views. If they were "acting to silence her" they didn't do that very well did they.

Yet again you insult and denigrate anyone who doesn't hold supportive views of this young lass as "privileged, rational but unempathetic, grown up men, getting aggressive". Some of us are just ordinary Joes, who do not agree with her. You try to use imaginary characters, ones which only exist in your imagination, to substantiate your views. Your fantasies do not hold up to reality.

In reply to Wicamoi:


Ha ha - how true.

In reply to stroppygob:

It's there to see.

I think you are confusing misogyny with sexism, not necessarily the same thing.

So... I find it interesting that whenever there is a post that deals with women you leap right in and start mocking, it comes across as a cause celebre to you, as though you can not allow a post on women to pass without giving a negative comment, usually a jokey banter put down. Why is that?
I get it that you consider women to be already emancipated so they don't need to complain, unless of course they are living in some "backward" country inwhich case it seems to become irrelevant and that you might feel that it is not in balance. But why it is so important to you I don't know.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:





Please quote me an example of my doing so.

Why do you lot always want to debate the person rather than the post? It's obsessive.




Oh f*ck off. Stop making up sh!t without the slightest substantiation.

You want all women to be given a million pounds and all men to be sacked from their jobs.

See? It's easy to make up bullsh!t about people. Try debating what I actually post, and not making stuff up.

Or, if you are going to accuse me of something, at least have the honesty and the decency to quote what I have written which you object to.

In reply to mike kann:

I don't know if your three options are the only ones. I think there are also some people who do think something more complex, but when people are discussing any issue in a group, and not face to face, then they can feel as though their point of view is being ignored, so they state it a bit more strongly until views seem pretty extreme and polarised.

I notice that not one person says gender discrimination doesn't exist on here when discussing issues such as fgm or child forced marriage, or world literacy rates. However, they also make the points that gender discrimination is not a simple issue, that men have areas where they are discriminated against, that women in the west have very privileged lives in comparison to many people in the world and that it would be bad to positively discriminate if you ended up employing people who weren't the best people for the job.

It's easy to ignore those points, all of which are pretty valid. And quite honestly, people don't really change their views via an internet debate because of what I said earlier. They will only change their views through cognitive dissonance, which they probably unconsciously avoid through negating views which oppose their own. It's the way of internet debate...

In reply to tlm:


I think you're wrong there. What they won't do is halfway through a thread suddenly announce they have swapped opinions. It happens gradually over time. I have certainly changed some of my views as a result of discussion on here...although I still think Emma Watson's speech pretty much empty waffle.

In reply to David Martin:


Fair enough David, but I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to wonder whether this is still only a partial answer. I'm sure you don't comment on every topic just becasue you are asked, after all.

As for the rest of your comments, which again criticise her speech, I suspect this is her first important speech. When I see a young woman who is in a difficult position, trying to learn to be something that she isn't yet, my instinct is to support her, not to tell her how rubbish she is.

You will say, quite rightly, that she isn't likely to read your comments, but you are part of a community on here and, along with MG, an established and generally respected part I think. So what you say and how you behave may influence those young women and men who actually do read your words. And to some of them those words may seem like part of a wall of sound "girls: know your place."

In reply to stroppygob:


And there was me thinking it was a fine example of "men enjoying light hearted banter". Just goes to show you that what you say and what others hear you say are not necessarily the same thing. Could there be a lesson for all of us there do you think?

In reply to stroppygob:

(> I have witnessed. Women being denied work specifically because they are women,

Really? So the only grounds for refusing these people work was that they had the wrong genitals? “Sorry love you don’t get the job, we wanted someone with a dick and balls”I do hope they complained to the relevant body.)

Just one example, but then you know what you have posted so Perhaps you can supply me with some of your more positive posts that I might have missed.



I am not debating you personally I am just asking you to explain your stance. Which is ironic because your first post on this thread

"18 year old girl gets world stage to spout platitudes due to being very good at pretending to be other people. Ginger Weasley not invited to do same."

seems to be a debate on the person rather than the content of the speech.




Hm pot, kettle, black.

Well for me this was your best post:

"Well having people with different views is what debate is all about isn't it? I'm not "dismissive of female concerns", I work in an environment which is 95% female, I spend the majority of my day working with female colleagues and female clients in an in depth and personal manner. Their experience is nothing like the way some here describe it. You take a broad brush approach "female concerns" yet then dismiss any alternatives, "females" are not a homogenous mass."

I get that, I understand that and what is more I agree with your conclusion, females are not a homogenous mass, people are not a homogenous mass. And really that is what I am arguing, that it is not a good thing to discriminate against people purely on gender. What is more I think that we are in agreement with this. Where we seem to differ is in whether gender discrimination has been overcome or still exists and on which side that discrimination falls.


Well we seemed to come unravelled again at this point:

(> Well a quick skim up the thread tends to show blokes having a go at blokes with few dismissive females and not so much light hearted banter as unthinking put downs. I have to say though it is reasonably balanced on the whole.

In your humble opinion I take it?)

Now it would not have taken you much effort to see that on this thread:-
43 people have posted
32 of them were male
of which 12 comments were negative towards Emma's speech (a reasonable few for personal feelings towards Emma herself others offered reasoned argument)
19 comments were positive about her speech
and 2 were deemed not really on topic enough to pass comment either way
of the 7 women who posted 2 posted comments that could be construed negative to men.
the remaining 4 posters were of undetermined sex and therefore not included in the above.

