Categories
a new woman to hate alpha males are these guys 12 years old? beta males dark enlightenment entitled babies evil sexy ladies hamstering heartiste mansplaining misogyny PUA red pill straw feminists would not bang

Emma Watson is dating a rugby player. CHECKMATE FEMINISM!?

Red Pillers agree: Emma Watson isn't all that, anyway.
Red Pillers agree: Emma Watson isn’t all that, anyway.

Never doubt the ingenuity of the internet’s misogynists in coming up with new reasons to hate a woman they’re already inclined to hate.

Actress and geek icon Emma Watson has been near the top of the new Misogyny hate list all this week, in the wake of the speech she gave at the UN gently praising feminism and suggesting that traditional gender roles aren’t always such a good thing for dudes either. She’s made this point before, declaring in a Tweet last month that

But wait, the Red Pillers of the internet declare: Watson is herself dating a hunky jock rather than a “bald scrawny impoverished poet.”

WHERE IS YOUR FEMINISM NOW?

According to the UK’s Daily Mirror, Watson is currently dating a fellow Oxford student who also happens to be 1) gigantic 2) a rugby player and 3) handsome. As The Mirror put it

Matt was dubbed Oxford’s most eligible bachelor and was previously named the best looking player in his on-field position by the university rugby team’s Twitter account.

I know, you’re probably not exactly shocked – shocked! – to discover that a famous actress is dating a handsome dude. But in the Red Pill precincts of the internet, the regulars think they’ve got their CHECKMATE FEMINISM.

Right wing “journalist” and blogger Robert Stacey McCain triumphantly cackled

All the hot babes like Emma Watson are crazy for guys who don’t fit “prescribed gender stereotypes,” right? So you will probably be surprised to learn that Emma Watson is dating a bald scrawny impoverished poet the biggest jock at an elite university. …

In other words, an Alpha male, the epitome of “prescribed gender stereotypes” from which Emma Watson says we need to be liberated.

Smart young fellows figure out that listening to what women say is less important than watching what women do. Women are constantly saying they want sensitive Ashley Wilkes types, even while they’re actually going crazy for the Rhett Butler types. …

When all is said and done, the basic human sex instinct is still as simple as, “Me Tarzan, you Jane.” 

On the Red Pill subreddit, the regulars celebrated what they saw as a great victory over feminism. Redpillbanana seconded McCain’s “analysis.”

As a man in our new feminist world, you are liberated from your gender stereotype and have permission to be vulnerable and human. And women have permission to dump you for the next nearby alpha male who decided that he doesn’t need to be liberated from his gender stereotype.

Other Red Pillers made sure that everyone knew that they didn’t think Emma Watson was all that hot anyway.

Ill_mumble_that 168 points 3 days ago   Is it just me, or is he way out of her league? Her celebrity status is the only reason she's not a plate, or maybe she still is.

WOULD NOT BANG.

ohsweetword 34 points 3 days ago   It's mostly beta boys and comic geeks that fap to her. She's a 6 at best. Never understood the appeal.  I'm sure this guy is just using her for her status though and has plenty of chicks to bang.

Meanwhile, proudly racist, woman-hating dating guru Heartiste offered these, er, thoughts on the matter, in his trademark, er, style:

Feminism long ago abandoned any pretense to logic or internal consistency. It’s nothing but feels all day, every day, with an extra helping of feels. Watson’s rationalization hamster, like most rodents residing in the brains of her callow ilk, is 700% thigh and 800% glutes. A swole spinner on the wheel of ego-masturbation.

Ok then.

So how do you respond to this sort of thing? Point out that Watson was previously dating a guy who most Red Pillers would probably consider a big ol beta? Post examples of conventionally hot actresses who’ve dated “nerds” and intellectuals and otherwise not stereotypically macho men – from Marilyn Monroe (playwright Arthur Miller) to Christina Hendricks (nerdy actor Geoffrey Arend, who’s not even as famous as her).

But what’s the point? All you have to do is step outside to see examples of happy couples who don’t fit the “me Tarzan, you Jane” stereotype the Red Pillers are so desperate to assure us is the One True Way.

