Emma Watson on Feminism

This thread is becoming a train wreck :lol:

I applaud the guys in here who aren't just sticking to their preconceptions of feminism or what the image of feminism portrays but are actually approaching this with an open mind.

The ones who aren't willing to be open with the idea possibly never will be, and thats their choice.
 
Pretty good speech I think. It's an issue I choose not to involve myself in at all because the waters tend to get muddied by the demonisation of "heterosexual white male privilege" and stuff, which makes me quite uncomfortable for obvious reasons. That's addressed in her speech which is nice to see. That's not me saying that I think men are oppressed of course!
 
It seems odd to me that for the most part if you look at western society the gender which has most contact with and most influence over the attitudes of children spends so much of its time blaming the gender which spends least time and has least impact on the attitudes of children for their outlook.
 
Ah ok, so you're ignoring the actual content and instead choosing to take a stance against your own preconceived notion of what feminism stands for.

Glad we resolved that early on, I'll waste no more time.

Ah, the male archetype invites to debate in the usual confronting manner!

For the record, feminism by definition is: “The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”


Etymologically the word means "women first". And the movement of today as a whole does little to dispel that impression.

When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.

When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.”

When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings.


Typical feminist talking points. Some of them are issues, but they are not really related to feminism. The press is out to make money, and as such can't help to exploit the draw of young women. Blame God is suppose for making them attractive. Or blame the media for being corporate whores. When I was 15 I dropped out of football because it wasn't considered cool anymore. Growing up there were all kinds of silly pressure to be "manly". Petty crimes, silly stunts, getting drunk, getting laid, having pubic hair early, winning a fight, being picked for the football team etc. etc. And you may say it shouldn't be like that, perhaps, but good luck trying to change teenage hormones and the male need to be rebellious and tough. While being pressures, most men will admit to being proud of going through most of the things I've listed. It's who we are. Men aren't just "unable" to express their feelings at 18. They usually are at 40 as well. That's why you have the social pressure, because that's what most people consider natural and ideal. There's not some conspiracy behind men and women wanting different things, they are deeply embedded biological needs.

I want men to take up this mantle. 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—reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned and in doing so be a more true and complete version of themselves.

Men aren't allowed to be vulnerable and human. Alrighty then, if you say so. Even going so far as to suggest men have abandoned their humanity because they aren't what Emma Watson wants them to be.

Because the reality is that if we do nothing it will take 75 years, or for me to be nearly a hundred before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work. 15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children. And at current rates it won’t be until 2086 before all rural African girls will be able to receive a secondary education.

Yes, the old we don't get paid the same, which simply isn't true. If there is a rate they are equal, and if the salary is negotiable it comes down to your skills in that. Next we have issues which are totally unrelated to the West. Not saying they don't matter, but you can't just lump so different worlds together.

I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body.

You do.

I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country.


You have.

I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men.


How are you not?

But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.

Living in one.

No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality.

And let's hope they never will, cause that would take some serious Orwellian effort considering no one person is equal. Don't confuse equal rights with equality. The Universe is staggeringly unequal.
 
Lothar said:
Etymologically the word means "women first". And the movement of today as a whole does little to dispel that impression.

The term was coined when women were not allowed to vote and were considered barely more than a man's possession. According to Oxford dictionaries, the word means the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of sexes. As a feminist and the boyfriend to a person who works as a women's right activist, this is the very cause that the feminist movement is working for. Nothing less, nothing more.

If we discredit a whole human right's movement on the basis of prejudices and a few extremists who appear in the media, there will be few movements left. What do you think was said about the black power movements in the USA and South Africa, before they gained mainstream support? The movement was considered radical, extreme and anti-white. While certain destructive elements existed in the movement, the movement as a whole is responsible for making the world a significantly better place.

I suggest you go to one of the major feminist organisations and ask what they do, how they work and about the values they have. You will be positively surprised.