Hence the reason I took issue with it being my humble opinion. As you can see I was just commenting on the obvious make up of the thread, no opinion necessary. So yes I would naturally object to that

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


But surely that is an example of my questioning your veracity, nothing else?






No it's a joking way of indicating that, (I believe,) Emma Watson was asked purely as she is a good looking young woman, and that the male ginger (Rupert Alexander Lloyd Grint,) who was equally as "famed" for his roles in the same movies, was not asked due to him being a) male b) Ginger c) less attractive.








See. we can agree.




Me too, yet it is only the male posters who do not agree that Ms Watson's speech has any great merit, who have been accused in such strong terms as being "women haters" (misogynist) and "privileged, rational but unempathetic, grown up men, getting aggressive about all the flaws in her speech".

But of course.










Fair enough. But, as I state above, it s only the "pro-Watson" posters who have elevated and emotionalised the debate, and used strong vilification, is it not?

In reply to stroppygob:


Rupert's attractiveness is surely subjective - there's probably quite a chunk of the world's population for whom he would be more their cup of tea than Emma.

But it is interesting to speculate about the potential influence of the speech had it been given by a man. Might resonate more strongly with other men - though this in itself might be interpreted as an innate tendency among many men to dismiss things said by women, I suppose

In reply to stroppygob:

True a questioning of veracity, but one in which the tone implied a disbelief of the experience in a dismissive fashion. At least that was how it came across.

Fair enough. If Emma was asked on the basis of her attractiveness and not "Ron" that might suggest a bias, however we do not know that Ron wasn't asked but refused/was unavailable. Also if the person was asked to talk specifically on female issues world wide then the selection of a female speaker would be an obvious choice

I think both sides have elevated and at times emotionalised it. I would have to go back over the thread to find out who started the ball rolling. It perhaps is worth noting that as far as I can see no female posters have disagreed with Ms Watson so would not be likely to be called women haters. I personally do not believe that anyone on here is a woman hater. Things do get heated so I do think that you raise a good point that is always good to think before posting. (Mind you after a few beers that does sort of go out the window).

Interesting programme on Horizon last night BTW that indicated that there is a greater difference between individuals of the same sex than between the sexes as a whole.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

That's just my posting style I'm afraid, I try to inject a bit of sarcasm and disbelief into it.



Of course, and again a "sarcasm" smiley/icon would have been of value.


Agreed.



Unless it's on the torrents I'll not be seeing that.

In reply to stroppygob:


Noted
I will bear that in mind. Especially as I can be the same myself. (Note to self: your posting style might annoy)



More agreement! Careful we might break UKC

The Horizon programme showed various tests for spatial awareness (popular tag - map reading) and emotion reading which initially showed that men were better at SA and women at ER. However when any unconscious bias was factored in (initially the way the tests were presented gave indication of who would traditionally succeed) and new tests devised the difference between the sexes disappeared. Other amusing tests were ones showing monkeys selecting dolls or car toys according to their gender (males statistically went for car while females went for dolls - the test was to eliminate social conditioning not quite sure what it proved seeing as monkeys don't drive as a rule)

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Top Gear suggests otherwise

In reply to Duncan Bourne:



I thought the crux of the programme was the old nature/nuture thing.

Alice Roberts seemed to be on weak ground here, the physical arguments (essentialism) are a much more robust mechanism for describing what happens, relying on plasticity is a much weaker mechanism that you'd think would go wrong more often and throw up more disparate results.

I don't think anyone would doubt that there is probably an element of both, it's just the mix that's important and of course even then there are strategies for effecting change to reduce the impact of essentialism.

In reply to Wicamoi:



Hang on a minute she said half the world (the male half) were excluded from the conversation are you now suggesting that she meant that some of world should still be excluded from the conversation?

When she said half she meant more like 23% and all those men who couldn't tell that's what she meant are lacking in humility and empathy?

In reply to winhill:

I think it is an element of both but obviously hard to eliminate any social conditioning bias. I quite liked the bloke trying to give the boy in the pink romper suit dolls to play with. But I thought that doll v car thing was a bit woolly. Not that I don't think there are differences but I would be interested in seeing a study on how genders play. For instance as a child I was not that interested in toy cars (my brother loved them) but I was a big fan of Action man and would play endless games that involved crashes, shootings and general mayhem, a preference for dolls? I seem to remember some years ago a programme about a child who was of "indeterminate gender" and the decision was made to bring them up as a girl however the child consistently displayed "male" characteristics and when grown up chose to be "male".

I think that there is a wide spectrum of gender traits within the specific genders, hence transgender people or gay people obviously but also girls who are "tomboys" and males who are "sensitive".

In reply to winhill:

What a glorious melodramatic weave of confusion, literal-mindedness and (minor) dishonesty!

Confusion: I do not speak for, and have not spoken for Emma Watson. Why on earth would you think I did?

Literal-mindedness: HeforShe may seek 100% audience/conversation and Emma Watson's rhetoric may state the same aim, but a speech by Emma Watson is clearly not targetting them all. Surely it's uncontroversial that celebrities have a particular audience, one which more serious thinkers may never reach? While, equally obviously, serious grumpy old men like you, David Martin, MG and, er, me are more likely to be negatively pre-disposed to whatever celebrities may have to say on political matters. A call for a little humility in recognising this when responding to her speech does not seem to me misplaced.

Minor dishonesty: the "empathy" bit in your quote from me referred to a point 2), which you elected to snip off, about recognising that a celebrity can have real and important experiences of sexual discrimination, and that Emma Watson is likely one such.

On the back of which, I have suggested that you rise above your grumpiness - empathy helps - for the greater good.