The human heart and libido are complicated things. Yes, some feminist women date macho dudes. And some traditional women are drawn to nerds. Some women date men who make more money than them; others date guys who are broke. And a lot of women don’t have clear “types” at all. (Watson doesn’t seem to.)

It’s also worth pointing out that, well, you can’t always judge a book by its cover. A gigantic rugby player who is ferocious on the field may be a teddy bear in private. And scrawny nerdy dudes can be horrible people (e.g. Woody Allen).

Feminism doesn’t deny that some women – including some feminists — are drawn to macho men. What feminism says is that traditional gender roles are not the only way to do things.

Emma Watson can date whatever kind of person she wants to date. It’s her own damn business. That’s feminism.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

350 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
zoon echon logon
zoon echon logon
6 years ago

I’m guessing that the shame heaped on Mr. Nice Guy for being a virgin is largely internal, either he’s claiming women say the stuff he says to himself in his own head, or he’s interpreting people’s behavior through a heavily distorted lens of his own shame.

Doing something to lessen the connection between male self worth and how much sex one has would probably be the best thing for the incel types and men in general. It would probably make some men less douchebaggy towards women, as well. Manospherians, however, seem intent on reenforcing this connection at every opportunity.

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

’m actually quite horrified that the Mr. Nice Guy ™ who wrote the blog post envious of Horrible Henry the abusive asshole is a medical resident studying psychiatry. Not that doctors or psychiatrists or therapists can’t be assholes. (Quite the contrary, I’ve worked with a few of them.) But, c’mon, man, it’s not like you haven’t studied how abusers and predators operate! And still, he’s blaming the abused women and not the abuser. I hate the idea that this guy’s probably also going to be treating women, some who have probably have been or are being abused by their partners. And he’s probably going to do a lot of damage. Ugh. And the whole “I’m not saying that women are objects to be rewards to Nice Guys ™ and that Nice Guys ™ deserve sex from women for being nice, but why don’t Nice Guys ™ get sex from women and why can’t Nice Guys ™ be rewarded a woman-thing prize for being nice?” Ugh, again.

Really. A psychiatrist, of all people, should know better than that. But he doesn’t have even the most basic amount of self-awareness that the job entails. This dude is the last person in the world who should go into psychiatry…at least until he’s done a long stint in analysis as a patient himself, and experienced some real attitude changes. Only that way could he possibly acquire the insights he needs to realize that Henry the Abusive Chronic Pathological Liar is NOT a winning role model for sexual relations. There’s a reason Henry is on the couch, after all…several, probably.

(PS: Anyone else reminded of Paul Fucking Elam, at this juncture?)

sparky
sparky
6 years ago

Ah, Fibinachi, you give a much kinder reading than I do.

I had a bit of a visceral reaction to this guy, because this:

That’s when you kind of realize that the reason someone can write a long post that references, multiple times, that relationships and love is just like having a job is that to the person writing it, it is. There’s no actual difference between holding down a job and finding a lover, both involve finding the tools needed to solve a computational problem that will end with the result you want.

…is dead-on, and it’s a horrible, horrible way of thinking for someone in the healing profession to have. There’s already a tendency for medical professionals to view a patient as a set of symptoms and test results rather than a whole human being. Add that on top of it? I shudder a little.

And this is what he concludes:

So I think the better parts of feminism and the better parts of the manosphere could unite around something like this, against the evil fringes of both movements. Not for my sake, because after many years I mysteriously and unexpectedly found a wonderful girlfriend whom I love very much. And not only for the sake of the nice guys out there. But also for the sake of women who want better alternatives to marrying someone like Henry.