Lothar said:
Typical feminist talking points. Some of them are issues, but they are not really related to feminism. The press is out to make money, and as such can't help to exploit the draw of young women. Blame God is suppose for making them attractive. Or blame the media for being corporate whores. When I was 15 I dropped out of football because it wasn't considered cool anymore. Growing up there were all kinds of silly pressure to be "manly". Petty crimes, silly stunts, getting drunk, getting laid, having pubic hair early, winning a fight, being picked for the football team etc. etc. And you may say it shouldn't be like that, perhaps, but good luck trying to change teenage hormones and the male need to be rebellious and tough. While being pressures, most men will admit to being proud of going through most of the things I've listed. It's who we are. Men aren't just "unable" to express their feelings at 18. They usually are at 40 as well. That's why you have the social pressure, because that's what most people consider natural and ideal. There's not some conspiracy behind men and women wanting different things, they are deeply embedded biological needs.

Typically patronising tone towards someone who is sharing her perspective on the struggles she has faced. All companies can be blamed for immoral behaviour, and they usually are. Just as the press cannot get away with racism or libel, despite the hunger for money, they should not get away with sexualising 14-year olds. Media, music, film and literature clearly has a role in forming the ideals of young people.

I suggest you watch a couple of Disney films or a random HBO series. Observe how the women and men are depicted differently. I'm not sure biology is responsible for creating complex and brave male heroes and pretty and helpless female characters in popular culture. Feminism attempts to break up stereotypes and to create tolerance for non-gender typical behaviour. Macho stereotypes and the sexualising of women force men and women are destructive, both for the mental health of both genders but also for society as a whole. Football hooliganism and domestic violence are two results of this. Feminism is good for all.

Lothar said:
Men aren't allowed to be vulnerable and human. Alrighty then, if you say so. Even going so far as to suggest men have abandoned their humanity because they aren't what Emma Watson wants them to be.

This is quite a stupid response and I'm not sure it merits an answer. Do you think boys and men are allowed to express their feelings as much as women are? I personally grew up with the notion that men aren't allowed to cry. If you weren't - congratulations.

Lothar said:
Yes, the old we don't get paid the same, which simply isn't true. If there is a rate they are equal, and if the salary is negotiable it comes down to your skills in that. Next we have issues which are totally unrelated to the West. Not saying they don't matter, but you can't just lump so different worlds together.

"The gender pay gap has widened for the first time in five years, reversing a period of ''steady progress'' on closing the wage difference between men and women, new figures have shown.

The difference based on median hourly earnings for full-time workers increased from 9.5% last year to 10%, but for all employees, including part-timers, the figure rose from 19.6% to 19.7%, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

It was the first time the figures have increased since 2008, according to the ONS.

The TUC said its analysis of the data based on mean, or average, figures showed that the gender pay gap was 15.7%."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...ning-an-average-of-5000-less-reports-ONS.html

I suppose all men are born brilliant negotiators. Have you ever tried negotiating a 15.7% increase in wage? Feminism is also a global movement and relevant in every single country. Women's suffrage was introduced in Switzerland in 1971, after it was introduced in Iran. That's nearly half of their female population born as semi-citizens, in one of the richest Western countries. Why was it introduced? Feminism.

As for the rest:

Lothar said:
I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body.

You do.

In the UK. Thanks to feminism. And there's still people trying to remove that right.

Lothar said:
I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country.

You have.


In the UK. Thanks to feminism.

Lothar said:
I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men.

How are you not?

I'll ask my sister who was regularly sexually harassed by her boss in a progressive Western country. But here's some reading for you, regarding sexism in politics in Western countries:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...sex-scandal-sexism-is-rife-in-Parliament.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/18/wave-sexism-french-politics-backlash

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...als-her-murderous-rage-at-sexist-attacks.html

Or how about qualified journalists having to hear this by Laurent Blanc:

"Women talking football tactics, it’s so beautiful. I think it's fantastic. You know what 4-3-3 means - don't you?"

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blog...ents-mocking-female-journalist-114628658.html

You don't see a problem here? We wouldn't tolerate such behaviour on the basis of religion or skin colour, would we?

Lothar said:
No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality.

And let's hope they never will, cause that would take some serious Orwellian effort considering no one person is equal. Don't confuse equal rights with equality. The Universe is staggeringly unequal.

I hope your last sentence is meant to be a joke.
 
Last edited:
The term was coined when women were not allowed to vote and were considered barely more than a man's possession. According to Oxford dictionaries, the word means the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of sexes. As a feminist and the boyfriend to a person who works as a women's right activist, this is the very cause that the feminist movement is working for. Nothing less, nothing more.

