Emma Watson Is Now Co-Opting Minions

Emma Watson recently delivered a speech to the U.N. attempting to co-opt men into the ranks of feminism. Before I do any real analysis, here’s a link to the Chateau that demonstrates hypocrisy. At a deeper level, it really shows the conflict of interest between female sexual desire and feminist desire to neuter men. In one quote she laments that British men are too shy and consequently she’ll likely not be dating British men in the future while American men have fewer inhibitions about suggesting a date; a boldness that she finds attractive. The second quote from her U.N. speech reads, “If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive.”. So which is it Emma? She goes from celebrating the boldness of men she finds attractive to suggesting men and women can just switch roles as they see fit. You yourself said you find bold men attractive Emma. After hearing say that, but then turn around and ask men and women to switch seats, you leave listeners the impression that they’d still be attractive to each other. I can see how that is a great selling point. I can also see how that is under-handed and manipulative and flies in the face of the fact that women prefer bold men (see here and here for details).

Besides the hypocrisy, this suggests that male and female sex roles are completely interchangeable and can be dissolved. Effectively, it pits humans against their own biological urges and desires to attain a higher moral ground. Of course if you don’t take up the battle against your own innate desires and behaviors, you do not attain the higher moral ground and are thus not a worthy individual. And by the way, what is wrong with bold men? Why should they avoid being bold? What is wrong with submissive women? This again, ladies and gentleman, is an example of the mixed messages getting tossed around today about sex, including and especially how men should conduct themselves.

Even the title of the initiative, “HeForShe”, suggests how men should act. What does this title suggest?

for [fawr] (preposition) – Intended to belong to; suiting the purposes or needs of

Well, shit. After defining ‘for’ not much is left to the imagination, is it? Other likely titles could have been “Men intended to belong to Women”, “Men suiting the purposes and needs of Women”, or maybe “Men doing the things for Women”. You intend to co-opt men to your efforts with the suggestion you are both equals (implicit to the text-book definition of feminism, which she of course uses), but instead regard them as your minions. Didn’t Orwell write about this? I believe he labeled it doublethink. Brilliant.

Apart from the skewed title of her initiative, Emma made one salient point in the entire speech. Mustering all the try-hard emotion possible, she laments that “Women are choosing not to identify as feminists”. That was her one good point. Everything prior to it was deflection and everything after it was a smoke screen.

Her deflection was designed to avoid mentioning what feminism actually does (since stating such material would give reason not to be a feminist) but to instead give us that oft quoted text-book definition of feminism. Emma, I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but if you are going to analyze something as nebulous as a movement, your research needs to dig deeper than just Wikipedia or the dictionary. But this is nothing new from equity feminists attempting to assuage their damaged reputation after decades of cold and self-interested manipulation of Western society. So I guess I’m disappointed but I’m not surprised.

She then goes into her smoke screen; a fallacy laden diatribe of Western society and how it hasn’t truly adopted women as equals. She does this with a varied pallet of logical fallacies, but one especially caught my ears. She again suggests that men and women have interchangeable sex roles and desires.”When at fifteen my girl-friends started dropping out of the their beloved sports teams because they didn’t want to appear muscly.” What is wrong with this Emma? Why is that bad? Are we to reject that biology plays any factor in determining sex roles, orientation, and consequently behavior? ~sigh~ By only partially explaining, and thereby misrepresenting the reality, Emma leaves listeners believing girls are <pick one or more: pressured, taught, brainwash> to become girls. Just as Catholicism forces its members to reject basic human desires as sin, feminism dictates that women reject biology as a lie. In essence, it seeks to pit women against themselves in a battle over their own minds and bodies while pinning patriarchy (and by proxy men) as the evil-doer who started the conflict. Orwell was right.

But this comes no surprise. The idea that sexual roles are interchangeably, even pejorative, has been a continued theme for feminism. #WomenAgainstFeminism became a thing because women have started outright rejecting the doublethink. They have stared to embrace their innate desires and reclaim their bodies. The walls are closing in on feminism. Knowing this, feminists are not going to co-opt women; their PR is too damaged. They instead opt to recruit men before #WomenAgainstFeminism can give them a taste of a better life. If that doesn’t clearly show how feminism seeks to control men and women (and ultimately their happiness) then I don’t know what else will.

Emma, you’re talented, beautiful, and very bright. But you are also very young. Please reconsider your proposal to subdue men and to join feminism. You too need to consider your PR. I suggest considering yours at a higher value than that of feminism’s. Wouldn’t that be truly empowering?

No. He’s Not Your Lackey

So I found this gem today: Quit hitting on men and help me out

Take a moment and read that article.  Dalrock has a pretty good take on it here: How men could make themselves useful to Katarina Kroslakova

Let’s take a look at some of her words, shall we?

Due to sheer laziness, I often end up in the middle seat, therefore in the middle of a fascinating peacock display.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/executive-style/culture/quit-hitting-on-me-and-help-me-out-20140213-32jur.html#ixzz2tvSImlDG

She seems opposed to men competing for her attention, but then she goes on to bemoan that men don’t jump to attention and do her bidding.  It’s almost as though she views them as chivalry dispensers.