“But also for the sake of women who want better alternatives to marrying someone like Henry.” Huh? Feminists and MRAs need to team up to find solutions! And the problem he’s identified as needing a solution to is not that there are abusive people like Henry and how do we stop them from hurting others, or how to give people the tools to spot abusive patterns in relationships, or what some ways society could make it easier for people to extricate themselves from abusive relationships and what can we do support those people? it’s not even how can you deal with loneliness? And it’s not even, telling lonely people they’re lonely because they’re horrible people who deserve to be lonely is not a kind or helpful thing to do, even though he’s trying to sound like that’s his concern. No, the problem he’s identified is women like assholes who abuse them and they have to stop and date the nice guys instead if they don’t want to be abused anymore. Which is classic Nice Guy(tm) thinking.

Sorry for the teal deer. I hope this doesn’t sound too ranty, the caffeine has yet to kick in, so I’m a little fuzzy.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
6 years ago

The only way to think that a guy who beats the shit out of women is a splendid sexual role model is if one doesn’t think women are people. Mr. Nice Guy™ says, in words, that he understands that women are people, but in between every other line he demonstrates that he actually doesn’t.

If some dude can really lay into an actual, inanimate punching bag with skill and aplomb, we can admire him. When his punching bag is a woman, we can only admire him if we believe that the woman and the inanimate punching bag are substantively the same.

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

So I think the better parts of feminism and the better parts of the manosphere could unite around something like this, against the evil fringes of both movements. Not for my sake, because after many years I mysteriously and unexpectedly found a wonderful girlfriend whom I love very much. And not only for the sake of the nice guys out there. But also for the sake of women who want better alternatives to marrying someone like Henry.

Uh, dude? We don’t need your “help” for that. Feminism has already helped us plenty. We already recognize that Henry is not good relationship material. We even know why that is. The “evil fringes” of movements have nothing to do with it. Feminism isn’t some wonky ideology, it’s a practical mode of analysis for sorting out why certain social injustices keep coming up, and why it all sticks in one’s craw. But yeah, go ahead and paint it as some evil alien “movement” you struggle to comprehend. At that rate, you’ll go very far. [/sarcasm]

Also, I love how he “mysteriously and unexpectedly found a wonderful girlfriend”. Yeah, that’s usually how it works. Not by plugging input into some Great Computer of Relationships, but by simply meeting someone with whom you somehow click. And I’m sure it is mysterious and unexpected to him for other reasons, too…ones which will not flatter his ego if he bothers to sit down and cogitate on it a little longer.

vaiyt
6 years ago

women like assholes who abuse them and they have to stop and date the nice guys instead if they don’t want to be abused anymore.

Of course, like every Nice Guy, he thinks he is a nice guy, when he’s exactly the kind of person women avoid the most – the assholes who demand women’s bodies and companionship as if it was something they’re entitled to.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: all the people who got the Henry the Eighth reference

Kid: I knew I could count on you.

RE: Bina

And don’t feel that you have to forgive anyone for their part in it unless YOU want to.

Kid: I have no intention. Right now, I’m working on actually responding to the passive-aggressive emails the father has been sending, rather than just shuffling them off. It’s been two and a half years, dude. You need to move on with your life, instead of acting like a stalky ex-boyfriend.

RE: cassandrakitty

Why the constant need to try to make sex as degrading and un-fun as possible, dudes both straight and gay?

Rogan: Sometimes I wonder the same thing. I feel like I’m missing a vital chunk of my dudely brain or something.

RE: Kittehs

HI KID! Despite the subject (and damn yes, I believe you) it’s good to see you posting here. ::waves::

Kid: It’s making fun of jerks! How could I NOT be into that? (And it’s good to be believed.)

RE: Unimaginative

I’m sorry that your family of origin is such a festering wad of pus. Kid, I love that you are so sarcastic.

Kid: It’s one of my best traits! And join the club, we have jackets.

Fibinachi
6 years ago

Yeah, sparky. I was too kind in the reading. It’s been in my head for the last few hours like some memesplinter.
So I read the comments. And thought some more.

Wrong. It’s so wrong. And your explanation is exactly why. I guess I just *really* wanted the morw kind takeaway of “dont be a dick to people”, despite the constant garbled logic going the other way.

Chie Satonaka
Chie Satonaka
6 years ago

I’m late, but according to the Mirror article, this young man attends Oxford and speaks three languages. Sounds like he’s probably rather smart in addition to being athletic.

