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
Gender equality not only liberates women but also men from prescribed gender stereotypes. #heforshe
— Emma Watson (@EmmaWatson) August 18, 2014
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 poetthe 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.
WOULD NOT 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.
one thing we can assume that these guys also never consider:
this dude may be hunky, but he’s probably not a raging misogynist like these guys
funny how that factor never occurs to them
All of this, plus these dudes have no idea what her boyfriend is like. The fact that he is rugby player doesn’t automatically a meat head jock. He could write poetry and rescue bunnies in his off time for all any of us know. Emma seems to have a good head on her shoulders and I suspect that this guy has a lot more going on than rugby player.
Oh no! A beautiful young celebrity is dating a beautiful young man. I am shocked. SHOCKED! This clearly lampoons everything feminism stands for!!1!
Silliness aside, Watson’s boyfriend is a good looking jock and apparently that’s all that matters to these guys. For all we know he’s a total sweetheart that they likely would have dubbed “beta” in another situation. Maybe he enjoys baking or shopping? Successful and sociable people tend to have a lot of different interests and hobbies, and usually that helps them meet and interact with new people. They don’t limit themselves to WWAAD (What Would An Alpha Do.)
It’s just so ridiculous. Attractive woman in dating attractive man shocker! How terribly unfair the universe is! If people of similar levels of conventional attractiveness tend to pair up this means that feminism is a lie, because feminists promised me a bikini model of my very own!
(They did too. Shut up, you misandrist.)
Him being a rugby player probably lowers the odds a bit (I say this from firsthand experience, not random bitterness), but most guys at Oxford are certainly going to be receptive to her message. In fact there are probably a lot who would say it’s too conservative. I mean, is there really any doubt that someone as into gender issues as Emma Watson would be completely turned off by the kind of oafish caveman these guys are assuming he is?
The horror they express at the fact that the boyfriend is at an elite university is particularly funny. Guess what, dudes? That’s because she went to that same university (and also to Brown).
Yes, this means that she’s smarter than you. So is the rugby player boyfriend, in all likelihood. They don’t let stupid people into Oxford even if they are handsome and good at sports.
Also, lots of “jocks” are rather nice people (and this is coming from someone with a bad experience with a nasty cliche of jocks from the ski team.) Sure there are some assholes, like the above mentioned clique, but there are more than enough jocks that are extremely nice. A lot of them probably don’t have *time* to be assholes, they’re too busy training for their sport, traveling to games and competitions, and trying to keep their grades up in school. Most jocks I’ve met have had pretty impressive work ethic actually.
Maybe these Redpillers need to spend less time reading trashy tabloids and more time talking to real people in the real world. Every person who plays sports isn’t a “dumb jock” or “meathead” or misogynist asshole. In fact, I’m willing to bet that there aren’t a lot of dumb jocks getting into Oxford, regardless of how well they play rugby. Real life isn’t a movie about high school. Lots of people are capable of playing sports and being decent human beings. The fact that most red pill d-bags lack skills in both those areas should tell them that there’s no correlation between the two. (I’m assuming, by the obvious jealousy in their response, that redpillers can’t do sports. And, of course, there is ample evidence that they are some of the worst people in the world.)
Indeed not. Oxford has some of the toughest entry requirements of any university in the world, and rugby skills would very much come second to intellectual ability when it came to assessing his suitability. So the chances of him being a “dumb jock” are infinitesimally tiny.
And in any case, what does it matter? People’s dating preferences don’t “prove” anything on a wider scale.
It kinda feels like a big point is being missed here. Emma Watson wasn’t arguing for people to drop gender stereotypes to get pretty girls to date geeks, she was calling for men to join in the fight for women’s rights and pointing out that it can help men themselves deal with restrictive stereotypes.
I don’t think at any point she said that being for human rights meant you couldn’t date a stereotypically feminine or masculine person. Even if Emma Watson was dating someone purely for the physical thrill of it (and I’m not suggesting she is), that doesn’t negate her argument.
