Emma Watson, who played Hermione in the Harry Potter movies, said some words at the UN on Saturday.
In her role as a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, the British actress andHarry Potter star gave an impassioned speech at UN headquarters Saturday, inviting men and boys to join the fight to end gender inequality:
“I want men to take up this mantle,” Watson urged. “So their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too.”
Right? All that “man up” shit? “Grow a pair”? “Try harder, ladies.” Is that actually fun for boys? Being bullied for showing any feeling other than bravado? Being taught contempt for half the people on earth? It’s bad for both genders.
Then, hours after Watson told the UN it’s a woman’s right to make choices about her body, someone created a website threatening the actress by name.
Online perpetrators have created a website called Emma You Are Next with a countdown clock ticking down to something happening in about 4 days.
While the message doesn’t say what happens when time is up, it was posted on 4chan, the same image-sharing site that leaked nude celebrity photos on Saturday, and earlier this month.
The words “Never Forget, The Biggest To Come Thus Far” appear on the page below a picture of Watson apparently wiping away a tear.
Because how dare she?
Watson hasn’t addressed the threat publicly. But after the first batch of photos was leaked, the actress expressed her outrage on Twitter, writing: “Even worse than seeing women’s privacy violated on social media is reading the accompanying comments that show such a lack of empathy.”
Not only a lack of empathy: an actual enjoyment of tormenting people…especially female people.
I have no room to complain. I have only been reading about this shit intensively for the last week or two. No one has treated me badly, not directly. No one has threatened me or accused me. Still, I am so tired of this kind of sexist and hateful shit. And I am tired of the other kinds of sexist and hateful and arrogant shit from Dawkins on down to the scrabblers and apologists at his feet. The viciousness that has swirled around is a serious over -reaction to completely rational commentaries about the bad behavior of a small group of men who have chosen to live in public – Dawkins, Harris, Nugent, etc and who have taken advantage of their loud public voices to utter/tweet ignorant incorrect sexist things in a sexist tone. Their behavior is ill mannered, arrogant and narcissistic. Did they never learn decent manners? Did they never learn to listen to others? To respectfully disagree? To take the time to avoid lazy argumentation and really think through their responses when others do not agree with them? To not focus on pissy details? Do they seriously have no interest in justice, not at any level? I am sick and tired of this behavior, and worse, mystified at it. Would they wish their daughters, sisters or mothers to be on the receiving end of the garbage they spew out?
Hats off to Ophelia and others who are more deeply involved and far more exposed to the crap. Thank you for persisting in the struggle for justice and equality. I thought we would be there by now. I had no idea how wrong I would be.
I have such a love-hate relationship with your blog.
I love it, because you write well and I think the things you write about are important. I hate it, because the stuff you write about tends to ruin my day, or at least my mood for an hour or two. But that just spins us back to love again, because the fact that you put yourself through this to write about important things is lovable. But then I hate what you seem to go through sometimes, with the hecklers and the haters and the like.
Sorry, I was in a car accident recently and I’m full of painkillers atm, so I can’t even tell if this comment is remotely intelligible or appropriate, or if I should just go back to lurking.
*lurks away*
I hope Rebecca and Emma Watson have a chance to get together and support each other.
Sisterhood Is Powerful!
It’s baffling to me. Watson’s speech — as awesome as it was — seemed to me to be utterly uncontroversial. It seemed to nod to everything that the C.H. Sommerses of the world claim to want: well, we’re not sure about the word feminism, and what about the menz.
But of course, that was all just bullshit cover. How dare this woman speak up for equality?
It was uncontroversial…except the part where she’s clearly trying to associate the label “feminist” with people who don’t hate men. That’s unforgivable right there.
I’ve always had a lot of issues trying to thread through the paradoxes of masculinity myself, and felt very uncomfortable in highly masculine spaces (like gym class) as a kid. The problem is that the point you make above is more theory than practice among a lot of feminists. That is, most feminists will acknowledge it in the broad, general sense, but try to actually talk about the specifics of it within feminist spaces, and you’re going to most likely be met with accusations of derailing and “Oh noez, what about the menz?” (The latter phrase I’ve grown to truly loathe.)