Wetherby
Wetherby
6 years ago

(If I were to take a guess: I wonder if the asker-outer is hitting on a girl at a bar/party, getting rejected, watching her from a sulky distance, and assuming that any laugh she produces through the rest of the evening MUST BE about him.)

Which seemed to be Elliot Rodger’s technique, at least judging from his “manifesto”. He constantly talked about being “rejected”, but despite describing endless events from his life in laceratingly masochistic detail I don’t recall a single example of him actually asking a woman on a date and being rebuffed. It was all “watching her from a sulky distance” for what seemed like years on end and may well have been.

Catalpa
Catalpa
6 years ago

That ‘nice guy’ writer is really bad at any kind of internal consistency. “Yeah sure there’s a whole host of really toxic ideas bandied around in the MRM, but. You can just filter that out, there’s nuggets of good advice there too I promise! No movement is a monolith!” And “feminism is composed entirely of a bunch of meanies and people who are literally voldemort (I do not think that word means what you think it means, bucko) because they tell lonely people they are rapist shitstains for thinking they deserve a woman! Clearly none of their ideology can help me in connecting to women any better!”

Or maybe he is being consistent, and his stance just is “I only hear what I want to hear”

Fibinachi
6 years ago

It’s a cornucopia of bewildering whatthefuckery, made all the worse by the fact that (as I’ve come to gleam) this is all taking place on what is apparently a Rationalist blog (which is a thing) so the entire discussion is being made by The Most Rational People who spend their time wondering what I statements, O statements and E statements mean in relation to epistimic knowledge of circumstance, what the statistical density clusters are in relation to virginity and IQ measures, and just why women are such inferior specimens of humanity, worthless and always dating jerks.

It’s… it’s really something.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Fibinachi

the statistical density clusters are in relation to virginity and IQ measures

Kid: They really, REALLY hate being virgins, don’t they? Eesh.

Fnoicby
Fnoicby
6 years ago

Since when is feminism about having a hate-on for anything traditionally “macho”? Oh no, I must not speak to men with BODY HAIR! I must not speak to any men with MUSCLES or who PLAY SPORTS!

Sigh. Rejecting traditional gender roles is not about rejecting certain qualities people have, and thus the people themselves. It’s about rejecting these qualities as being the ONLY acceptable way of being a “man” or “woman”.

Fibinachi
6 years ago

Seriously, Unimaginative’s link is like a memetic splinter that lodges in the brain. It’s all so appalingly wrongheaded. It’s like discovering a tribe of feral gnomes in your closet that subsist on nothing but old socks and moral utilarianism. Facinating, curious and infinitely bloody confusing.

@LBT:

Amen, Kid. Amen and “eesh”.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
6 years ago

@Fnoicby

Well, here’s the thing: this is equating Emma Watson’s personal choices with her political ones. This is saying that her political position (that men should not be required to be macho) must translate into a personal choice to never date a man who is, or looks like he might possibly fall, within the “macho” standard.

This is a problem that feminists have wrestled with for a while (if you say women should be OK with a career, does it make you a bad feminist if you are, yourself, a stay-at-home mom?) but I think that’s more or less resolved. There was a period when “the personal is political” reigned supreme, and you still see that from time to time (it’s not dead) but the importance of it seems to have subsided a bit. The personal is political, but the prior formulation of that restricted women’s choices just as much as the traditional model, just in the opposite direction. I think a lot of feminists today understand why that’s not cool.

So this shaming of Watson for not making her political personal (in their opinion anyway) is just MRAs trying to play a gotcha with 70s and 80s era feminism. Personally I find that kind of hilarious.

Fnoicby
Fnoicby
6 years ago

Thanks Policy…I’m not well versed in 70’s/80’s feminism and didn’t realize that was an actual thing at one time. Seems quite a shallow idea on the surface, I’m curious to look into the history though.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Policy of Madness

There was a period when “the personal is political” reigned supreme, and you still see that from time to time

I still see this a lot, particularly on tumblr. I actually fought a DID diagnosis for YEARS because of political reasons, and felt this weird sense of let-down and failure when I finally caved and took it so I could get disability. You still see it a LOT in trans and queer circles, and I’ve definitely seen it in multi circles online too.