If we discredit a whole human right's movement on the basis of prejudices and a few extremists who appear in the media, there will be few movements left. What do you think was said about the black power movements in the USA and South Africa, before they gained mainstream support? The movement was considered radical, extreme and anti-white. While certain destructive elements existed in the movement, the movement as a whole is responsible for making the world a significantly better place.

I suggest you go to one of the major feminist organisations and ask what they do, how they work and about the values they have. You will be positively surprised.


Women have never been considered a mere possession in the west. The church did its best to cull female empowerment for a while, but women have always had a respected position in western society since the days of Arminius. It's one of the reasons we were called barbarians by the Romans, because you could sometimes see females on the battle field. Oxford can redefine the meaning all they want, it doesn't change the direct meaning which is "feminis" meaning of the female, and "ism" which pretty much means pro. Nothing equal about that. And actual practice of the movement confirms this view. Women get preferential treatment in education, the courts (de facto and de jure), government and on the job market. Some by law, some by media support. To suggest that women in general are disadvantaged in comparison to men in the modern west is an argument without much basis. There are major pros and cons for both sides, the difference being men don't have some of them anchored in law, with calls for more to come.

The black power movement was racist then as it is now. Try and take a walk through the ghettos and see how much better the world has become. Blacks in some ways had it better under segregation and slavery, and that's not a cry for a return to those things, but a reflection of how bad it has become today. Yeah, a few crafty individuals can manage to get themselves up and about, but that was true even for hardcore slavery. It's one step forward and two back.

I have no doubt there are many positive organizations, but currently I'm not seeing them get the lions share of coverage. The stuff I see in the papers daily is pretty whacked.

Typically patronising tone towards someone who is sharing her perspective on the struggles she has faced. All companies can be blamed for immoral behaviour, and they usually are. Just as the press cannot get away with racism or libel, despite the hunger for money, they should not get away with sexualising 14-year olds. Media, music, film and literature clearly has a role in forming the ideals of young people.

I suggest you watch a couple of Disney films or a random HBO series. Observe how the women and men are depicted differently. I'm not sure biology is responsible for creating complex and brave male heroes and pretty and helpless female characters in popular culture. Feminism attempts to break up stereotypes and to create tolerance for non-gender typical behaviour. Macho stereotypes and the sexualising of women force men and women are destructive, both for the mental health of both genders but also for society as a whole. Football hooliganism and domestic violence are two results of this. Feminism is good for all.


Fine, give them a good mauling if they engage in improper reporting, but that has got nothing to do with equality. Some paper running a paparazzi piece is not exactly what I would call infringing on anyone's rights. Privacy and indecency (nudity) could be issues of course, but that's something else entirely and we have laws in place to deal with it. You think Cliff Richards enjoys being called a pedo in the press based on an arrest? Unethical behavior happens everywhere.

Of course they are depicted differently. Men and women are different. I'm pretty sure testosterone is a big contributor in male heroism. The pretty and helpless female character has been defunct in serious film making since the late 70s. Since then we have mostly been getting empowering or neutral depictions. Most of the films we call classics have strong characters. I don't see the problem either in depicting the sexes in somewhat stereotypical ways. Art imitates life, and many will spot what they consider a stereo type and express it. For whatever reason. I don't see how you avoid this without censoring the media, or why it should be such a big problem. Hooliganism and domestic violence as a correlation is quite a stretch. Assholes won't stop beating up people just because society doesn't approve of it. That's more or less why we call them assholes. Hooligans? Those guy's love what they are doing. Doubt gender pressure had much to do with it, or most of us would be out banging heads with them. They are men with anger issues. Women aren't exactly absent from these statistics either. They are for example more likely to abuse and kill their kids. In my opinion, for the last 20-30 years feminism have mostly created division and confusion among the sexes. Sky high divorce and abortion rates. Increased disorders in children. An unfair legal system. A decrease in marriages and births.

This is quite a stupid response and I'm not sure it merits an answer. Do you think boys and men are allowed to express their feelings as much as women are? I personally grew up with the notion that men aren't allowed to cry. If you weren't - congratulations.

No, not as much. But so what? Have you ever considered it stems from innate needs to express yourself? Women are biologically more emotional disposed than men, a perfectly natural explanation for the difference in mode of expression. What Emma Watson basically is saying is that because boys didn't meet her standards for vulnerability they were lacking a part of their humanity. Did she ask them this to confirm? And why is she the bench mark? What if she is the one who is acting irrational due to gender programming? Or maybe women are just more expressive and sensitive than men. We all pretty much know this as we engage with each other every day. To suggest it is all programming is quite the affront to our free will.

