Emma Watson: Poster Girl for Feminism

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/emma-watson-delivers-stirring-speech-at-u-n-204442194.html?bcmt=comments-postbox

When it comes to celebrities my default position is to dislike them.  That may seem unfair, but the fact is the majority of celebrities are fruitcakes, and/or deliberate leftwing shills.  What they need to do is shut up and act, but far too many of them are willing to advocate some stupid leftwing cause.  Emma Watson is one of those kind apparently.  A willing mouthpiece for leftist and statist agendas.  I don’t think that the celebrities are the evil masterminds behind cultural Marxism, but they are most definitely useful idiots.

She says:

“I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for U.N. Women six months ago and the more I’ve 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.”

Because feminism is man-hating.  What is a “UN Woman”?  I don’t even know what that means, because it doesn’t refer to a particular country or people group.

“Feminism,” Watson continued, “is, by definition, 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.”

No it’s not.  Feminism is about group advocacy for women, which is why it’s called FEMINISM.  If they were about group advocacy for all human beings it would be a different “ism,” probably communism.  I find it interesting how she is trying to rehabilitate the term feminism, as opposed to slapping a new name on it as the left has done with liberalism, changing the title from “liberal” to “progressive” in order to avoid the stigma attached to liberalism.

The reason why the idea of feminism is increasingly unpopular is because more people are becoming aware of it, not because of any sort of misunderstanding.  On the contrary, the more we understand it the uglier it looks.

Supposedly classical feminism was about getting women the ability to vote and work.  Now women can vote and work, but it didn’t stop there.  Women can also abort their children without the father’s consent, or they can have a child and collect child support from the father while denying him access.  They can divorce for any reason and take the kids.  Why are women the default custodians of children when a divorce occurs?

But this still isn’t enough.  Now they expect us to pay for birth control for women that we don’t even know, and if we don’t want to pay then it’s called “the war on women.”  There is no war on women in any western country.  If you want to see a war on women then look to Afghanistan or Iran.  But actually, in those countries there is no war either.  Women are simply beaten into place and killed or maimed if they object.  Ironically, the same people who are feminists in the west are also highly pro-Islam.  Just like the LGBT crowd is pro-Islam.

I’m wondering where the “social inequality” is between men and women, and why feminists still think they have a cause.

If a man and a woman go to apply for the same job, the woman is far more likely to get it, unless they have a racial quota which takes precedence over the gender quota.  But if race isn’t a factor, it’s far more advantageous to be a woman than a man when it comes to job seeking.  There is all this talk about male privilege and white privilege, but neither of those are an actual privilege.  Being a white male confers absolutely no advantages when it comes to jobs or scholarships.  Everyone has an advocacy group EXCEPT for white males.  No one gets a scholarship for being a white male, and no one gets a job for being a white male.  As a white male, you are the last to be considered for a job if there are non-whites or females applying for the same job.  You are the last to be considered due to either quotas, or nebulous assumptions about privilege.  Can I reach into my privilege pack to get a job?  No?  Alright, then I don’t want to hear any more allegations about my being privileged, or others being unprivileged.

The funny thing is she also talks about male suicide, as if feminism has some sort of remedy for that.  Yes, accept the feminist choke chain to go around your neck.  Whenever you think naughty thoughts, or stray in any fashion your female overlord can jerk the chain.

She says:

“Gender equality is your issue too. Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence, as a child, as much as my mother’s. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help, for fear it would make them less of a men—or less of a man. In fact, in the U.K., suicide is the biggest killer of men, between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either.”

Any attempts to conflate feminism with gender equality are 100% disingenuous.  Feminism is all about upsetting traditional gender roles in order to “empower” women.  Women already have all the same legal privileges as men, as well as others that men don’t have.  Yet they still want more, so clearly it’s not about gender equality.

The comment that Watson made shows a gross misunderstanding of male psychology.  More feminism isn’t going to result in less male suicide, but more.  Men cannot be mentally healthy in the role of a stay-at-home mom.  Men and women are different.  We don’t want to take on the traditional female role of staying at home and being supported by someone else.  Male self-esteem is tied to their accomplishments, their ability to provide, and their ability to support themselves.  If a man can’t get a job, even if it’s because of preferential hiring which automatically sifts him out due to racial or gender preferences, it’s going to be a blow to his self-esteem.