…this might have something to do with why I don’t hang out in the scenes anymore, if I ever did.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
6 years ago

@LBT

I actually prefer the reverse formulation: the political is personal. Although we all create society, and are created by society in turn, in a circular fashion, as individuals we are more “created by” than “create.”

blahlistic (@blahlistic)

@ LBT…you need that money, you take it. Less money they can spend on bombs to blow up people.

I feel really lucky to have a job so boring that I can have a nervous breakdown while working.
…And how often do y’all lose things?
I lose stuff, other multi-peeps lose stuff, my LDR guy loses stuff, it seems to be something dissociative people are incredibly good at.
I can imagine that part alone becoming debilitating.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

The “personal is political” idea is sound, but the thing is, that should never be a reason to put blame on individuals for doing what they need to do to survive.

vaiyt
6 years ago

This is saying that her political position (that men should not be required to be macho) must translate into a personal choice to never date a man who is, or looks like he might possibly fall, within the “macho” standard.

Which is stupid because “should not be required to be” =/= “should not be allowed to be” =/= “should be shunned for being”.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: blahlistic

how often do y’all lose things?

We’re lucky, we lose things pretty rarely. Then again, our dissociation rarely manifests as memory problems, and we don’t dissociate so much anymore. Also, we’re pretty strict about our routine, making sure we put shit in the same place every time, and that seems to help.

RE: cassandrakitty

that should never be a reason to put blame on individuals for doing what they need to do to survive.

But THINK OF THE MOVEMENT!

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

@ LBT

Check out the “yes, but” in the “AVFM publishes” thread right now. I’m not even going to try to respond, but ugh, people really need to back the fuck off with the judging about how not everyone is doing activism perfectly.

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
6 years ago

Here is the quote on the quote:
Carol Hanisch has a brief essay called “The Personal is Political” in the
Redstockings collection *Feminist Revolution* — her essay is dated March
1969 (204-205). The essay defends consciousness-raising against the charge
that it is “therapy.” Hanisch states “One of the first things we discover
in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are
no personal solutions at this time.”

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Oops, I kind of responded, indirectly. Really not in the mood for dumbed down political analysis today.

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
6 years ago

It is because we realized in the sixties that all this stuff we though was personal and were told was personal was actually political. It was important then and it is important now to ask ourselves is this a personal problem or is it a political issue for all of us?
I like to get compliments is a personal issue.
Men catcalling women is a political issue.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

And yeah, I feel like a lot of people kind of missed the point of the whole personal is political thing, which was that when women started getting together in groups and talking about problems they were having that’s when it became clear that oh, hey, everyone is having these exact same problems, which rather indicates a societal rather than an individual-specific cause.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
6 years ago

I … definitely did not intend to start a normative conversation, and I apologize for being thoughtless about that.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: cassandrakitty

people really need to back the fuck off with the judging about how not everyone is doing activism perfectly.

For me, that kind of behavior is a red flag. It tells me that someone has likely never gotten really badly burned, or they’re dangerously invested in their politics.

I actually left the online multi scene back in 2010 because a lot of the ‘activism’ we jokingly called ‘inactivism.’ Anything you did would get torn to itty bitty bits; unless it was perfect, it was considered pointless to do. The first comic I made, I got complaints that it wasn’t radical enough. In response, I sweetly told them they could make their own damn comics then.

it became clear that oh, hey, everyone is having these exact same problems,

This is actually why I had such a huge relief response when I started reading on incestuous families and seeing our family’s framework and patterns all laid out to see. It isn’t just us! This is actually a pattern used societally, not just in our family!

Which gives me all the more reason to support Kid in her endeavor to blast our family’s secrecy and denial out of the water.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

@ LBT

In some cases (like this one) I tend to read it more as “has not thought things through”. There does seem to be a correlation between that kind of rhetoric and either never having tried it when not hiding behind the safety of a keyboard and having a whole lot of real world privilege insulating you from the knowledge of just how badly things can go wrong if you do try it in real life.

