Emma Watson’s Convenient Feminism: Talk A Good Game In Between “Yoohoo, CHECK OUT MY TITS!”
– Amy Alkon, also penning a real contender of best blog post article title of the year 😉
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
37 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Haven’t you people heard of a campaign called ‘Free the nipple’? These are feminists who think that women should be allowed to breast-feed their babies in public, for instance. Their attitude is that the female body should not be a symbol of shame (can you say burkah, and archaic islamic attitudes?) So you can be a feminist, and support toplessness.
Logical consistency is not a principle feminists seem to regard very highly in general.
Boobies will corrupt idealism almost every single time.
The lady has denounced women being judged on the bodies – whilst using her body for commercial gain.
However, this is not new – it has been a contradiction in the entertainment industry since at least the 1960s.
“He for she” feminism campaign – rather hypocritical as it is really “do as I say (and do not dare talk back) or my friend the Prime Minister of Canada will send around armed (and male) police to arrest you”.
Surely true warriors of the matriarchy should not need men to do their fighting for them.
And – do not judge me on my body, the body is not important. Now pay me lots of money to show off my body.
It is silly – but it hard to take it very seriously.
Apart from when some “liberal” (such as the already mentioned Prime Minister of Canada) implies he will make it a crime to say something that is not P.C. And the police turn up to enforce the “equality legislation”.
By the way was Emma Watson involved in the anti Trump protests?
“We are all Muslims – Allah Akbar!” while waving copies of the Koran and wearing a pink headscarf.
A slight contradiction if the women doing it are topless.
How does it work?
“Capitalist society” “enslaves women” by the “market nexus”.
But actually selling women in an Islamist slave market is NOT slavery.
Very Rousseau.
That’s a good line from the original Speccie article.
Top comment: “It also show the irrelevancy and superficiality of the UN”
“So you can be a feminist, and support toplessness.”
Er….no you can’t.
Baby-feeding in public is to attack good old-fashioned modesty and dignified restraint in public places. Any Marxian femmo-freak engaged in such activity who noticed a nearby man enjoying the sight of her exposed knockers ( unlikely since most of them have breasts like Mongolian saddlebags) would scream out denunciation like Donald Sutherland at the end of the 70s remake of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”.
Emma was brought into a (fairly dishonest part of) the grown-up world when young. That she has absorbed a ton of PC tripe is sad but not in the least surprising; only a strong character would have resisted. Either she will grow up someday – or else she won’t. The protection from reality that wealth and fame give will not help, plus she’s in the position of being in theory already successful but in practice still needing to create her grown-up career in an industry where going off-message is death. One day (probably after I’m dead) she might look back on it all and say something sensible – or else, she won’t, not ever.
(Or her industry will look at its cost models and spin around on a coin, providing a different viewpoint for everyone to parrot. But I’m not letting my hopes make me hold my breath for that just yet.)
You’re all wrong. One of The Telegraph’s wimmin has spoken:
“While Watson’s critics were roundly mocked for their stance – and embarrassingly hazy grasp of the basic principles of feminism”
So there you go. You’ve been told, by a journalist. Go and hang your heads in shame.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/emma-watson-can-bra-less-belle-reinvent-disney-princess/
Alkon, like many others, seems to misunderstand feminism: there is no contradiction between what Watson is thinking/saying and what she is doing. This whole objectification business is about men seeing women as mere objects of sexual desire, with no personhood, agency, etc. Those who object to such objectification (assuming, for the purpose of the discussion, that it even exists to any significant extent) on feminist grounds are not saying that women cannot, under any circumstances, be seen as objects of sexual desire – but that it is up to women to choose when they can be so seen and when not, and under what circumstances. In Watson’s particular case, she may be saying that when she chooses to put her breasts on display, men are allowed to admire them (the breasts), and possibly even think of them and her (Ms. Watson) as sexual objects. But when Ms. Watson puts on her warrior outfit (possibly with a magic wand in hand), then men should focus on her warrior qualities, and forget all about her physical sexual attributes. Put simply, it goes beyond controlling what one can say, instead going directly for thought control. Nothing new here, really.
Alkon may be correct about the other contradiction she mentions, the one between Watson’s declared identification with a ‘warrior type’, and her playing a supposedly fragile princess in Disney’s new Beauty and the Beast – but I’d have to see the movie first to judge for myself.
