#Heforshe campaign

[mkgal1]

From this article: Emma Watson: Being a feminist isn't the same as 'man-hating'

Emma Watson, the actress, has disclosed she became a feminist after being told she was too “bossy” for wanting to direct a play at the age of eight.

Saying being a “feminist” had initially seemed “uncomplicated” to her, she argued it is now considered “aggressive” and “anti-men” by too many people.

Watson, who has recently become the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, has now called on women and men alike to reclaim “feminism” for the benefit of all.

In her first major speech, made at the UN headquarters in New York, the actress launched the “HeForShe” campaign, to call on men to speak up for oppressed women everywhere.

“Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive. Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?”

She added: “I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating.

“If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.”

The campaign, HeForShe, is described as a “solidarity movement for gender equality that brings together one half of humanity in support of the other of humanity, for the entirety of humanity”.

Watson argued men were also suffering as a result of inequality, enduring mental illness but feeling unable to ask for help for fear of appearing “less macho”.

“Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive,” she said. “Both men and women should feel free to be strong.

“If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom.”

Agreed? And why *is* the word such an "uncomfortable" one?

 

[.chrys.]

I don't know much about the HeForShe campaign. But the word, "feminism" is such an uncomfortable word for many, and has been through the ages. And...I don't understand why, unless it is uncomfortable because feminisim seeks to equalize power between the sexes and this is seen as threatening to one of the sexes.

I am not a man-hater.
I am a feminist.

 

[Inkachu]

The word is uncomfortable because many people have misused it, and used it as an excuse to indeed, "man hate". So, unfortunately, those who believe in gender equality, and not "hating" one sex or the another, are left to try and piece back together the idea that we're all equal and this isn't a battle against each other.

I think the word can be threatening to men in general, because men are creatures of ego, and anything that hints at them not being needed or not being good enough, will foster hostility and resentment. That's not what true feminism is, but it's what enough people have made it into, so that a lot of men jump to the negative conclusion.

So basically, we have a great ideology (all people are equal) that's been twisted and misused by an angry portion of women to enough of a degree that the term itself now has a negative connotation among a large portion of society.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, I'm all for equality.

From an observer's position, however, I will say that I don't know if it's "intentional man hating" that's going on...but rather that it seems to be difficult to talk about women's equality w/o pointing out that they have not been equal - and that it was men that kept them there for quite some time.

...which does put kind of an antagonistic spin on it - especially from the point of view of some guys.

It's kind of like when people talk about civil rights with black people, the history of oppression there, etc... All around you hear white people talking about how "I've never owned a slave, my family never owned any slaves, my family in fact wasn't even here during that time/etc" - and that's a perfectly legitimate thing to say. It's perfectly true. MOST white people had no hand in the racist history of our past - yet - they feel as if they're lumped in (and arguably often are) in discussions about the subject.

Same thing goes with feminism, I think. How do you talk about the sins of "men" (most of which are either dead and/or so old it really matters not) without seeming to lump current men (many of which who actually agree with you on principle) into the mix?

Ya know?

 

[Inkachu]

IMHO, if it doesn't apply to me, I'm not going to get offended or affronted by it. I'm not a racist, so someone calling me a racist simply because I'm white means nothing to me. I'm not a man-hater, so if I say I'm for equal rights, and someone says "feminazi man-hater!" I'd just laugh and go on about my day. I know what I am and who I am and what I stand for. I don't care who "lumps me in" with what. That's their problem.

We choose to be offended. We choose to be pigeonholed. Stop choosing it. I think what's important is that we continue to at least attempt to have dialogues with each other. If we allow the idiocy and the bigotry to triumph by keeping us quiet, just so we can avoid confrontations and ruffled feathers.. then they've already won. Keep talking. Be respectful. Be candid. Have an open mind.

I can talk about race or gender without being antagonistic or belligerent. Most people can't. That disappoints me.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Feminism has taken us a long way. Without it we wouldn't have a name for the systematic undermining of relations between men and women.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

When this organization targets beauty pageants, I might take it seriously.

I'm not a feminist, I'm not whatever the male version of that word is. I'm someone who believes in treating people fairly while understanding the differences and limitations on everyone.

 

[LinkH]

Her strategy doesn't sound like a good one if she wants men to stop thinking of her as a man-hater. Why doesn't she start a SheforHim campaign if she wants that, and express her concern over male-related issues.

One of the concerns men have about feminism is that radical feminists want what they think is best for women, even if it is bad for men. For example, a feminist group around here that had something about being against domestic violence in their organization name protested against the state legislature trying to move in favor of shared custody of children. Here, 90% of the time, the children are given to the mother and the father is reduced to visitor status in their lives in the case of divorce.

I see radical feminism as a bunk philosophy. Things that are normal and even Biblical are seen as 'oppression.' A woman who marries isn't a slave. It's not a bad thing to stay home and care for children. A lot of 'liberated' modern women who went out and got a job and career, when they finally end up having a kid in their 30's, wish they could afford to stay home with the baby, anyway. The idea that there is an evil patriarchy oppressing women, trying to keep them down is just a re-spinning of the old Marxist scenario where the rich oppress the working class. It creates a divisive mentality.

And radical feminist thought runs contrary to what the Bible teaches about male and female roles in the home and society.

 

[LinkH]

Well, I'm all for equality.

