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'.




Thursday, 9 October 2014

Anglo-American Feminism: Just Another Post War Anomaly?




In the UK and US (but especially the UK, where class is the national obsession), social mobility (or the lack of it) has become a central topic of political debate. Britain, it is said, is suffering from social stagnation. Statistics suggest it is now much harder to rise in the social order than it was in the 1950s (or even the 1970s). Most of the top positions in society go to a narrow power elite defined by private schooling, residency in London and other trans-generational advantages. Moreover, various initiatives designed to tackle the issue have been conspicuous failures.

The United States, home of the American Dream, has experienced similar levels of social closure in recent years. In fact, its social mobility rates are only slightly better than Britain’s. Australia’s government is full of privately-educated politicians, a decidedly ‘un-Australian’ development; after all, Australia has traditionally been the most classless of all the Anglosphere nations.

One explanation of this ‘new elitism’ is intriguing. It argues that the socially fluid and prosperous post-War era was an anomaly, and that we are now reverting to ‘natural’ levels of social and economic inequality - the levels that have prevailed for most of history. We find this difficult to ‘see’ because most people have only ever experienced the post-war era and its social narratives. Also, we find this notion of ‘normative inequality’ difficult to accept because it confounds our deep-rooted attachment to the optimistic, narcissist values of the post-War era.

Many social problems of our age can be explained by this ‘normative inequality’ thesis. This is especially true of the mismatch between aspiration and opportunity that afflicts almost all young people in the West. Little wonder; they are still being inculcated with Post-War expectations of near-effortless upward mobility in a world where this is no longer possible. Virtually everyone under thirty wants to live in a mansion, drive a Maserati and work in a glamorous profession, if they have to work at all. Very few are adjusted to a life of socio-economic stasis; indeed, this is tacitly considered ‘failure’ by the vast majority of westernized youth. In sum, the broad masses have internalized narratives that arose in Madison Avenue during the early fifties, temporal nexus of post-War prosperity and optimism. In our own age of shrinking socio-economic mobility and general decline, these narratives are effectively useless and even potentially harmful to those who cleave to them. Misery is the only possible outcome for those snarled in such a schism between aspiration and reality.

But were the 50s really representative of  history?

This ‘aspiration as anomaly’ perspective illuminates several features of the Anglo-American gender war we like to discuss. Firstly, it is notable that feminism rose to prominence in the immediate post-War era. Of course, residual misandry defined the Anglosphere long before that. However, it has to be said that Anglo-American feminism became far more influential in the decades after World War Two, especially in the United States. This underscores its essential alignment with the prevailing values of Anglo-American culture.

Anglo-American feminism then, is an aspirational post-war lifestyle movement. Like the advertising and consumerism that emerged in the early fifties, it encourages all women to aim for a white, upper-middle class lifestyle. Despite its protestations, it is essentially hypergamous – virtually all post-feminist media aimed at Western women focus on ‘perfect’ relationships with wealthy, famous males. Again, this is an expression of ‘boom-town’ post-War values. Roissy has said (in my view, with some validity) that Anglo-Saxon feminism represents a collective rejection of marital monogamy, allowing women to indulge their innate preference for high status (or at least attractive) males. While there are problems with this interpretation (for example, many women seem attracted to criminals and deviants rather than high status men), it has to be conceded that marriage to ‘conventional’ males chafes with most women.

If feminism is another anomalous narrative from the post-War era, one would expect it to generate a mismatch between reality and aspiration, breeding alienation and misery among its adherents. And it does. Despite their relative freedoms and prosperity, Anglo-American women are less happy than they have ever been. This is because only a small minority can satisfy their new-found aspirations (hypergamous and otherwise) in a culture defined by restricted social mobility and economic polarization. And of course, unrestricted female mate choice only compounds their economic and social woes (for reasons we know only too well).

Similarly, many young males in the West resent their inability ‘to launch’. Inculcated with anomalous post-War narratives of effortless social mobility, they expect to buy houses, start businesses and make progress as their fathers did. Unfortunately, since the West has reverted to its ‘natural’ state of social ossification and immobility, these narratives are now hopelessly unrealistic and only a tiny few will ever realize them. Cue the widespread alienation, fantastical aspirations and grinding despair that define so many younger men.
 
The 50's Ideal: A historical anomaly?

What of the Men’s Rights movement? Conservative MRAs are obsessed with setting the clock back to an earlier era – typically, the 1950s, a decade defined by more ‘traditional’ gender relations that restricted female mate-choice. However, if the 1950s were the nexus of an anomalous era defined by idiomatic levels of social mobility, such a reactionary move would not improve the male lot as intended. Too few males would be able to support women in traditional marital relationships, leading to a surfeit both of single women and sexually-frustrated males – a kind of Handmaid’s Tale replete with extended families and re-runs of ‘I Love Lucy’.

One way or another, our culture remains attached to its post-War narratives of upward mobility, star-culture and trans-generational ‘progress’. They cajole and flatter us and besides, accepting a diminished reality is intrinsically difficult. The possibility that such narratives derive from an anomalous era of recent history and that economic inequality / social stasis are ‘norms’ represents a dramatic paradigm shift, one that many will find hard to accept. After all, even talentless dunces in housing projects now expect fame and riches as their inalienable ‘right’. However, unless alternative narratives are found to palliate the masses, some kind of conflagration is inevitable.


The 50s family: gone forever?