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.
@LBT
I’m from Alaska. I grew up in the Anchorage area. Cross country skiing was sort of the “big sport” at my high school (in part because we were *awful* at football.)
RE: chronic lurker
Ah, okay, that makes sense. I’m from Texas originally, so skiing is still a weirdly exotic sport.
Also, I just realized: this whole screed is full of shit. There is a difference between, “gender roles should not be compulsory,” and, “a traditional gender role presentation is EVIL!”
But these guys have never been that bright on exactly how feminism works.
I find it unsurprising that the depth of their evaluation was limited to assumptions based on appearance. If one looks beyond the superficial, it raises questions about their “logic”.
I also find it unsurprising that they would attack her appearance- how many times have we witnessed or experienced insult as a reaction to rejection? It’s nothing more than their pathetic, misogynistic attempt to dehumanize someone so they can ignore the content of their message.
Given how many years some of these toads have probably fapped to underage pics of Ms Watson, I suspect their rage stems not only from her feminism, but from the fact that she isn’t interested in men like them.
Our ski team was only cross-country, too. We had a ski club that people could join and, for a significant fee, take a bus to a ski slope in the Adirondacks that was relatively nearby every Sunday of the ski season.
As for high school jerks…looking back, it occurs to me that the worst bullies were the ones who weren’t actually very good at it. The more skilled jocks had real confidence, while the ones who had something to prove were the ones who used their still-high level of physicality to intimidate people. Or try.
Of course, that’s just limited to the Jocks. Since I was reasonably athletic myself, I didn’t have a lot of trouble with physical bullies. Social ones were another story.
Watson is on the low end of height-weight proportionate.
Unrealistic standards are unrealistic.
I think they would just see their prejudices reflected back at them. That’s how prejudice works. You only notice and remember those things that confirm your bias. Everything else gets tossed out by your brain.
I’d rather have them huddled ’round the glow of Internet than out in meatspace, inflicting themselves on others.
RE: seraph4377
As for high school jerks…looking back, it occurs to me that the worst bullies were the ones who weren’t actually very good at it.
Enh, in middle school, bullying was equal-opportunity as far as classification went, but overwhelmingly male. Kid’s physical injury was some Goth kid that nobody thought highly of, but the guy who caused us most fear was the slurs guy, and he was a popular jock (though a total asshole). Slurs guy was the stereotypical jock bully in all sense of the word.
In high school, things were a lot better… but that’s when the rape happened and the cavalcade of rapey nerdboys followed. Seriously, ALL the kids who caused us trouble in high school were white, geeky, sexually frustrated self-proclaimed “nice guys,” who were anything but. What was worse was that they weren’t bullies; no, they were just creepy and really determined to make us their Manic Pixie Dream Girl.
I’m not sure which is worse. I mean, Slurs Dude was shitty, but at least his bullying was straightforward, and even he had the decency not to rape us. He just shouted and shoved us, and we could take refuge in him being an asshole. The rapey guys, though, were the “nice” boys, the ones we were SUPPOSED to like, the ones whose behavior was always considered sweet and romantic.
Gross.
Heads up David: http://www.donotlink.com/btcb
This guy is in what is likely an arranged marriage. And he’s a charicature of literally every negative desi/Asian male stereotype there is ugh 🙁 ????
@seraph4377
That’s been my experience with jocks too. Said clique I mentioned earlier was good, but they were hardly at the top of their league. The people that were genuinely good (the girls on varsity who would later be offered sports scholarships to ski for Uni) didn’t have a mean bone in their bodies.
Actually, some of them were being excluded/bullied by that clique for a while. Years later my mom started jogging with a varsity girl’s mom (who used to be the assistant coach) and apparently her daughter ended up having problems with this same group of people. She almost ended up quitting the team, despite being one of the fastest skiers on varsity.
He’s also a major conspiracy theorist: http://www.donotlink.com/k3i
Frankly has the most BONKERS how did you come up with that take on everything.
More fun
fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=103263
http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=103216
http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=102471
My personal top crazy/ http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=98270
My favorite: http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=101932
Why do NiceGuysTM always assume that any guy more popular with women than them MUST be a jerkkkkk assholeeeee :/
So according to those people, speaking about the need to do away with gender stereotypes *obligates* Watson to only date certain people and not others. Her dating life has to revolve around ideology, and not her feelings and tastes.