In terms of the link between consciousness raising and activism, ever noticed that often the people in power don’t want the people with less power talking among themselves too much, and that they’ll often attempt to disrupt those conversations or prevent them from ever happening? This is why. Sharing stories leads to identifying patterns, which can lead to concrete action. Can’t have that.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: cassandrakitty

Sharing stories leads to identifying patterns, which can lead to concrete action. Can’t have that.

Don’t I know it! I’ve seen it play out on a much smaller level just within our family; it’s how the grandfather kept getting access to children, because nobody EVER talked about it with each other, and CERTAINLY not with the kids who were always around him.

I can’t really claim superiority; I used to think that maybe it was all just paranoia that made so many people unwilling to come out as multiple. It’s been seven years, and now that I’ve lost jobs, family, homes, and ability to work because of it, I don’t think that anymore, and am deeply embarrassed that I ever did.

fruitloopsie
fruitloopsie
6 years ago

“Miss Emma, I believe that these rap scallions are terribly angry that you, as a woman, are happy and dating a ‘hot jock’ instead of a ‘nerd’ just like in the movies. They just absolutely hate women being happy and ‘hot jocks’ getting everything and leave the ‘uglies’ to them because women are not people! Another definition of ‘Mangry’ or ‘Manbrat’

Miss Emma: by Georgette! How-

Why it’s elementary my dear Watson!

::blows pipe and bubbles come out::

Dvärghundspossen
6 years ago

And yeah, I feel like a lot of people kind of missed the point of the whole personal is political thing, which was that when women started getting together in groups and talking about problems they were having that’s when it became clear that oh, hey, everyone is having these exact same problems, which rather indicates a societal rather than an individual-specific cause.

Precisely.

And besides, I think it can be fair to blame individuals for not living up to their own standards. Someone who actually goes on about how make-up is inherently oppressive and sexist and wrong, and still wears make-up, is probably a hypocrite. Or perhaps she’s actually forced to do so at her job, but unless something like that is the case, you shouldn’t go around talking about how make-up is sooo terrible and then wear it yourself with the excuse that you feel slightly uncomfortable without it.
I really think feminists sometimes go too far in the “we must never judge individuals for not living up to their own standards”-direction, even though there’s definitely a kernel of truth here. If you argue that X is terribly wrong and sexist, and you’re only reason for doing X is that you feel somewhat uncomfortable quitting, you ought to stop. My two cents.

BUUUUUUT the thing is that Emma Watson dating a rugby player isn’t analogous to the make-up wearing make-up hater I described above, since she never said that there’s anything wrong with a guy having muscles, being into sport and so on, only that men should be allowed to depart from gender stereotypes. Which is a very different thing.

Dvärghundspossen
6 years ago

To further clarify: IF Emma Watson had stood in the UN and argued (and a weird argument it would be) that it’s wrong for men to have muscles and do sports, and feminism requires all men to quit doing that, then I actually think it would be fair to ask WTF she’s doing dating a rugby player.

Fibinachi
6 years ago

Well it makes perfect sense, in the end. Gender roles aren’t just normative divisions of labour, they’re hard-wired biological imperatives that result in specific tendencies and actions from all males and all females. So when Emma Watson says she believes men should be allowed to be vulnerable and, maybe, not die from suicide at a young age, but also dates a Rugby Player, she is really showcasing that she is a woman who dates a hot handsome dude, and therefore, she is perfectly fine following her own gender role of “be woman, be hypergamous towards alphas” which obviously means that she has no real interest in preventing either male suicide or emotional issues.

It’s super simple! If you’re the kind of person that has no soul.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
6 years ago

@Dvärghundspossen

The makeup thing is a serious-business debate, and if you’ve only encountered the “I would feel mildly uncomfortable without makeup” side of it, you don’t really understand it. The foundation of it is that women are actively punished, with the most important punishments being financial, for not being sufficiently pretty. A woman who works in food service, for example, will see her tips plummet if she ceases to wear makeup. Women who aren’t pretty enough don’t see the same kinds of raises and promotions as women who are pretty (and there’s a double-bind in that as well, because being pretty comes with its own suite of social punishments).

