Wednesday, 29 October 2014

The Dangers of Sexualization: Emma Watson's UN Speech


Emma Watson speaks for the oppressed, lol


Emma Watson’s recent UN speech on feminism illustrates perfectly the abject hypocrisy of Anglo-American feminists. However, it had various feminists and White Knights fairly gushing with hysterical approval, as the following article demonstrates:

I consider Emma Watson a national treasure, and she’s not even from our nation. Although she is best known for playing the role of Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, Watson is doing her best to become one of the foremost celebrity faces of feminism in the world. We should have guessed she would be aspiring to do great things when Watson was named a Goodwill Ambassador by UN Women, but “great things” is an understatement for the powerful speech that Watson made for the HeForShe Campaign on Saturday. Her speech was all about gender and equality, issues that still don’t receive enough attention (and often negative attention when they do), and it was 10 minutes of pure, unadulterated awesome.

Watson made so many great points during her speech that it’s near impossible to praise her for any one aspect. The whole thing was a flawless, personal reflection on feminism, gender, equality, and activism. Like her on-screen counterpart, Watson is standing up for a cause that means a lot to her with lots of self-deprecating humor to match. “You might think, ‘Who is this Harry Potter girl? What is she doing at the U.N.?’ And it’s a really good question — I’ve been asking myself the same thing,” she said, making it seem all the more inspirational that she made this speech even through her self-doubt.

In fact, Watson was just trotting the same old misandrist bullshit from the same old elitist perspective. Anyone aware of the scurrilous history of Anglo American feminism will recognize her spiel as the inconsistent, hypocritical drivel it is.

1. She claims to speak for all women but is socially unrepresentative.  


Emma - avoiding sexualization, as usual

From the very earliest days of Anglo feminism, upper-middle class white women have spoken for  women they loathe, exploit and subjugate. Black women. Poor women. Women of marginalized ethnicity. As we know, the ridiculous notion that all women share a common 'cause' by virtue of their gender is convenient for the various Power-Elites who dominate Anglo-American culture. It neutralizes class conflict and inhibits effective, trans-gender resistance to racism and economic exploitation. As ever, Anglo-American feminism is not 'revolutionary' at all; rather a neutralizing fraud promoted by power elites designed to perpetuate injustice under a smokescreen of obfuscation.

Back to Emma Watson. Her Wikipedia CV predictably reveals a background of astounding educational, social and economic privilege:

Watson was born in Paris, the daughter of English lawyers Jacqueline Luesby and Chris Watson. Watson lived in Paris until the age of five. Her parents separated when she was young; following their divorce, Watson moved back to England to live with her mother in Oxfordshire while spending weekends at her father's house in London. Watson has stated that she speaks some French, though "not as well" as she used to.

After moving to Oxford with her mother and brother, Watson attended the Dragon School (an expensive and exclusive preparatory school) in Oxford, remaining there until 2003. From the age of six, she wanted to become an actress, and trained at the Oxford branch of Stagecoach Theatre Arts, a part-time theatre school where she studied singing, dancing, and acting. By the age of ten, she had performed in various Stagecoach productions and school plays, including Arthur: The Young Years and The Happy Prince, but she had never acted professionally before the Harry Potter series. Following the Dragon School, Watson moved on to Headington School (another expensive and exclusive private school).

So there we have it - someone who really knows 'oppression' from the inside out! It is fascinating that women from such backgrounds persist in considering themselves 'disenfranchised'. Perhaps the recent feminist fixation on promoting women's 'rights' in countries outside the Anglosphere is best explained by the staggering levels of personal advantage feminists now enjoy in the West. Not even they truly believe they are oppressed, these days.


2. She dresses like a ten dollar whore, then complains about being sexualized in the media.

Emma shunning sexualization, lol


As long time readers will know, Anglo-Saxon feminism continually claims to be a 'revolutionary' movement. However, on deeper examination it is generally observed that the central feminist assumption – that prostitution, pornography and all other forms of sexual freedom are generically ‘bad’ – deviates not one inch from the repressive values extolled by Anglo-American conservatives on Fox News or in the Daily Mail. It is self-evident that women oppose a ludic culture for one reason and one reason only: to raise their own sexual market value.

Watson embodies this ludicrous contradiction. Her UN speech decried her own 'sexualisation by sections of the media'. Yet she actively seeks out such 'sexualization', frequently dressing like a ten dollar whore before the very cameras she claims to despise. In other words, exploiting male desire to raise her sexual market value is fine; but generic erotic freedom lowers her personal SMV, and is therefore bad. This is so blatantly illogical and hypocritical that the less said of it, the better. Seldom has a feminist 'intellectual' looked more ridiculous:


Emma struggling to avoid sexualization

Or less self-aware. Does Watson seriously think she would be famous if she were massively overweight, or had buck-teeth, or a facial scar? The sole reason she has a public platform relates to her stereotypical bourgeois/Caucasian/youthful appearance. Quite how she squares this fact with anti-sexualization rhetoric, I fail to grasp. What else does she have to offer beyond her appearance? Piercing powers of self-analysis?

Emma shuns sexualization by the media!

3. She ignores the role of residual misandry in male oppression. 

On the face of it, Watson’s perspective is not unreasonable. In theory, men can profit by the abolition of gender discrimination just as much as women. Freed from archaic gender stereotypes, men will be free to seek help for depression and other mental problems, for instance.

There are two primary objections to this argument. First of all, men and women are innately different. Hence, gender-neutral social engineering of the type proposed by Watson will exert little effect. Second, the residual misandry that pervades Anglo-American culture will always prevent the majority of men profiting from gender-neutral agendas; they will always be exploited, excluded and marginalized. This is why, in the post-feminist world, women acquire ever more rights, leaving men with ‘traditional’ obligations.

Given this reality, there is no reason for men to believe that feminism will improve their lot.  So far, it has only worsened it.  


4. She thinks we live in a patriarchy in need of ‘reform’. 


Emma... desperately trying not to be sexualized!

Wake up, ass-hole. The Anglosphere is an oppressive matriarchy where men are discriminated against before the law, in the media, healthcare and education. In both the formal and residual spheres women are already advantaged, enjoying official rights and traditional privileges. Little wonder, then, that so many Anglo-American men see feminism as misandrist.

Two interesting elements underpin Watson’s speech, however. First, she explicitly admits that feminism has an ‘image problem’; that western feminism is primarily associated with misandry and sexual repression, not women’s rights. Second, and more importantly, her speech is preoccupied with keeping men ‘on side’.

Clearly, times are changing. The following New York Post article (by a woman, incidentally) highlights the obvious flaws in Watson's position, and contemporary Anglo-American feminism in general:


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.

Emma. Need I say more?

Slowly but surely, Anglo-American feminists are becoming aware of how despised they are. Perhaps Watson's 'contributions' should be welcomed: Such inane hypocrisy can only further discredit their wobbling 'movement'.