Has anyone ever helped pop my bag up into the overhead compartment? Nope. Have I seen any other woman helped? Nope.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/executive-style/culture/quit-hitting-on-me-and-help-me-out-20140213-32jur.html#ixzz2tvSy056B

And why would they help you?  What would be the reason?  Are you not capable of handling that bag yourself?  It’s obvious that you don’t really respect any of these men.  At least that is the ethos you projected in your piece.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an example of the mixed messages sent to men.  What really gets me is her childish demands paired with her inability to view men as her equals; she sees them as lackeys.  And no, Katarina Kroslakova, men are not your minions.  Besides, from the article you wrote it sounds like you are a strong business type.  A real “go-getter” as it were.  So go and get’em.  Hoist your own bags.  Hold your own doors.  It would probably be for the best if you stopped being childish too.

This is the brave new world that feminism has brought you Katarina.  One where you are viewed as capable of handling your own bags, advancing your own career, and paying your own bills like a big girl.  Don’t tell me that you want to go back now.  Is that what you really want?  Or do you just want all the benefits of male attention with none of the courtship?  Because if that is what you want, then you don’t really want chilvarly; you want lackeys.

This week, an engineer in his 50s just stood there in the aisle, his hands clasped, as I played Olympic weight-lifting with my suitcase right in front of him. Just stood there, looking intently at the sticky carpet. Probably afraid to chip a nail or something.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/executive-style/culture/quit-hitting-on-me-and-help-me-out-20140213-32jur.html#ixzz2tvX0Nied

Afraid to chip a nail or something.  Insulting both genders now are we?  Are women so inferior to men that comparing a man to a woman is an insult?  Is that really what you think Katarina?  And again, why would he help you?  Did you help any men with their luggage?  I’d wager you didn’t and if you did, you did it begrudgingly at best.

And yes, chivalry is dead.  It was dragged out into the streets and executed right after we got finished executing traditionalism.  No one is sent to this earth to be your step-and-fetch.

Dude, Where’s My Marriage?

I’m never surprised when I hear men talking about their lack of desire in the dating department.  Often this lost desire for courtship is framed as a problem; by many accounts it surely is.  With less incentive to get married and raise a family men will contribute less to their workplace, career advancement, and ultimately to their community.  This will have a cascading effect.  Dalrock has a post detailing some of this here.  For most of what is said about the marriage strike, I agree.  I, like both Dalrock and Dr. Helen, disagree that men should feel it is a problem though.  More specifically, men should not feel guilty for their analysis of incentive.

This really comes to light for me when I start to read about courtship and dating.  The first thing such material covers is approaching women.  I won’t go through a vast amount of the advice here, but anyone with a few neurons and a keyboard can search Google and find what I’m referring to.   Heavy emphasis is usually placed on men overcoming their anxiety of approaching women.  This has always bothered me.  Something always feels lost in translation.  I get the impression a big old shame sandwich is being prepared for men who don’t approach women seeking their validation.  Should men really be motivated by shame and female validation?  Shouldn’t men genuinely demonstrate their strengths and value to a woman regardless of what others think?  Upon further reflection something dawned on me; what if incentives were simply not high enough for men to demonstrate their value to women and that the anxiety is really a marker for this, not the cause?

Perhaps it’s a reactionary instinct or maybe a rationalization, but I find it hard to believe that men don’t realize the game is rigged when they start dating.  Surely men have anxiety about being rejected, making a scene, and feeling inadequate.  I would not argue they don’t.  I would argue that they know, somewhere in the deep recesses of their mind, that they are being played for as fools.

It’s all over the wallpaper of society.  Men are villains women are victims.  Women are allowed to be as sexualized as they like, but if men stare too long at a twerking female singer they are suddenly creeps. The constant focus on not abusing women (thanks Obama).  The unyielding push to get women in to the tech sector, college (even though they out-number men there), and the unrelenting message to kowtow to female demands in the workplace, at home, and anywhere women might deem it necessary.  Everywhere a man looks there is another message telling him that masculinity is a disease and women are the victims despite men being the carriers.  Then men are expected to approach women and not be anxious, bitter, or nervous.  You can probably see where incentive is lacking.

Ultimately, male identity needs to be the focus of a man dissatisfied with his life.  Approaching women, learning game, and getting laid are not going to replace true identity and purpose.  Once you start to have a genuine interest in yourself despite the validation of women (or anyone else) then game will make more sense.  With that said, if you are interested in learning to navigate the dating world, head over to Aaron Sleazy’s blog or over to Chateau Heartiste.  I think you might find some of the information there to be more substantial than other places you might land with a Google search.

Where does that leave marriage?  Well, without a sanctioned space in society for men to unambiguously revel in their own identity free from the constant messages of shame feminism has planted literally everywhere, I’d say that leaves it out of the question.  I will hold off on judgement and predictions of the future for now.  I can say that men will continue to eschew marriage for a saner and safer life.  That and feminism is reaching a tipping point (if it hasn’t reached it already).  Feminists are likely to become increasingly more desperate to control the narrative between the genders as more and more men stop tolerating its nonsense.