So a feminist might (and many of them do) say that this requirement that women been uniformly pretty is a problem, and it would be great if all women everywhere would just stop wearing makeup and reset the beauty standard down to, at worst, the way that women who are already conventionally attractive normally look. But then those same feminists might go to work wearing makeup because they realize that not doing so harms their economic power.

You can stand back and judge them for that, and say they aren’t really feminists or they are hypocrites or whatever, but if you do that then I’m going to judge you, because now you’re putting them into a brand-new, freshly-pressed double-bind that didn’t exist before. You’re saying that unless a woman is willing to sacrifice actual money on the altar of feminism, she isn’t a real feminist. I think it’s BS to require that people who are already disadvantaged put themselves at even greater disadvantage in order to obtain social change. It’s great if a woman chooses to do this, but if she does it’s probably going to be because she is already privileged in some other way that permits it (like being conventionally attractive without makeup, being white, being sufficiently high on the SES scale, etc). Women who lack those privileges should not be asked to put themselves under the wheel, or evicted from the feminism club for choosing to put food on their table.

Dvärghundspossen
6 years ago

You’re saying that unless a woman is willing to sacrifice actual money on the altar of feminism, she isn’t a real feminist.

Um, no, that was not what I was saying. I was saying that if someone doesn’t suffer worse consequences than feeling slightly uncomfortable if she stops doing what she claims is really wrong, she’s a hypocrite if she doesn’t stop. IF. And that can very well be the case if she’s, say, a student, or work in a profession where appearances aren’t that important.

And besides, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with make-up. I often (though not always) use it myself. I think make-up or no make-up should be an open choice for men as well as women, rather than pushed onto women (and in some cases, as you describe, more or less forced upon them) and almost forbidden for men. The “make-up is always bad and inherently wrong and sexist” wasn’t my view, but the view of an imaginary feminist in my thought-experiment.

I’m not saying that people should be prepared to make heroic sacrifices in the name of ideology. But I say that we should at least expect people to stand up for their views when it doesn’t require any big sacrifice. It’s just weird to draw a sharp line between the political and the personal as if they were isolated from each other.

Anyway, my main point was that “Emma Watson is allowed to date a rugby player because that’s personal” is a really weird argument. As I said above, if she had claimed that men having muscles and doing sport was wrong, yeah, then she ought not to date a rugby player (not doing so doesn’t require a huge sacrifice or anything). The point isn’t that whom she dates is “personal” and therefore completely disconnected from her feminist views, the point is that she’s never said that having muscles and doing sport is wrong.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

What Policy of Madness said. There’s a limit to what it’s reasonable to ask people to give up to prove a political point, and things like housing and food are not on the list of things it’s reasonable to ask them to give up. I do think that there are limits to that, and some actions that are so awful that “but I needed the money” isn’t sufficient justification (being a professional torturer, for example), but things that are collective problems that feminism has identified as having an impact on all of us? Often individual action doesn’t solve the problem, all it does is hurt the individual. Which doesn’t mean that people can’t take individual action if the want to, or even that it’s not admirable of them to do so, but it does mean that if you’re blaming specific individuals for not taking that action you’re both being kind of a jerk and misunderstanding the nature of the problem.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Also, Dvarg, I feel like you’re either battling a straw hypocritical feminist or overgeneralizing from one kind of hypocritical person who you encountered, cause in my experience the feminists who’re most outspoken about makeup, shaving etc being terrible tend to be the ones who don’t do those things, and the feminists who do wear makeup and shave their legs and so on tend to be focused on other issues.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
6 years ago

I was saying that if someone doesn’t suffer worse consequences than feeling slightly uncomfortable if she stops doing what she claims is really wrong, she’s a hypocrite if she doesn’t stop. IF.