So rather than address the issues that are causing men to be unhappy, which are the lack of opportunities/an inability to provide, and increasingly belligerent females, what she wants to do is tell men that it’s OK to be losers, or to be pounded into a subservient and dependent role.  Wanting to be able to provide, at least enough for personal independence/survival, is not a “distorted sense of what constitutes male success.”  Men are hardwired to be providers, women are designed for support roles, which include nurturing and emotional support.  It’s a fact that women, in general, are more amenable to being provided for, which is why single women are overwhelmingly supportive of left wing parties.

It’s a mistake to assume that men and women are psychologically interchangeable, or that any differences in psychology are social constructs.  It’s also a mistake to try to feminize men, or push them into female roles, and expect them to be fulfilled and happy.  Also, women don’t truly respect weak and effeminate men.  They will leave a weak cloying dependent male for a stronger alpha male who earns (more) money in a heartbeat.

I don’t blame men in western countries for wanting to commit suicide.  It’s basically the real life equivalent of the rage-quit.  Rage-quit is video game terminology for quitting out of frustration when victory in the game becomes untenable.  When playing against human opponents the rage-quit is also an expression of defiance in situations where both you and your opponent know that you cannot win.  By quitting prematurely you at least deny your opponent the pleasure and satisfaction of beating you down.

As opportunities dwindle, men are forced into working long hours for little pay in fields that never interested them, and others are not even fortunate enough to have any job.  When a man looks at his life and realizes that things will never get any better, that there is no chance for improvement or success, the only thing he really has left to look forward to is death.  Prior to death he must deal with the specter of dwindling physical strength, stamina, and mental capacity while living under the same hopeless conditions.  When this occurs, it is understandable that he may opt for an early death over choosing to continue playing a losing game.  Being supported by the state, or a woman, is not a viable substitute for self-sufficiency or personal achievement.

Also, being supported by a woman is not a simple matter either.  The fact is women are disdainful of men who cannot provide, and due to feminism and the prevalence of the princess mentality, women are often even disdainful of men who do provide, pushing them to spend more and more money until they are broke, and then often leaving them for other men.  The price of upkeep for white women and non-white women who have been westernized is growing in proportion to their level of rebellion against traditional female roles.  For example, rather than cooking they want to eat out, which puts more stress on the man as eating out takes a much higher toll on both his physical and financial health.  Men are forced to evaluate potential relationships with women in terms of opportunity cost, now more than ever, and more men are determining that it is not worth it to engage in a long term relationship, or to impregnate a woman regardless of whether or not they are married.  For the most part the “fear of commitment” is not a male failing, but a reaction to the decreasing incentives of having committed long term relationships with women, and the increasing danger of exploitation.

Given how heavily western society has stacked the cards against the white male, the rage-quit can be seen as a form of opting out of a series of hardships which have no rewards attached, as well as a means of expressing disapproval for a system that makes winning impossible for some.  There is no light at the end of the tunnel for many men, just a longer, darker tunnel, where footing becomes less stable, and where the snarling of monsters can be heard up ahead.    At this point men will resort to escapism.  They may resort to alcohol, drugs, pornography, movies, videogames, or anything that makes them feel good and takes their mind off of the reality of their situation.  Others will opt for death.

When men choose to end their lives, they should not be condemned as mentally unstable.  There is a good chance that they were quite stable, and saw a premature death as the only way out of their predicament.  Personally, I do not advocate suicide for religious/metaphysical reasons.  One should not be in a hurry to rush to death without knowing for certain where one will end up after death.  After all, death is irreversible and permanent.  Once dead, it will be too late for recriminations and second chances, unlike a videogame where you have an unlimited amount of retries.  But I do understand why some men choose to make that choice.

