(via cowlover)Source: quotelounge
That was the most ignorant written speech I have ever heard/read in my life. You’d think that something more logical would come out of the same person who played Hermione.
Let me dissect this speech. (Bolded for my response)
“Today we are launching a campaign HeForShe. I am reaching out to you because we need your help. We must try to mobilize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for change. We don’t just want to talk about it. We want to try and make sure it’s tangible. I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women 6 months ago.”
If you’re new to the whole #HeForShe campaign, this makes a lot of sense. Why wouldn’t you want Men and Boys to help create Gender Equality? However, the term ‘tangible’ is slightly out of place here. A better word to use would have been ‘understanding’, as tangible references a real thing rather than an idea.
“The more I spoke about feminism, the more I realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain is that this has to stop. For the record, feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”
This is the part where we get into some parts of the gender ideology behind ‘feminism’. “Oh no, it’s not man-hating!” and I agree. It’s not man-hating, but the vast majority of feminists are man-hating. Not all. But most. Now, if Emma wanted that to stop, she’d have a difficult time trying to. You can’t change an extremists logic even if you tried. The rest of this paragraph, in general, is pretty modest. you can’t really argue with a dictionary definition, even if it does date back to the 1930s.
“When I was 8, I was called bossy because I wanted to direct a play for our parents. At 15, my girlfriends didn’t want to join sports teams because they didn’t want to appear masculine. At 18, my male friends were unable to express their feelings.”
These don’t sound like feminist issues. These sound to me like first world personal problems. I know several females who joined sports teams anyway, and men who can express their feelings. This section is just personal experiences that don’t usually happen.
“I decided that I was a feminist. This seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Women are choosing not to identify as feminists. Apparently, [women’s expression is] seen as too strong, too aggressive, anti-men, unattractive.”
And this is where the speech takes a turn for the worst. It’s not seen as such, it currently is such. It basically has become such. 3rd wave feminism has made this an unpopular word, because of the self-pushing ideals that [not all] feminists seem to push upon everyone, hence starting facebook pages such as ‘anti-feminazi’ and ‘women against feminism’ in protest. The unattractive part is an opinionated statement, as I’m sure many extremists have boyfriends that agree with their viewpoints, even if the idea itself is unattractive to the human mind.
“Why has the word become such an unpopular one? I think it is right I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decisions that affect my life. I think it is right that socially, I am afforded the same respect as men.”
Almost stopped reading here. 2/3 of these points have been debunked several times in the past 6 months alone. The wage gap has been debunked to be nonexistent already. Women are already given the same respect as men, but others might not think so because you treat others the way you want to be treated. If you treat others with disrespect, you only get disrespect back, and visa versa. that’s a major flaw in the whole respect category.
“But sadly, I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to see these rights. No country in the world can yet say that they achieved gender equality. These rights are considered to be human rights but I am one of the lucky ones.”
The very first line said here is already a load of bullshit. The wage gap is nonexistent, and in america that’s completely true. America is a country in which all women can see, technically, all three rights as Abortion is still legal, and women can currently do what they want with their bodies, get equal pay, and be respected by the root definition of respect.
a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
If you think females don’t get that then you are wrong.
”My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. These influences are the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today. They may not know it but they are the feminists needed in the world today. We need more of those.”
Most schools in america and Britain already do that though. Last time I checked, I haven’t heard of an All-male school in a country. China by default, but I have not heard of one. Parents don’t love you less no matter what unless they hold different values, or you turn out to be gay in a christian home, which is completely wrong. My parents didn’t want me dead because I was born a guy. My school didn’t limit me because I was a guy. That’s not feminism. That’s common sense.
“It is not the word that is important. It is the idea and the ambition behind it because not all women received the same rights I have. In fact, statistically, very few have.”
Unless you’re talking about third world countries, that statement is generally wrong. The only logical things that women are more likely to partake in is rape. and by ‘more likely to partake’ I do not mean they are more likely to agree to it, but more likely to be raped, due to some information floating around the presidential office. But Women have shorter jail times than men and are actually more likely to gain child custody. If anything, Women have a bit more rights than men, at least in America.
Now I’m going to skip this Hilary clinton paragraph because I haven’t heard her speech, and combine the next two paragraphs.
“Men, I would like to give this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue, too. To date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society. I’ve seen young men suffering from illness, unable to ask for help for fear it will make them less of a man. I’ve seen men fragile and insecure by what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either. We don’t want to talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive, women won’t be compelled to be submissive. If men don’t need to control, women won’t have to be controlled.”
The first few sentences sound good at first. She says that Men are having problems due to societal roles, and that’s somewhat true. This section mainly talks about gender stereotypes. However, she then goes on to say she can’t talk about the stereotypes of men but understands what they are, and that’s where the entire speech just falls. She just spent at least 3 minutes talking about Gender Equality for females, but she talks about Gender Equality for males for about what, 20 seconds, then states she can’t continue? What kind of argument actually does that? You point out a few gender stereotypes, but really that’s all you did. You didn’t address any actual concerns for males like, the rate of male suicide for army vets, or something actually noteworthy. Then she goes on to say that Men are controlling women indirectly.