"The gender pay gap has widened for the first time in five years, reversing a period of ''steady progress'' on closing the wage difference between men and women, new figures have shown.

I suppose all men are born brilliant negotiators. Have you ever tried negotiating a 15.7% increase in wage? Feminism is also a global movement and relevant in every single country. Women's suffrage was introduced in Switzerland in 1971, after it was introduced in Iran. That's nearly half of their female population born as semi-citizens, in one of the richest Western countries. Why was it introduced? Feminism.


Not all, but studies suggest they are better at it than women, due to their aggressive nature. It's an open market, you get paid what you are worth. Just because there's a gap doesn't mean there is a problem. The increasing gap in wealth between rich and poor however, that's a problem.

And that is why I don't have much issue with feminism before the 70s or there about. Back then they actual had some valid grounds for claims of inequality.

In the UK. Thanks to feminism. And there's still people trying to remove that right.


So what if there are people trying to remove it? It's a free country.

In the UK. Thanks to feminism.

And in a bunch of other countries. So these all become moot points from Emma since they already exist.

I'll ask my sister who was regularly sexually harassed by her boss in a progressive Western country. But here's some reading for you, regarding sexism in politics in Western countries:


Or how about qualified journalists having to hear this by Laurent Blanc:

"Women talking football tactics, it’s so beautiful. I think it's fantastic. You know what 4-3-3 means - don't you?"


Never had a crappy boss have you? Never had an obnoxious teacher or colleague?

I don't see how Laurent Blanc making an ass of himself is infringing on anyone's rights.

You don't see a problem here? We wouldn't tolerate such behaviour on the basis of religion or skin colour, would we?

Nope. I believe in free speech. Nor would I have much problem with someone making a bad taste religious or skin color joke. It's their right to say it, and it's the media's right to show it. If you say something stupid you generally get to hear about it. Don't remember Blanc being paraded around for his keen observations exactly.

I hope your last sentence is meant to be a joke.

I don't think you know what the definition of equal is. It's pretty much a term reserved for mathematics, since real life carries too many variables to make a definite estimate. All you can do is open the way for equal opportunity. That doesn't mean the sexes will become equal, it just means they become free to do what they want within their natural born limits. Some become doctors others become buss drivers. Just the way it is. I certainly wouldn't want for someone to tell me what the "right" career choices are. Some are happy just to hold a decent job, not become a hot shot.
 
Can you guys stop doing stupid formatting to quote each other and actually quote separate bits so I can see who said what.

This.
 
Back to the world of sanity for a moment...

What's the point in arguing about the definition of the term 'feminist' as if it truly is definitive? As a comparison, just look at how 'socialist' is perceived (often negatively) these days; the original terms have been superceded by public perception and bias.
 
Blacks in some ways had it better under segregation and slavery, and that's not a cry for a return to those things, but a reflection of how bad it has become today. Yeah, a few crafty individuals can manage to get themselves up and about, but that was true even for hardcore slavery.

shocked-will-smith.gif
 
@Lothar

Alright, women have always been treated well in the West, get preferential treatment in courts, government and the job market, and blacks had it better under slavery. And feminist organisations are the wackos.

Can you guys stop doing stupid formatting to quote each other and actually quote separate bits so I can see who said what.

Also. :lol:

Fixed.
 
Last edited:
Yes I did a double take too but he raises some interesting counterpoints. I think the point he was trying to make was that a regular black kid born during slavery might have it better than a regular black kid born in ghettos right now. That's too subjective and unfalsifiable a claim though and my natural instinct would be that you dont know enough about how black people were treated back then.

I also just want to add that Emma Watson wasn't just speaking about white women. Her message was to wider audience but she chose to speak in a slightly personal way and with personal reflections thrown in so even if some of her examples are feeble lets give her a break and try to take the speech as a whole and not pick apart sentences out of context.
 
Yes I did a double take too but he raises some interesting counterpoints. I think the point he was trying to make was that a regular black kid born during slavery might have it better than a regular black kid born in ghettos right now. That's too subjective and unfalsifiable a claim though and my natural instinct would be that you dont know enough about how black people were treated back then.