Baby-feeding in public is to attack good old-fashioned modesty and dignified restraint in public places.
Sorry, but no. Anyone who is offended by the sight of a mother and child engaged in one of the most natural, loving and innocent of human behaviours is in serious need of psychiatric help.
I once knew a feminist who would fly into a rage at any suggestion she’s done something most people would consider shameful, unless she actually had done those things and then she would fly into a rage that I was being judgemental. In other words, something ceases to be shameful the moment she did it herself.
Yes Niall, I am far from judging Watson and others like her too harshly – or even judging them at all. If I had to guess, I’d say that she herself hardly understands the fundamental ideas behind what she is promoting.
There are other such behaviors that we nevertheless choose to do in the privacy of our homes – or when forced by circumstances to do in public, choose to do them in as discrete a manner as possible. I’ve seen mothers who choose to do the latter, and I’ve seen others who choose to do the opposite – which is offensive, as it is meant to offend.
That said, if Mr. Ecks has an issue with Mongolian saddlebags, he is free to go look at something else.
Unable to resist – “STOP ME BEFORE I COMMENT AGAIN!” However one may view the young lady, I come back to the comforting notion that the t1ts in question, are hers. And she can (partially – I checked) display them if she wants; a freedom dearly bought by the generations of “feminists” – to be honest, “Equalists” – who came before her. She’d’ve been lucky indeed to escape a caning if she’d done that a hundred years ago.
I posit that those who’ve kicked-up the astonishing brouhaha over the incident, are using it (and Emma) to promote their own agendas, which mostly boil-down to “DO AS I SAY!” The article suggests to me that she has her own – “I’ll do what I want, and be the judge of my own actions” – and such a fuss being raised over such a trivial excuse, suggests to me that she may have a point.
So anyways, I say “more power to her”.
“I’d say that she herself hardly understands the fundamental ideas behind what she is promoting.”
“far from judging” her…
Huh? Do you need help telling the difference between ‘guessing’ and ‘judging’?
I find nothing contradictory at all about this. I can’t say I’m an expert on “He For She”, but its goals seemed to me to be about asking men to advocate for fair an equal treatment for women. I’m a man and I can certainly get on board with that goal. I think it is not so important in the west because women have won many of those victories already, but certainly I advocate for the fair and equal treatment of women in Islamic and African countries.
Perhaps her “feminism” is more strident than that and I haven’t been paying attention, but that is what I know of her.
But to ask that women are treated fairly and equally is also to say that women should be able to own their own sexuality and should be able to use it for their own purposes. Men do that too, after all, even if their purposes aren’t necessarily on average exactly the same of those of women.
Attitudes toward sexuality are one of the major bastions of unequal treatment of men and women in the west. Certainly we don’t cut off women’s clitorises with a dirty piece of glass, as happens in some places, but we do have the slut verse stud dynamic as a still powerful force, a memetic clitirodectomy. And if God forbid, Ms. Watson wants to be a sexual person, then good for her.
I’d say that she herself hardly understands the fundamental ideas behind what she is promoting.
Not a lot of moral agency for Emma, eh?
What does moral agency have to do with understanding? No one has perfect understanding of anything, including one’s own positions.
Alisa – yes thought control is the aim.
The aim of modern “liberalism”.
And most of the people who thought out the plan (the plan for world thought control) were male.
If the old Puritans were frightened “that someone, somewhere, might be happy” (by the way that is a little unfair to the old Puritans) the modern P.C., or “Critical Theory”, people have another fear…..
That someone, somewhere, may be having thoughts they have not been instructed to have.
Alas “Thought Criminal!” has become the cry of the modern “liberal”.
@Alisa
Re breastfeeding in public, you seem to be saying something quite different to Mr. Ecks, insofar as you’re not saying that it’s offensive per se but that it can be offensive if it’s done in a way that’s meant to offend. But how often is that really the case? I certainly don’t think I’ve ever particularly noticed it.
OK, I’m a man, so I’ve obviously never been in the position myself, but my wife breastfed each of our three children and my experience of that leads me to believe that suggesting that women should avoid breastfeeding in public is a pretty serious attack on women’s autonomy, as not breastfeeding in public can only mean avoiding public places altogether for a good chunk of the day.