I think that “Not all men” is actually a legitimate and even necessary thing to say if we’re going to make any progress on gender. It’s essential that we talk about masculinity in ways that acknowledge that men aren’t a monolith defined by the MRAs and other misogynists, while still having our own issues.
Chris, I kind of do sympathize. However, many feminist spaces were built by and for women. In dealing with masculinity issues, there is nothing stopping men from creating their own spaces to talk about this stuff and its impact on you. Certainly there’s a place for discussions on it which include all genders, too. But consciousness raising groups aren’t just for 1960s first wave housewives. Why not try and get men together to talk and learn about masculinity focused issues, rather than take it to your local feminists?
She’s damned right that misogyny is bad for men. As you said a culture of bravado stops men from showing feelings, but there not just that. What strikes me most about opposition to feminism is the common presumption that there’s some sort of zero-sum game going on. As a white, straight guy, I can be anti-racist and no-one thinks I’m biting the hand that feeds me; no one thinks that by giving equality to other races, whites somehow gave something up. Similarly I can be pro-gay rights without much comment. If I say anything positive about feminism however, a lot of people simply don’t understand. I’ve had shocked reactions if I say my favourite author is Margaret Atwood, I’m usually asked ‘doesn’t the feminism bother you?’ As if the Republic of Giliad in the Handmaid’s tale is some sort of paradise for men.
If the intellectual accomplishments and capabilities of half the human race are disregarded, my world is culturally and morally impoverished. Come to think of it, it’s also economically impoverished. When women are told they must cover up to prevent rape, not only are they being denigrated, so are men, I do not like being told I’m some kind of uncontrollable lust-monster, who must be screened from viewing other human beings. If occupations and activities are designated ‘women’s work’ my options in life are restricted too. I always put it this way, would I rather believe that my girlfriend decided to go out with me because as a woman she simply had to have a man or she would be incomplete and basically worthless; or would I rather know that she chose me because I am a good person who she wants to be around? The former view is an insult to both of us, the later an insult to no-one.
The battle for racial equality is not a zero-sum game, the battle for LGBT rights is not a zero sum game and the battle for women’s rights sure as hell isn’t a zero sum game.
Chris Hall @ 6
What do you suppose feminist spaces are for, Chris? Do you suppose they might be for talking about issues that affect women in particular? Maybe? Do you think maybe that has something to do with it?
If you can agree with that, then maybe you can begin to see why some people might react with annoyance when you saunter in and go “but I wanna talk about man problems!” Maybe it shouldn’t be such a surprise. Maybe, if you’re so tired of hearing “Oh noez, what about the menz?”, you should consider not trying to force feminists in feminist spaces to talk about problems affecting men.
Exactly the same way you probably wouldn’t register at a Spiderman fan site and lament that they don’t talk about Superman enough. Or how you probably wouldn’t register at a Boston Red Sox fan site and wonder why they don’t seem very interested in extolling the virtues of the New York Yankees. It probably has something to do with the fact that the participants there frequent that space because they want to talk about certain topics and you’re derailing their conversations. Could that maybe have something to do with it? Possibly? Could it be that the reason they accuse you of derailing is because you are? Surely not.
whiskeyjack @ 2 – it’s entirely intelligible and appropriate. Thank you. Sorry about the car accident and the pain that needs killers!
xyz @7:
This is kind of a standard reply, and I don’t think it holds up. For one thing, it assumes that if we’re talking about men, we’re not talking about women. It frames the entire discussion of gender as a zero-sum game. In fact, the reason that I’ve spent so much time reading feminism, and looking to feminists for ethical inspiration, is not only from wanting justice for others, but figuring out ways to deal with my own issues. The MRAs are not my friends. They’re the same guys who beat and bullied me as a kid, and they transparently loathe men like me.
As I say, I particularly object to the blithe dismissal of discussions of masculinity through catch-phrases like “Oh, noez, what about the menz?” which parallels the mockery that MRAs direct at “beta males” or “white knights.” Essentially, it’s an assumption that merely bringing up the issue is an insincere whiner. It draws on a long tradition of characterizing emotional men as weak or manipulative.