I also just want to add that Emma Watson wasn't just speaking about white women. Her message was to wider audience but she chose to speak in a slightly personal way and with personal reflections thrown in so even if some of her examples are feeble lets give her a break and try to take the speech as a whole and not pick apart sentences out of context.

That is my conclusion as well. That comment came straight out of Uncle Ruckus' (of Boondocks fame) book.
 
Can somebody please tell me from which page the fun part starts? I read first page which was pretty much meh.
@Rooney in Dublin said this thread is fun
 
Right. Do you also believe that women who remain in relationships where domestic violence occurs simply choose to remain and therefore, should blame themselves? What about rape victims?

Bro, this is 2014, not 1920. Women can vote, choose to work if they want to, choose if/when/who they get into relationships with and when they have kids with. So yes, unless the guy has gone all Josef Fritzel on her, the woman is choosing to be in a relationship with domestic violence.

Also what the hell do rape victims have to do with any of this?
 
I also just want to add that Emma Watson wasn't just speaking about white women. Her message was to wider audience but she chose to speak in a slightly personal way and with personal reflections thrown in so even if some of her examples are feeble lets give her a break and try to take the speech as a whole and not pick apart sentences out of context.

Nearly everyone speaks like this when addressing big issues. Drawing parallels with your/closer experiences is a well entrenched tactic of speech and debate. She even specifically went out of her way to point out how priviledged and lucky she was and how she wasn't just speaking on behalf of herself. So I'd say it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that anyone picking on these sentences hasn't read the article.
 
Emma Watson has the wrong idea about feminism

By Andrea Peyser

September 29, 2014 | 3:34am



Sorry to disappoint you, Emma Watson. But I am not a feminist.

Oh, I believe gals should be paid the same as guys for doing the same work. I also believe that at the end of a long work day, a lady deserves to have her feet rubbed by a hot man. (Or woman.)

But I believe women should enjoy equal rights as men while — and this is critical — bearing equal responsibilities. Watson apparently does not.

Speaking in an adorable English accent, the actress who played Hermione Granger in the “Harry Potter” movies pushed feminism in a speech she gave at the UN Sept. 20. “Powerful,” raved People magazine. “Game-changing,” gushed Vanity Fair.

Watson said she believes women should have “equal rights and opportunities.” Not “responsibilities.” Did she misspeak? I don’t think so.

There are things about which I disagree, vehemently, with modern Western feminists, whose ranks Watson publicly joined at the UN while asking us all to come into the club. For one, I don’t believe females should be handed opportunities — or foot rubs — without demonstrating their willingness to shoulder responsibilities equal to those undertaken by males of the species.

No free rides for females.

In her 13-minute chat, Watson, 24, championed the HeForShe initiative, a campaign that attempts to enlist men in the fight for women’s rights. She issued a few rich, white lady gripes.

Watson moaned that she was called “bossy” at age 8 and was sexualized by “certain elements of the media” at 14. At 15, her girlfriends started dropping out of sports because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.” Not exactly oppression.

She was at her best when she spoke like a booster for men’s rights.

“And, the more I spoke about feminism, the more I realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating,’’ she said.

She gave a shout-out to her dad. “I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society, despite my need of his presence as a child as much as my mother’s.” In the UK, she said, suicide is the biggest killer of men 20 to 49. “I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes success.”

Today in the US, as well as much of the rest of the Western world, including Watson’s Britain, women are already treated equally to men under the law. And yet, the women’s movement, led in this country by the leftists of the National Organization for Women, deals in the notion that females are, by definition, victims of the wicked patriarchy. Rubbish.

We’ve been told for years that American women make less money — 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. The bogus number, from the Committee on Pay Equity, got President Obama to call on Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would bring a new layer of bureaucracy. (It hasn’t passed.)

In truth, the 77 cents statistic compares the median salaries of all workers. If you compare, say, female teachers with male teachers, or if you factor in the women who chose to jump off the fast lane to raise families, the pay gap vanishes. In fact, the median income of young, single, childless, urban women is higher — sometimes much higher — than that of men, according to a study by Reach Advisors, a Boston market-research firm. Yet I’ve heard of no initiatives to erase this anti-male injustice.

Another myth pushed by feminists is that large numbers of men are budding sexual predators. The Obama administration announced this year that nearly one in five female students at US colleges are victims of sexual assault each year. This month, Obama vowed to combat campus “rape culture” with the It’s on Us campaign. He called on young men “to help shut stuff down” when a woman can’t or doesn’t consent to sex.