As for the ‘Mongolian saddlebags’ comment, well, I’ve never been inclined to regard a random unknown lactating woman’s breast in a sexual manner in the first place, although I understand that some of the ‘specialised taste’ community may do so…
How confusing.
One feminist theme holds that we ought to stop objectifying women and treating them simply as the sum of various attractive (or not) body parts.
Another holds that each individual woman is the master of her own body, and is empowered to use it to her best advantage in spite of any interfering societal mores.
But the first theme isn’t designed to protect beautiful women with hugely attractive body parts. It protects the vast pool of women with normal body parts from constant comparison with those few women with hugely attractive body parts. Its aim is to lessen those normal women’s feelings of inadequacy in the face of the few women whom society makes rich because of their great ________ (fill in your favorite anatomical structure.)
So, when Ms. Watson choses to display her own hugely attractive body parts, is she taking charge of her own existence and her own body in an admirable and brave way, or is she subjecting the vast pool of normal women to a shaming comparison of their own normal bodies with her hugely attractive one?
Is the essence of this feminism a sisterhood of sorts, or is it “screw you, I got mine just like any guy would”?
George:
Oh yes, I am.
My husband, another friend and I once visited a couple with a young baby, and the three of us sat across from our hosts in their living room over coffee or something. When the baby began crying in the other room, the mother got up, brought the baby with her, sat back down across from us, pulled her breast out and fed the baby. I’d never met these people before, so my husband and I were rather taken aback.
She obviously did it as a statement, I had no doubt in my mind about it, and I have no doubt that she is one of those mothers who do it in public places with the same intent. The intent not necessarily being to offend – but nevertheless with the full understanding that offense may be taken.
When later on I had and breastfed my own baby, I on occasion found myself in a situation where I had to do it in public (such as on a long flight). However, I always preferred to do it in the privacy of my home – not because it is in any way shameful or offensive in and of itself, but because to me it is private and even intimate. OMMV.
George–If women want to put on a show I have no problem with that at all. If lust is not inspired a good laugh will do. Probably better at my age.
Strange tho’ how many millions of women over the years have managed to feed babies without making a public spectacle of it.
“OK, I’m a man, so I’ve obviously never been in the position myself, but my wife breastfed each of our three children and my experience of that leads me to believe that suggesting that women should avoid breastfeeding in public is a pretty serious attack on women’s autonomy, as not breastfeeding in public can only mean avoiding public places altogether for a good chunk of the day.”
How awful if child-rearing was to be at all inconvenient. Esp when a small blanket/towel will serve to preserve modesty as needed.
How awful if child-rearing was to be at all inconvenient.
But why make it any more inconvenient than it needs to be?
Look, we may avoid overtly sexual displays in public but there’s nothing sexual about breastfeeding.
I was already writing my reply before you edited your post to add the last sentence.
More generally, we rightly excoriate the ‘campus snowflakes’ who make the seeking and taking of offence their very raison d’être. Sauce for the goose and all that…
I don’t at all suggest that breastfeeding in public should be prohibited (although private companies should be able to make their own rules). That mother I told you about was in her own home, we were her guests, and so we obviously didn’t (and shouldn’t) have any say in how she chose to behave with her own baby in her own home. But the fact that she did choose to do it in a certain way tells me something about her and her views.
Also, none of this breastfeeding stuff is necessarily about sex (although we got to it from speaking about breasts as sexual objects) – it is more about what is private vs what is public.
Not the same thing at all: the snowflakes are personally offended by…whatever it is these days, I lost track frankly. What we are talking about here however is offense against what may be considered by most people as proper decorum – not a big deal really, but still an offense. And it’s not like I demand my safe space where strange women don’t breastfeed their babies. I just find it strange/telling that they insist on making a point of doing it. Sort of like the burning of bras back in the 60s.
Turning to fashion – fashions change.
In the 18th century men showing bald heads was looked at uncouth – if you could not afford a wig you were at least supposed to have a head covering of some kind (not just flash a bald pate like mine about the place).
Also beards were thought primitive and savage.
In the 19th century no one cared if a man showed his bald head, and you could grow a beard if you wanted one.
On the other hand…..
In the 18th century most women dressed quite freely and comfortably – in the 19th century the clothing of women (especially the underclothing – for example the corset with its metal eyes for lacing up) ended up the most uncomfortable women have worn in any century.