The part that always bugs me is this:
This strikes me as a very, very, very, very, VERY BAD IDEA. The fact is that if you’re a cisgendered man — and especially if you’re a cisgendered hetero man (for the record, I’m bi, although favoring women and feminine people) — the problem is not that you need to learn how to talk to other men. They need to learn to sit down and talk to (and listen to) people of other genders. One of the most toxic staples of traditional masculinity is that it innately defines non-male genders as “other,” and recommending that men go off by themselves provides a structural reinforcement of that. In fact, the men’s rights movement started in part with men who had progressive, even feminist, intentions. Even those men’s movements which don’t make misogyny their raison d’etre have a tendency to incorporate essentialist conceptions of gender. For example, the mythopoetic men’s movement fronted by Robert Bly in the 1990s. Bly was a long-standing lefty type, an anti-war activist, and yet, his movement was rife with thinly-disguised misogyny and essentialism. For instance, he characterized young men who weren’t mentored by older men as “soft,” and lacking in some kind of inner fire.
When is hate speech finally going to be recognized as hate speech? (Oh. Right. When women are understood to be human. … I shall watch our future progress with considerable interest.)
Chris @6: yes to xyz’s comment. And if you feel some female analysis would help, then invite feminists to your group. As for participating in established feminist-spaces-for-women, there are some that are okay with male participants. My favorite, IBlameThePatriarchy, used to be. But when you’re there, talk about the women’s point of view. It’s not about you in that case.
I also wanted to comment on the damage stupid gender stereotypes cause to men. I know a guy who fell headlong for that crap, probably in pre-conscious toddlerhood. Children, even babies, are amazingly aware of social power. Anyway, he decided early on that eating any fruits or vegetables was sissy. (His mother wanted him to do that.) He played only rough games. As a young man he became a black belt and smashed boards and bricks. Studying was sissy. Etc., etc., etc. He’s in his 60s now. Two divorces and so many regrets he can’t sleep without elephant tranquilizers. A string of minimum wage jobs and then on to disability in his 40s because his knees and wrists gave out. He can barely walk now. Plus cancer and liver disease because of his appalling all-meat and soda diet. Does he, at this point, realize the BS interconnecting all his many problems? Of course not.
Addendum: Maybe a better way of expressing what I’m trying to say is “feminist conversations,” instead of “spaces.” I don’t want to sound like I’m demanding the right to barge into every private group and impose my own personal agenda on it. But I would like to see the broader discussion around gender adopt a less binary approach.
Re: my previous comment, when I said no-one questions my anti-racism or pro-LGBT rights I meant no-one I know, or at least if they do they don’t tell me.Racism and homophobia are of course very much alive and kicking sadly,though they have, in the UK,at least been marginalized in polite society in a way that sexism has not
@ Chris Hall
You’re going to need to provide citations about “what about teh menz” being used to be dismissive of someone bringing up the subject in good faith. If you were to, for example, go to Pharyngula’s Thunderdome thread and make a post discussing the ways men are harmed by cultural biases, you’d find plenty of people perfectly willing to have that conversation as long as you weren’t framing it as “boo fucking hoo why don’t feminists talk about this more?” On the other hand, if there was a thread specifically about female genital mutilation and you entered and wanted to talk about circumcision, you’d find yourself less welcome.
And that’s completely reasonable because circumcision, though obviously related, is not the same issue and is nowhere near an equivalent problem. And even if it was an equivalent problem, there’s nothing at all wrong with women wanting to discuss an issue from their own perspective without some man barging in and forcing the conversation around to his own point of view.
And lots of women, especially the ones you find in feminist spaces, will find that really, really obnoxious. Because it’s the story of our entire fucking lives. No matter what we do, where we go, men dominate conversations both in terms of how much they talk and in terms of bending the conversation back around to their own point of view. So women try to carve out a little corner of the internet where they can talk about things from their own perspective and what happens? Men show up and do the same damn thing.
So ya know what? Even if you do get blithely dismissed sometimes? It’s a perfectly understandable reaction and probably not one you’re going to catch many people feeling very guilty about.
Chris, I disagree.
Sure, it is an essential part of feminist education for men to learn to decenter your own perceptions and listen more to women. There are feminists who spend a lot of time doing this kind of conversation with men (@ feministajones for example).