From an observer's position, however, I will say that I don't know if it's "intentional man hating" that's going on...but rather that it seems to be difficult to talk about women's equality w/o pointing out that they have not been equal - and that it was men that kept them there for quite some time.

There are also issues like scholarships for women, supported by the government, though women are the majority in college.

There are claims that women make less money than men, but when you control for the large jump in pay that occurs for working 44 hours a week instead of 40, on average, and things like working in life-threatening and unpleasant conditions and various other factors, women get paid more according to one researcher.

Then there is pushing for equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. If we have equality of opportunity and don't lower standards, there will be few or no women in certain combat roles because of the pull-up requirements. But if we want equality of outcome, then we have to lower requirements either for both male and female or just for women, and then you have soldiers who can't do the job as well. In the Bible, only the men were recruited for the army.

 

[.chrys.]

According to that researcher, I wonder if women are getting paid more when you control for the extra hours they're putting in at home with unpaid household work.

 

[Hetta]

When this organization targets beauty pageants, I might take it seriously.

I'm not a feminist, I'm not whatever the male version of that word is. I'm someone who believes in treating people fairly while understanding the differences and limitations on everyone.

Most feminists are very opposed to the parading of women for prizes and crowns. I especially detest children's pageants. In my perfect world, dolling your baby daughter up like a 22 year old stripper would be illegal.

 

[Hetta]

There are also issues like scholarships for women, supported by the government, though women are the majority in college.

You might find that women began to make up the numbers because of scholarships.

There are claims that women make less money than men, but when you control for the large jump in pay that occurs for working 44 hours a week instead of 40, on average, and things like working in life-threatening and unpleasant conditions and various other factors, women get paid more according to one researcher.

Cite your source please and not "I heard it on the radio ..."

Then there is pushing for equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. If we have equality of opportunity and don't lower standards, there will be few or no women in certain combat roles because of the pull-up requirements. But if we want equality of outcome, then we have to lower requirements either for both male and female or just for women, and then you have soldiers who can't do the job as well. In the Bible, only the men were recruited for the army.

No requirements have been lowered in the armed forces in my knowledge. I know many, many women in the military who have served honorably their whole lives. Perhaps they should have just stayed home and ignored that calling - although God says that he gives us gifts for us to use.

 

[Hetta]

From this article: Emma Watson: Being a feminist isn't the same as 'man-hating'

Agreed? And why *is* the word such an "uncomfortable" one?

I just read this today and my respect for Emma Watson increased hugely. She's a very intelligent, astute young woman, who obtained her degree in-between her full time job as an actress. I'm very proud of here for standing up and talking about these issues. According to info about the actress, she has also promoted education for girls in third world countries - you know the countries where the parents often throw away baby girls.

ETA: Sorry, I went off on a tangent. Why is the word uncomfortable? Because the patriarchy has the world believing that feminists are dried up, ugly, bitter women who can't get a man. So, IMO being identified with the word carries that connotation. And also there are some feminists out there who are extremists (the "all sex is rape" variety), just as there are men's libbers who are extremists (the "all women are <bad word>" variety.)

 

[LinkH]

You might find that women began to make up the numbers because of scholarships.

Cite your source please and not "I heard it on the radio ..."

A lecture from Warren Farrell on his research.

No requirements have been lowered in the armed forces in my knowledge. I know many, many women in the military who have served honorably their whole lives. Perhaps they should have just stayed home and ignored that calling - although God says that he gives us gifts for us to use.

well, I heard it on the radio...

But a quick web search turns up some links. Here is one of them.

Female Marines Not Required To Do 1 Pull-Up | CNS News

 

[LinkH]

ETA: Sorry, I went off on a tangent. Why is the word uncomfortable? Because the patriarchy has the world believing that feminists are dried up, ugly, bitter women who can't get a man.

Who is 'the patriarchy' exactly? Is it like the Illuminati? Can you be a member without realizing it?

 

[LinkH]

According to that researcher, I wonder if women are getting paid more when you control for the extra hours they're putting in at home with unpaid household work.

I suspect that isn't included in the calculations. If he's thinking of a public policy application for his research, it shouldn't be either.

 

[Hetta]

Who is 'the patriarchy' exactly? Is it like the Illuminati? Can you be a member without realizing it?

It's the kind of society that you strongly favor according to all of your posts.

Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupy roles of political leadership, moral authority and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

 

[Hetta]

A lecture from Warren Farrell on his research.

And where is that available?

Female Marines Not Required To Do 1 Pull-Up | CNS News

That doesn't relate to the question of earnings. And the only place I can find that "story" is on very ring wing news sites. No proper news site carries it. I don't believe things that come from such places as "threatjournal" and "americanprophet" as they extremely unreliable. Oh, and "fundamentalrefounding". Those are the last places on the web I would ever go for serious news.

 

[.chrys.]

nm.

 

[LinkH]

And where is that available?

I saw a lecture on YouTube. Here is a link to his book on the subject:

Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap--and what Women ... - Warren Farrell - Google Books

That doesn't relate to the question of earnings.

My point in the original post was not about earnings.

And the only place I can find that "story" is on very ring wing news sites. No proper news site carries it. I don't believe things that come from such places as "threatjournal" and "americanprophet" as they extremely unreliable. Oh, and "fundamentalrefounding". Those are the last places on the web I would ever go for serious news.

Are you using Bing instead of Google?

The Washington Post is a fairly mainstream for the pull-up story: The Marines pull-up controversy: An unexpected battle in the gender wars - The Washington Post