The very poor escaped this – but for even women of the middle orders, Victorian fashions were bad news, at least in terms of underclothing.
Some women even tried to wear corsets during pregnancy.
Still there is one male fashion I would love to see return – the open wearing of weapons.
Not those toy swords that were popular in France among the nobles before the Revolution.
A proper English sword (made for killing people) that anyone who could afford it could wear. It was sad that in the 19th century the fashion changed to the “sword stick” – an 18th century gentleman’s sword is much nicer.
And a nice pistol or two – made in London or Birmingham.
Replaced in the 19th century by the revolver – firearms were very common indeed up to the First World War in Britain. If (unarmed) policemen required armed assistance – they would ask for the assistance of armed citizens who happened to be passing by.
Women too.
A nice pistol for Emma Watson – as long as the lady trained to use it properly.
Then the lady would not need this “He For She” thing.
At least people would be careful about offending other people.
Ulster careful.
Some rich actress bathering about the mythical “pay gap” in the western world is just a virtue signalling sack of shit. Males and females often have different employment preferences and that’s all there is to it.
I always love it when female celebrities – paricularly currently successful actresses – get up on stage, grandstanding about the pay gap, or whatever whine-de-jour is infesting their tiny frontal lobes.
How would “La La Land” be marketable if all the female actresses had decided to suspend their narcissm for a few hours, phone around all their frenemies – and let’s face it, none of these attention whores* are more than two degrees of separation away from everyone else in the Celebutard Community – and suggest that they should all stand in sisterly, feminist solidarity and refuse to take the role until they are offered a contract that they *do* like, in an effort to eliminate the kind-of-legitimate gender pay-gap in Hollywood.
It’s not like Judd Apatow is going to say “We wanted Emma Stone for the part of the feisty love interest for our new Rom-Com starring Ryan Reynolds, but couldn’t reach an agreement, so we have cast Seth Rogan in the role, and we value his commitment to the project”.
I understand that the series is done and done, but if Dakota Johnson had taken this stance for the “Fifty Shades of Gray” franchise, that the sisterhood would have been better served; not that I care, but I’m sure there would have been a market for the movie if they’d had to have cast a bloke in her role.
And really, the gist of Poor Snowflake Hermione’s schtick is that it’s bad to call women bossy. As noted above, a few months living in places where women aren’t ‘boss’ and suffer genuine and substantial inequality, might sober her up a bit. In her role as a UN Ambassador, I’m sure Qatar’s Ambassador to the UN could extend a welcome.
* ‘whore’ in a colloquial sense. I doubt that many of these ridiculous people have actually put on a pair of perspex platforms and a tight spandex skirt for anything other than a Daily Mail ‘candid’ photoshoot (well, at least, not more than about 10% of them. Tops)
Now Scarlette Johansen is doing it! An issue of Marie Claire at the newsagents has her half-wearing a blouse, and the magazine calls her a feminist!
And Mscreant Watson even dares to claim, “Feminism is about choice!”
Quite true- you can choose to be a feminazi, or a gender-traitor!
My comment at March 3, 2017 at 10:26 am speculated Emma might one day say something sensible.
It would appear she did once say something that is at least defensible:
Emma herself is now being accused of the usual gender-traitor offences by feminists – and of hypocrisy in this thread and elsewhere. (The unearthed quote will likely not diminish either accusation.)
For me, a more interesting part of the article I found the quote in is its later paragraph: “This highlights one of the issues with feminism, and progressivism in general: it’s contradictory and subjective. If obsessed feminists like Watson can’t keep “the rules” straight, then how the heck are men supposed to know what’s acceptable and what isn’t?”
Emma’s quote above is a thought that occurs also to me about this kind of stuff. Every society has its rules on what dress is acceptable and these evolve over time. A woman can choose to dress to the teasing limits of what a given society allows while having plenty of self-worth. Some can use free speech to call that feeling feminism, and others can use the same free speech to reply, “No, that is what feminism maybe once was – or said it was was, or could have been – but today, that word no longer means what you think it means. (Or they can reply as Emma did in 2014.)
What that combination cannot so easily coexist with is the world of micro-aggressions, hate speech laws and “you can’t say that”.