BUT, when it comes to men’s experiences with patriarchy, y’all have the right and the need for your own internal conversations too. This is for two reasons:
– parts of our individual journeys will always be selfish navel gazing and that is okay, but it’s not something everyone else needs to hear
– women, traditionally, are expected to do most of the emotional and intellectual work around relationships and gender issues. If men only join into feminist conversations and seek inclusion into feminism, this will be a hard dynamic to deconstruct.
female people… female people… female people…
I think I see the problem here (for the dudebros). They haven’t managed to add one and one yet….
Right there with ya. [another mostly-lurker]
Interesting point. Has the word feminism itself become so tainted and emotion-laden (fairly or not) that it would be helpful to come up with another term? It’s stupid to have to play semantic games, but look at how much success the LGBT movement had simply by reframing the debate from “gay marriage” to “marriage equality.”
Yeah, sadly I know and am even related to far too many people that do. But I agree the anti-feminists are far more numerous, far more vocal, and far more socially accepted.
Plenty such places exist. But even discounting the worst of the MRAs…they’re pretty damn awful! So many men I know don’t even have the vocabulary to begin that discussion honestly. I’m not saying we need feminist help, and I certainly don’t want to imply that it’s your (or anyone’s) responsibility to help. But feminists are decades ahead of “us” in figuring out how to talk about this stuff – witness we don’t even have a word for men-against-testosterone-poisoning – and quite frankly we can use all the help we can get.
That totally makes sense, and sadly I think it’s something we cis-men may have to be reminded of more than once.
Let me say that Chris Hall is right. Another voice of personal experience to back what he says.
The conversation about the abuse which gender identity enforcement does to men has to happen in public in a mixed-gender space. Separatist spaces are not helpful for men; it’s been tried and it’s a disaster. Maybe they’ve been helpful for women; I have my doubts, since I don’t see much evidence of it, at least not post-1980. They haven’t been helpful for men. (Or children.)
I could go through a large swath of feminist kyriarchy theory explaining exactly why — it’s actually pretty basic stuff — but the “get your own spaces” types haven’t paid enough attention, or done enough listening, to understand the issue. Consciousness-raising groups have to be done amongst a uniformly oppressed group, *without the oppressor*, and there’s no easy, lazy filter (like gender or color) to keep out the men who are oppressing gender-non-conformist men.
We might be able to form a (mixed-gender!) “gender role outlaws” group… this has been very hard to get people to join due to sheer fear of violence. May be easier now that gay rights are common.
To be very fair, there are a number feminist authors who have seriously raised these issues: For example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-parenting/post/why-its-good-to-let-boys-cry/2012/05/24/gJQAx1TAnU_blog.html
But the conversation remains suppressed. And this is insanely important. And yes, it’s important for women too. Are you wondering why we still have generations of sexist adult men? Yeah, it’s those “masculine issues” which some would rather ignore. bell hooks understands it, and I’ve encountered plenty of serious feminists who understand it, both male and female, and there’s a large number of such on this very website, but as Chris Hall says,…
“That is, most feminists will acknowledge it in the broad, general sense, but try to actually talk about the specifics of it within feminist spaces, and you’re going to most likely be met with accusations of derailing and “Oh noez, what about the menz?” (The latter phrase I’ve grown to truly loathe.)”
These people are not feminists, they’re fakers. And I’ve run into far too many of them too.
To the fakers with the bad attitude: Masculinity enforcement is *why you have so many sexist pigs around*, guys. These issues matter. Not just to males, who get targeted directly, but to females, who get targeted *indirectly*, because men who don’t comply with the “masculine code” get targeted, and the “masculine code” requires sexist behavior in many many ways. In short, your allies are being targeted, and you’re blowing them off. Show some solidarity, dammit.
There’s actually a good discussion on Ally Fogg’s blog:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/09/23/the-five-little-words-that-betrayed-emma-watson/
Some people think the damage caused by gender enforcement to women is inherently “bigger” than the damage caused by gender enforcement to men. They are *wrong*. They are wrong because gender enforcement applied against men is an attempt to make men into abusers, quite bluntly. And it’s often successful. It’s the factory for patriarchy, the factory which replicates the cycle of suffering. You have to fix it in order to fix anything.