I have yet to encounter an activist of any stripe who goes along with some harmful social convention for reasons of “I would be slightly uncomfortable if I didn’t.”

The “make-up is always bad and inherently wrong and sexist” wasn’t my view, but the view of an imaginary feminist in my thought-experiment.

And it seems like you haven’t either.

Look, I didn’t mean to jump on you, and I apologize for being harsh. The makeup issue is one of those “hah hah look how silly women are and how hypocritical feminists can be” things that is used like a bludgeon by folks who don’t really get the underlying problem. If you think makeup is frivolous then having deep feminists debates about makeup at the same time that feminists wear it is going to seem bizarre at best. What I’m saying is that it’s not frivolous in the slightest, and it’s not a good example of feminist hypocrisy.

Dvärghundspossen
6 years ago

Cassandra, you’re right, it’s not a common thing. I’ve encountered more than one person in my old feminist group on Facebook who I think leaned in a problematic direction – like, being really firm in their views that this or that thing is SO WRONG and ALWAYS WRONG because sexist (rather than, like, people of all genders should freely choose whether they want to do the thing or not) but still we can’t judge ANY woman for doing the thing (regardless of her situation) because OPPRESSION, so eventually I sort of just wanted to say, like a libertarian or something, “what about personal responsibility?”.

But yeah, they’re a small minority in feminism, and all movements have a few people who exaggerate. You’re right.

ANYWAY point about Emma Watson stands; her right to date a rugby player shouldn’t be defended by some kind of “that’s personal, not political” argument, because we can legitimately expect A not to date B if B is engaged in something that completely goes against A:s ideology. It’s just that this is not the case with Watson and her boyfriend.

Dvärghundspossen
6 years ago

It’s okay Madness, I was probably making a fairly irrelevant argument about that make-up thing anyway.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

@ Dvarg

This just reinforces my gut feeling that Facebook is a terrible venue for political conversations. Not sure what it is about the format or space that makes people prone to saying very silly things, but it really doesn’t bring out the best in people.

Dvärghundspossen
6 years ago

I eventually left the group, but with some regret, because there were lots of smart people there and lots of smart things being said. But also these people who were really loud-mouthed with fairly extreme views (in that group I also encountered quite a lot of people who proudly declared themselves man-haters), so eventually I just got tired of it.
I’ve left vegan/animal rights groups for similar reasons…

Fnoicby
Fnoicby
6 years ago

Dvarg:

The point isn’t that whom she dates is “personal” and therefore completely disconnected from her feminist views, the point is that she’s never said that having muscles and doing sport is wrong.

That’s the missing piece I wasn’t understanding about this whole “personal is political” thing…the assumption that she’s being a hypocrite is based on the above false logic. Thanks 🙂

GrumpyOldMan
6 years ago

There seems to have been an a priori assumption that a good-looking jock is necessarily an alpha and therefore a woman-hating male supremacist scumbag. A wee bit of a logical jump, eh? A rational person might conclude that since EW is a beautiful young woman who has a wide range of options for boyfriends, she might not actually choose to date the biggest available stinker. Maybe it’s more reasonable to think she would choose a nice guy (no TM).

Pantalones
Pantalones
6 years ago

Ugh. I can’t stand the assumption that attractiveness is some constant, measurable thing rather than the EXTREMELY (I’d say upwards of 90%) subjective/individual thing that it actually is.

So many people babbling nonsense like “She’s a 6!” “She’s a 2!” “She’s a whatever!”

No, she’s not any number. She’s an “x.” In the mathematical sense: x is a variable. Her (and everyone else’s) attractiveness varies wildly depending on who’s looking… because different people are attracted to different things.

The concept of some people just inherently “being attractive” (as opposed to other people being attracted TO them) is another one of those things that just needs to hurry up and die.

bryna
bryna
5 years ago

Funny how they complain about makeup and high heels when they obviously require it of women that they will “bang”, or watch in porn or in stripclubs or in men’s magazines.

Georgia
Georgia
3 years ago

Where did the first photo of her with all the red text come from?

1 5 6 7