Presumptuous, but that’s what we’re used to from those guys…
It’s basically the same shit we always see from the manosphere: That a woman’s sexuality is not her choice, but basically a resource to be distributed, or in this case, to go to the most “deserving”. Ah, what was the phrase… a woman is not a coin machine where you insert niceness and sex pops out? Yeah, those guys still haven’t quite wrapped their heads around that concept.
RE: Ellie
Why do NiceGuysTM always assume that any guy more popular with women than them MUST be a jerkkkkk assholeeeee
Because that way, they can pretend the problem is women’s tastes, not themselves.
D’ohhhhhh! Need some ointment for those burns, Mr. Wiedmann? Little Gold Bond lotion for yer butthurt?
Obviously, he’s sore because now he’s gotta stop fapping and face the facts: namely, that she would never date an unprepossessing alpha-wannabe like him. He’s twice her age, for one thing. And half her IQ, for another. And for a third, icky PUA is icky. No match for an Oxford brain who is also a rugby hunk, in short. Of COURSE she’s gonna go for the most attractive guy she also happens to like. And if he’s also intelligent, sweet and funny, even better. Funny how they all just ASSume he must be dumb if he’s cute…
Misogynists. Such misandrists!
On the rolls thing, I’m 99% sure the pic I used is aimed at making fun of all the guys on the internet who proudly announce they “would not bang” some actress or whoever based on completely ridiculous expectations for bodily perfection — ie, her elbows are too pointy.
That said, I did see one of the supermarket tabloids run a “best and worst beach bodies” feature this summer that declared several actresses fat because they had rolls like Watson’s here.
FSTDT needs a MSTDT sub-site. It’s not gonna happen because misogyny is a big blind side of the site membership, but one can always hope.
Well, bullying’s a coping mechanism on the part of the bully, it makes them feel better to crap on someone.
Not an excuse.
BTW, I try to figure out why abusers do what they do not to feel empathy for them.
I do it because I want to be able to mentally model and accurately predict their reactions in a given situation.
i (we) have a very strong urge to do this, because it was part of survival when I was still small enough to be accidentally hit too hard and killed.
It’s not excuse-making,because they have no excuse.
It’s not empathy.
I just fucking hate the fuckety flying fuck out of fucking tabloids. Those fuckers.
Dear misogynists who don’t grok the feminist opposition to traditional gender roles:
It’s not about feminists prescribing new roles. It’s about getting rid of prescribed roles altogether. How that gets turned around into feminists supposedly wanting All Men to be effeminate manginas (manginae?) and All Women to be butch constructions workers, I still don’t understand.
Try to think of the feminist approach to gender roles like the old PERL slogan: there’s more than one way to do it! 😀
RE: David
On the rolls thing, I’m 99% sure the pic I used is aimed at making fun of all the guys on the internet who proudly announce they “would not bang” some actress or whoever based on completely ridiculous expectations for bodily perfection — ie, her elbows are too pointy.
*sigh* Poe’s Law, foiled again. Though seriously, the way some people behave, they really don’t seem to realize what the human body actually does in its natural state.
Even if we were to use the “women’s sexuality is a resource to be distributed to the most deserving” logic (which we’re not, because women are people), what is it about being an angry keyboard warrior that makes someone deserving of sex with a movie star? To “deserve” sex with a movie star you’d have to be pretty special, right? So what’s so special about these clowns?
Well, “deserving” in this context not meaning them, but people who don’t fit into male gender stereotypes – basically they seem to be under the expectation that now that Watson has made her speech, she is absolutely obligated to only date certain people anymore.
Huh. Weird. I just realize… usually they bitch and moan about women (or the sad caricatures of women existing in their mind) using sex and feelings to manipulate men to fall in line with them. Now, they basically *demand* that of Watson, or otherwise she isn’t consistent. Hah.
@LBT
Yep. I’ve known those types before. Off the top of my head, is this dude whose Roosh’s age, a drop-out, immature for his age, but insists on college aged women and complains that women don’t want niiiiiice guys like him, lol
@David
You should check out the links. I may have a new misogynist for you to watch :p though keep on mind the blog is more of a ‘preserving western civilization’ one than a directly manospherean one. Sexist rants are frequently there, though. And despite the ‘preserving the west’ part, the guy is an Indian immigrant :p though its two people blogging, but the sexist stuff is usually from the Indian guy
http://m.imgur.com/rkY9HcA