But the alarming stat was gleaned partly from a 2007 online survey in which some women at two universities compared things such as consensual drunken hookups to forced sex, said Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar of the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

Watson, who clearly means well, blew it. She ingratiated herself to leaders of countries, from Iran to Sudan, where women are stoned to death for being raped, and female genital mutilation is commonplace.

She said she’s grateful for being paid as well as male movie stars. And “I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body,” she added, “but sadly, I can say there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to see these rights.”

Seriously?

Watson’s earnest efforts propelled a user of the website 4chan to threaten to leak nude photos of her. But that appeared to be a cruel hoax.

Emma Watson is harmless.

But she’ll never get me to declare myself a feminist.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/29/emma-watson-has-the-wrong-idea-about-feminism/
 
Yes I did a double take too but he raises some interesting counterpoints. I think the point he was trying to make was that a regular black kid born during slavery might have it better than a regular black kid born in ghettos right now. That's too subjective and unfalsifiable a claim though and my natural instinct would be that you dont know enough about how black people were treated back then.

I also just want to add that Emma Watson wasn't just speaking about white women. Her message was to wider audience but she chose to speak in a slightly personal way and with personal reflections thrown in so even if some of her examples are feeble lets give her a break and try to take the speech as a whole and not pick apart sentences out of context.

Which is why I said in some ways. Black folks during slavery and before segregation ended, in general lead lives of less violence, crime, better health and safer communities. Yes, they still had major cons such as being slaves or not having the same rights, but where they were once chastised by a white man they are now at war with other black folks in the drug infested ghettos. Where once they got punished for offending the master, they now get sent to jail for a bag of pot. Where they once received no education at all, they now receive the most shitty education possible in poor, run down schools when more affluent people get sent to private school. Some things have definitely become better, but I think it's a bit unfair to call their situation a success just because they are free and equal. As I said, if you were crafty you could get yourself into a decent position in life even during slavery, so it's not all black and white, no pun intended. I use this as an example of how "extremism" and "misguided activism" can have detrimental effects and are not just justified means for perceived end goals.

Apart from that tacking on at the end I felt she spelt a very inordinate time and focus on the western world. It doesn't quite look like water carrying women in Africa was the thing that inspired her (now that I could get behind).
 
I'm still a bit lost by the example. Equality didn't make everything better for blacks, so what's the point in doing it for women? Was that it?
 
Which is why I said in some ways. Black folks during slavery and before segregation ended, in general lead lives of less violence, crime, better health and safer communities. Yes, they still had major cons such as being slaves or not having the same rights, but where they were once chastised by a white man they are now at war with other black folks in the drug infested ghettos. Where once they got punished for offending the master, they now get sent to jail for a bag of pot. Where they once received no education at all, they now receive the most shitty education possible in poor, run down schools when more affluent people get sent to private school. Some things have definitely become better, but I think it's a bit unfair to call their situation a success just because they are free and equal. As I said, if you were crafty you could get yourself into a decent position in life even during slavery, so it's not all black and white, no pun intended. I use this as an example of how "extremism" and "misguided activism" can have detrimental effects and are not just justified means for perceived end goals.

Apart from that tacking on at the end I felt she spelt a very inordinate time and focus on the western world. It doesn't quite look like water carrying women in Africa was the thing that inspired her (now that I could get behind).

Disagree with almost everything except the last line, maybe.

"less violence, crime, better health and safer communities" - are never a pro when it involves loss of freedom or denial of basic rights. Such a choice should never even be considered in a 'just' society and it is even worse when the choice is 'made by the masters'. Not as if the slave had a say in this matter.

"Where once they got punished for offending the master, they now get sent to jail for a bag of pot." - boders on the ridiculous imho. Going to jail was a punsihment for a crime they willingly committed, a choice made by them not forced upon them. Not oberying a master is denial of basic rights as in treating some as better than others. Not even comparable.


From your posts, if you are angling that women being submissive to men, makes them more safe and so is a pro...you really need to start thinking again!
 