Advertisements

Published by:

Radamanthes

I could be described as a libertarian monarchist with religious leanings and sympathies towards anarchy and nationalism. I have realized that a lot of my views are reactionary. Most of the time it's when I see something I don't like that I feel inspired to write. I'm basically like a badger being poked with a stick. I'm fairly ornery when poked, but I don't wish people harm provided that they don't seek to harm me either directly or indirectly. I don't at all care for the left, and I am not at all happy that they are out to destroy my way of life and undermine my freedom. But one of my goals is to spread awareness as much as I can. My Manifesto in Short.: 1. Dejure rights and positive liberty are invalid concepts. Man in his natural state is free. He is free to create what he wants, occupy and defend a territory he exists in, associate with who he wants, wear what he wants, say what he wants, follow whatever religion he wants, and essentially do whatever he pleases. Government is an artificial imposition which requires force both to come into existence and to exist. Therefore, government is not in a position to grant freedom or rights, as those already exist prior to the institution of government. Government can curtail freedoms, but it can never give them. The only fully legitimate function of government is to protect the natural rights of others from being violated by forces which they are incapable of combating, for example, protecting a farmer from the Mongol invasion. Protecting someone from having their feelings hurt is not a legitimate function, as never having hurt feelings is not a natural right. 2. Freedom of association and speech are more important than anyone's feelings. Feelings are subjective, and there is no reason why one person's feelings are any more valid than anyone else's. A law to protect one person's feelings from being hurt is certain to harm another person's, therefore, feelings cannot be a basis for law. My freedoms do not end where another person's feelings begin. 3. Democracy is a failure, and it is predicated on faulty premises. In order for Democracy to work, two criterion must be fulfilled, 1) those who tally the votes must do so honestly, and 2) those who vote must be moral and intelligent enough to make wise and proper decisions. The first premise is impossible to prove, and the second is not true of most people, therefore, Democracy is a questionable endeavor at best, and ultimately doomed to failure. In fact, under the best of circumstances Democracy is mob rule, but aside from that it also opens the door to demagoguery, tribal politics, and lobbying. 4. Communism and Islam are no less evil than Nazism. Communism has killed more people than Nazism, and in fact Stalin alone killed more people than Hitler. Islam has killed, and continues to kill more people than Communism and Nazism together. The only reason why communism and Islam are given a free pass is because Cultural Marxists are in charge of education, the media, and entertainment. Cultural Marxists have decided to institute communism by attacking the culture, and they have recognized Islam as something which they can use as an ally (for the time being). That is why both of those toxic ideologies get a free pass, but really they should not. Hitler worked with both Communists AND Muslims before the allies entered the war, and during the war he continued to work with Muslims. If some guy were to go around in a Nazi uniform and goose-step and Sieg hiel as he walked down the street he would never be able to get a job. His life would be over, and he might even be met with physical violence. If a white guy did it then things would be even worse. However, Muslims are able to walk down our streets wearing their terrorist clothing, their robes and hijabs, which represent thousands of years of slaughter, antisemitism, and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities (not to mention violence against women), and people just let them go. I want a complete and indefinite hiatus on Muslim immigration, and I want us to start repatriating the Muslims that are already here. 5. I utterly reject the concept of the "social contract." I did not ask to exist, nor did I have any control over what part of the world I was born in, which people group I was born into, or what other groups might happen to exist around me. Since my existence is entirely involuntary, I cannot be held responsible for the fact that I exist, nor is my existence sufficient grounds to argue that I owe something to someone else. I do not owe anyone money, goods, or services simply on the basis that I exist or that they exist. 6. Collective guild is a rubbish concept. No one can help what group they are born into, and no one is born owing anyone else anything. Debt is the result of borrowing resources on some level, and having just entered in the world one does not have the capacity to borrow, or really do anything beyond the most basic biological functions. Therefore, the notion that one baby is born owing something to another baby is absurd at best. 7. I thoroughly support Israel. I fully admit to supporting Israel for religious reasons, but if those were not in place I would still support Israel out of enlightened self-interest. Israel fulfills the real world equivalent of the function Gondor serves in Tolkien's Middle Earth. By that I mean they are close to the evil army, and draw a lot of it's attention and focus, and in doing so they protect the west. The difference is, that in Tolkien's world the west does not actively seek to import orcs and other members of the evil army, behind Gondor's back, whereas our moron leaders in real life do constantly import the evil army. Also, Jews are not a monolithic group, There are both left wing and right wing Jews. Those who are on the left are not motivated by religion to do what they do, but by the perverse Marxist ideology which they have adopted in place of their religion.

Categories UncategorizedLeave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s