I get confused over the justifications these d00dz use for the notes from their bonerz being so bizarre. Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t these the same d00dz who claim that “fifty shades of gray” is proof that women like abusive asshats now arguing that another work of fiction “Gone With the Wind” gets it all wrong when the women want Ashley instead of Rhett.
Or it is a lesson not to use as an example books and movies you have never seen cuz sometimes they embarrass you.
Also too and besides I am tired of being told that we need to be making feminism all about the men if we want them to stop killing us.
The point is that women’s right to be treated as human beings should not be dependent on men’s ability to get their penises touched by the women of their choice. “How to get men laid” is not a subject that feminism attempts to address, and nor should it. These things are completely unrelated, except in the minds of petulant manchildren who think that their sad boners should be everyone’s primary concern.
1) She gave a speech. 2) She’s dating a rugby player. I don’t know how much more the world can handle.
It’s amazing what the red-pillers think means something epic.
I’m going to go out on a limb and conclude that none of them will be getting into Oxford.
I’m not saying TRP posters are shallow per se…but I’ve seen deeper teaspoons…
Or famous actors…though the fact that she’s got tuition covered probably doesn’t hurt matters any.
But no, no deadweights at Oxford.
For TRP guys, restrictive stereotype = self-identity.
That’s my guess.
We’re actually attacking their conception of self when we talk about freeing men from restrictive gender roles.
So…they either don’t compute or they freak.
From what I have heard on interviews the peeps who worked with her on HP thought that casting her as the smartest student of the year was perfect type casting.
I can’t help but wonder if they have considered the possible consequence of riling up shockingly large number of HP fans who adorable her.
This mostly strikes me as yet more proof that MRAs have almost as bad an opinion of men as they do of women. A guy is athletic and good-looking? He must be a jerk, a swaggering Alpha male, totally out of touch with his emotions, and (judging from the ‘me Tarzan you Jane’ comment) probably functionally illiterate. Because he’s a JOCK!
Misogynists think a person’s fuckability is the same as a person’s worth as a human. That’s all that matters. They assume everyone else thinks the same way. Therefore, Emma Watson must only think big handsome rugby players are the only men who are worthy as humans.
Dear RedPill,
Please stop telling me what “kind” of guys I like. You don’t know anything about me. I’ve never liked violent, boorish “alpha” males like you and never will. I’m too “masculine” and therefore not worthy of love from you or any man apparently. So, why should I, Emma Watson, or anyone, be upset that you won’t date women like us? Find a new hobby, one that doesn’t concern tearing others down under a cloak of online anonymity.
Sincerely,
Mnemosyne
It’s impossible to convince them that for most of us worth as a human being and fuckability are separate things, and that one doesn’t necessarily either imply or exclude the other. We explain the way things work for us, they think we’re lying. It’s pointless even trying to reason with them.
Well fuck, this is a devastating blow to the central feminist tenet of “no one is allowed to date rugby players.”
Argh, I get so pissed at the whole “ew, rolls!”
Dude. Humans have those when they bend over. No matter how skinny they are. It’s part of being a squishy flesh thing. If you want no rolls, date a video game character or something with an exoskeleton.
Also, my husband is a conventionally handsome gym rat. He also happens to be bi, an aspiring drag queen, and a total sweetheart. There’s a REASON this man got laid a lot. There’s a reason I married him!
RE: chronic lurker
a nasty cliche of jocks from the ski team.
Wow, where are you from that your school had a ski team? That sounds really cool! (Though not so cool that they were jerks.)
RE: Amatyultare
A guy is athletic and good-looking? He must be a jerk, a swaggering Alpha male, totally out of touch with his emotions, and (judging from the ‘me Tarzan you Jane’ comment) probably functionally illiterate. Because he’s a JOCK!
I know, right? I’ve KNOWN swaggering athletic jerk jocks — they were the ones who shoved Kid into potholes and screamed trans and gay slurs at her. I’ve ALSO known plenty of nerd jerks who were totally fine with raping me and used “being in touch with their emotions” as blackmail.
It’s almost like the quality of a person doesn’t actually depend on their stupid high school classification! Shock!
We had a ski team at my high school. Only cross country because there aren’t any mountains in the Minneapolis area.