Which is why I said in some ways. Black folks during slavery and before segregation ended, in general lead lives of less violence, crime, better health and safer communities. Yes, they still had major cons such as being slaves or not having the same rights, but where they were once chastised by a white man they are now at war with other black folks in the drug infested ghettos. Where once they got punished for offending the master, they now get sent to jail for a bag of pot. Where they once received no education at all, they now receive the most shitty education possible in poor, run down schools when more affluent people get sent to private school. Some things have definitely become better, but I think it's a bit unfair to call their situation a success just because they are free and equal. As I said, if you were crafty you could get yourself into a decent position in life even during slavery, so it's not all black and white, no pun intended. I use this as an example of how "extremism" and "misguided activism" can have detrimental effects and are not just justified means for perceived end goals.

Apart from that tacking on at the end I felt she spelt a very inordinate time and focus on the western world. It doesn't quite look like water carrying women in Africa was the thing that inspired her (now that I could get behind).

None of the examples you've given show that things have gotten worse for black people because of the abolition of slavery. All 3 of those examples are far better than what the situation was in the time of slavery!

EDIT: And that's ignoring the ridiculous exaggeration you've used to suit your argument.
 
Disagree with almost everything except the last line, maybe.

"less violence, crime, better health and safer communities" - are never a pro when it involves loss of freedom or denial of basic rights. Such a choice should never even be considered in a 'just' society and it is even worse when the choice is 'made by the masters'. Not as if the slave had a say in this matter.

"Where once they got punished for offending the master, they now get sent to jail for a bag of pot." - boders on the ridiculous imho. Going to jail was a punsihment for a crime they willingly committed, a choice made by them not forced upon them. Not oberying a master is denial of basic rights as in treating some as better than others. Not even comparable.


From your posts, if you are angling that women being submissive to men, makes them more safe and so is a pro...you really need to start thinking again!

Of course they are pros on their own merit. Just as lack of freedom and rights are major cons. You could make the same argument for more freedom but worse living conditions. How is that automatically better? You can't raise kids on mere freedom. And we are currently throwing people in jail for years for stuff like pot, how's that for a just society?

Call it what you like, currently black men in America have a staggering 1/3 chance of going to jail. They have skyrocket rates for being exposed to drug culture and violence. Are we just going to ignore that and say, well at least they are free so it was worth it? We did a good job here?

You're out of your tree on that last statement. Everybody who disagree with parts of feminist policy is an archaic patriarch now? Some of you are even suggesting I support slavery (Stormfront wtf?). Just ridiculous.
 
Of course they are pros on their own merit. Just as lack of freedom and rights are major cons. You could make the same argument for more freedom but worse living conditions. How is that automatically better? You can't raise kids on mere freedom. And we are currently throwing people in jail for years for stuff like pot, how's that for a just society?

Call it what you like, currently black men in America have a staggering 1/3 chance of going to jail. They have skyrocket rates for being exposed to drug culture and violence. Are we just going to ignore that and say, well at least they are free so it was worth it

Better than a 1/1 chance of being born a slave.
 
I'm still a bit lost by the example. Equality didn't make everything better for blacks, so what's the point in doing it for women? Was that it?

It's about recognizing when things go wrong so you don't repeat it.
 
Emancipation went wrong?

No, the current state of society went wrong. Freedom and equal rights for all races, genders and creeds were all massive achievements. I'm talking about what happened later. How it turned into these civil wars among races and sexes.
 
I can't even begin to imagine the arrogance required to be some white guy from Norway who starts pontificating on whether black people in America were better off under slavery?

It is easily the most idiotic and offensive line of thought I think I've ever seen on here. Either lothar is so enamored with his own opinion that he thinks he knows better than actual black people living in these actual communities or he's an actual racist using the current iteration of Atwater approved language.

The only reasonable response is to tell him to feck off. Lothar, feck off.
 
I can't even begin to imagine the arrogance required to be some white guy from Norway who starts pontificating on whether black people in America were better off under slavery?

It is easily the most idiotic and offensive line of thought I think I've ever seen on here. Either lothar is so enamored with his own opinion that he thinks he knows better than actual black people living in these actual communities or he's an actual racist using the current iteration of Atwater approved language.

The only reasonable response is to tell him to feck off. Lothar, feck off.

It's no surprise you get easily offended when you are looking to get offended. I never said black people had it better overall under slavery.

You seem to be the type of guy who likes to label people who don't agree with you names. Not my problem to be fair. And if anything is Atwatarian it's stuff like that.