Feminism

[SecretAsianMan]

And then of course, this happened

 

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/228407/4chan-threatens-emma-watson-with-nude-photo-leak-over-un-speech-on-gender-equality/

 

I hate everything

[Blambo]

Gill me please.

[SecretAsianMan]

While I'm at it, this is the organisation that she talked about

 

http://www.heforshe.org/

 

I'm man number 40,225.  

 

Edit: Corrected my man number because I can't count apparently

[Cyborg771]

Only 1 man signed up in Tajikstan. Must be lonely there.

[Henroid]

That was actually a really good speech. She fucking nailed it. I can't think of anything she said that could be refuted or counter argued (I'd like to see Sommers try, just for schadenfreud's sake).

 

I am man # 41,080.

[Cyborg771]

A friend on Facebook was disappointed that Watson's argument essentially boiled down to "misogyny hurts men too" thing, which while true isn't really the core injustice of the whole thing. The fact that women are raped and beaten on a global scale isn't enough to call men to action, but the fact that it might in some way inconvenience them is? I think it's a valid point. I really should watch the whole video through myself once I have the time though.

[Henroid]

That's a good point. The only thing I can think to say is that it's easier to get people on board with something when you make it about something they can relate to.

 

Edit - I'm wording this poorly but I think people know what I mean.

[Cyborg771]

That was my response. I'm having a bit of a back and forth with here and her friends right now. They have the very valid point that a man who fights for women's rights because of the very few problems the patriarchy causes men is a shitty ally and I can't disagree with that. I rebutted by saying that as long as the end result is a greater understanding then the initial reason for looking into it isn't the most important.

[osmosisch]

I wouldn't say that's what it boils down to at all. She does point out the ways in which gender inequality hurts men as well, but that's hardly the core point.

The worst thing you can say about that aspect is that she may present the negatives for men as too large relative to those for women.

[Dewar]

Youtube just did the thing where they basically play half a John Oliver episode as a commercial between clips. It was on the Miss America pageant, and it was increadible.

 

[SecretAsianMan]

Emma's speech is largely about trying to get men engaged in feminism, so I can't really fault her for appealing to them in that manner.  After all, the name of the organization is "he for she".  And like osmosisch said, I don't think that's what the speech boils down to.  It's a part of it for sure, but there's more to it than that.

 

 

Youtube just did the thing where they basically play half a John Oliver episode as a commercial between clips. It was on the Miss America pageant, and it was increadible.

 

 

Is there a Mr. America pageant?  There should be one if we still have Miss America.  I wanna see the criteria for judging that.

[Merus]

I am getting rather sick of people saying that they like Anita's videos although they do not always agree.

 

With what part, exactly? That would be a useful conversation, and yet no-one has it. It's almost as if people are throwing Anita's videos under the bus in order to appear impartial.

[Cyborg771]

I think it's that they don't think specific examples are harmful, which isn't necessarily what she's saying.

[tegan]

I think some of the examples she pulled for her earliest videos were obscure/forgettable enough to diminish the impact of what she was saying (Grabbed by the Ghoulies?) and still feel that her earrings are visually distracting, but those are both production-related and not content-related. They're also arguably pretty petty of me.

[Twig]

I also find her earrings distracting - I dislike hoop earring in general, basically - and agree that it's probably pretty petty of me. We're so petty!

Anyway I don't think it's wrong to question specific examples' relevance or importance, although I don't think I've seen any that I personally disagreed with. I would (again?!) agree with tegan that some of them are obscure and/or forgettable, but I also think that's not necessarily a valid point when discussing relevance.

 

To sum: yes.

[Cyborg771]

#EaringGate

[Mangela Lansbury]

The earring thing is pretty petty (It gives you something to look at during talking head sections! The shot is more dynamic! I don't know, I just like hoop earrings and think they look good on her.), but the forgettable content from the early videos isn't. I remember the general gist of the earlier videos, but not really specific examples. That removes some of the weight from her argument, but it might also just be a function of time -- I saw them a while ago, so maybe I've just forgotten the examples by no one's fault but my own.

 

I am getting rather sick of people saying that they like Anita's videos although they do not always agree.

 

With what part, exactly? That would be a useful conversation, and yet no-one has it. It's almost as if people are throwing Anita's videos under the bus in order to appear impartial.

 

When I've pushed people on this in the past, it's gotten pretty obvious pretty fast that by "I don't agree entirely" they either mean "Agreeing makes me uncomfortable with some of the media I like and how it reflects on me, so I'm just avoiding thinking about it" or "Man, I really think women are shit but I have to seem reasonable somehow." I think just stressing to the first type of person that everyone likes problematic media is really helpful (I always tell them that I love horror movies and oh wow women in horror movies), and just fuckin socially curb stomp the second type as best you can.

[Henroid]

Hoop earrings are hard to pull off but I think she nails it. But the thing I mostly notice is the plaid attire; I grew up at an impressionable age and dress like it's 1992 and Pearl Jam is still the hot shit - which for you young folks means I have plaid flannel shirts all over and dress that way as if it holds back my mortality.DON'T JUDGE ME.

 

Edit - Also this post brought to you by having shit all to do with feminism or Anita's critiques. And yet is still positive so BOOYAH.

[syntheticgerbil]

Hoop earrings.

[Gwardinen]

I'm #61,192 because I foolishly had to sleep. Anyone want to trade?

[Merus]

Not pulling your weight there, Greenland.

[Tanukitsune]

Are we supposed to get an email from He for She or something? All you do is tweet about it and it's entirely optional? Weird.

 

It's sad to be my country is far from reaching 1000.

[SecretAsianMan]

I expect more to come out of it eventually, though I'm not exactly sure what.  I'm hoping it involves real action instead of just tweets and youtube videos.  It's still early so we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[dibs]

jk, its a #GG false flag. they are going to doxx us all.

[BobbyBesar]

I am getting rather sick of people saying that they like Anita's videos although they do not always agree.

 

With what part, exactly? That would be a useful conversation, and yet no-one has it. It's almost as if people are throwing Anita's videos under the bus in order to appear impartial.

I'm not one of those people, because I'm not big on social-media type arguments. But the criticisms that I would level include:

 

- There are individual examples that are knowingly indulging in the tropes she cites for the purpose of subverting or ridiculing them. The use of No More Heroes in the latest video stuck out to me in this regard. (I am aware that objections to individual examples does nothing to undermine the greater point which is about a general environment of hostility).

- It is very problematic to use American standards and cultural analysis to critique Japanese cultural products. Not impossible, especially because the core of the critique is about consumption rather than creation, but nonetheless very problematic.

- She doesn't try to contextualize any of the things she cites into the greater cultural landscape. It turns out games are sexist in large part because our entire society is really very sexist. By failing to contextualize these things, she 1) implies by omission that these are unique to gaming, which can help inflame her critics and 2) open herself up to specious objections like the AEI Oprah / Daytime TV comparison. (Although I do understand also that this is outside the scope of her arguments).

 

Also, to be super buzzkill-man, commenting on her physical appearance, even ironically to indicate the lack of critical discussion...seems weird to me in this context..