"If men don’t have to be aggressive."
"If men don’t have to be controlling."
whereas earlier in the paragraph itself she states:
“I’ve seen men fragile and insecure by what constitutes male success.”
What exactly is your point, here, Emma? You just blantantly said that Not All Men are strong and tough, but then you generalize all men by stating if they weren’t aggressive and controlling, it’ll help women? HOW on EARTH does that make sense? You contradicted yourself right there in your speech.
“We can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom. I want men to take up this mantle so their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human, too and in doing so, be a more true and complete version of themselves.”
I can’t disagree with this statement because she points out exactly what is wrong with the movement itself. She wants everyone, every single gender identity or whatever, to be exactly who they are and be respected for their choices no matter what. She wants us all to be perfect. Unfortunately, we can’t all be perfect. In fact, there will be some people who actually won’t be able to live up to this standard of living, since Emma just set the bar so high.
“In my nervousness for this speech and my moment of doubt, I told myself: if not me, who? If not now, when? You have the opportunity here. If you believe in equality, I implore you: we must strive for a united world but the good news is we have a platform. It is called he for she. I invite you to step forward, to be seen and I ask yourself: if not me, who? If not now, when? Thank you.”
This is it. The final paragraph. They do have a platform, but unfortunately the platform is full of flaws and isn’t ideal for what is set out, unless, like I previously stated, you live in a 3rd world country. Half of these issues were personal, first world problems and the ideology is that everyone should be the absolute best they can be with with no flaws or drawbacks.
To this, I say to you, Miss Watson, although you may never read this, Is Thank you. Thank you for proving that Humanity may be full of flaws, with the right movement, you can blindly lead people into following a broken system.
My ask box is open, anonymous, and ready for any hate you have for me. I’ll answer any questions honestly.
Well I guess you are correct. A false equivalence is created in such a way that the deities are actually LESS sexualized than they were in the past, in order to equalize the amount of sexualization to today’s world.
I don’t see how the change of depiction of women in media over time has any relevance here, other than to show that smite is well within their bounds of the amount of sexualization they have, meaning, that there is no over-sexualization?
Also, using actual art from actual ancient cultures IS a primary source, in case you don’t know what a primary source is exactly. So there really isn’t any need for an expert. If you have a picture of a red apple, you don’t need an expert to tell you that the apple is red?
Or if I’m missing something here, feel free to point it out. I’m just trying to see this in a non-emotionally biased light.
The video presents a false equivalence between “sexual” and “sexualization”.
Sexual refers to sexual intercourse. So anything that is erotic in nature. Right?
Sexualization is when you make something sexual when it isn’t by default.
So to refer to your apple example. An apple by itself is not sexual. But if I cut the apple in half and point out how it looks something like, I don’t, a vagina, I am sexualizing it.
The human body nude is not sexual by default. Being nude is, by default, the default. There’s nothing inherently sexual about it. Even when you look at primary reproductive organs, aka the penis and vagina, they have uses that extend outside of sexual reproduction.
So when the video uses a primary resource, and they analyze it incorrectly, it doesn’t matter that it’s a primary resource if they don’t even understand it. There is nothing inherently sexual in dozens of representations of ancient deities globally. Having a naked statue of Zeus or Aphrodite doesn’t make those statues sexual. They’re just fucking naked. That’s it.
Like, they try to say a picture of Kali SLAUGHTERING someone is sexual like haha no. That’s immensely wrong even if you look into it for a good minute. On Google. Whoops. They don’t mention her pose, her appearance (other than her tits are kinda showing oooooo so raunchy), how she is centered in the picture itself (which is how attention is drawn a lot of the time, across the median of the picture), etc.
HiRez is using modern ways of sexualizing women to make their goddesses sexual by default. They draw attention to the breasts (which are not inherently sexual), hips (not inherently sexual), buttocks (whoops not inherently sexual), and miscellaneous other regions. They also add things that are sexual in modern day standards, like high heels (which used to be a male fashion trend), highly revealing clothing (which was not always the most sexy thing to wear in like thousands of different goddam cultures), and etc.
"GameTheory" doesn’t fucking analyze diddly-God-damn-squat. They did a poor ass job at their video and they didn’t cite ANYTHING or ANYONE credible, like, people who actually study the stuff they’re talking about.
Nothing HiRez does with their female characters is ANYWHERE less sexual than their depictions in the past. Period.
I don’t even care if you claim to try to see this in an “unbiased light.” That’s meaningless. If you literally cannot criticize something through the right lens in the right paradigm of thought then it’s utterly pointless to even try. Which is why that video is garbage.