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.
You honestly think they just decided that she’s obligated to date men like them now, as a result of the speech? Cause I gotta say, that seems rather unlikely to me.
Well, it kinda seems to me like the logical conclusion of what they’re saying? Watson made a speech denouncing male stereotypes, then began dating a guy who might superficially fulfill all the male stereotypes. In their logic that means Watson is at the very least inconsistent, and it proves that women do want “real men”. So the only way for Watson to avoid that would be to only date a specific type of man (i.e., those fulfilling male gender expectations) to avoid that. In a weird way that hence seems to be what they demand of her in order to be considered consistent.
I’m not saying they openly say that, it’s just that it kinda seems like a natural conclusion of their “argumentation” here. But I suppose I’m a bit fumbling in bringing across what I wanted to say. Sorry.
Argh. Meant to write “i.e. those *not* fulfilling male gender expectations” of course. Yeah, I should probably slowly back off the PC now and just go to bed…
You’re giving them far too much credit for both honesty and logical consistency.
I think the heart of this is their rage over women not dating guys like them. Yet, these guys strive to be “alpha,” and at the same time get pissed off when women date guys that seem to fit the description of what they want to be – even though according to their evo psych, women are supposed to be attracted to “alphas.” My head hurts just thinking about it, but I think a lot of it has to do with “if I/someone like me can’t have her, no one should … and she’s not even pretty anyway, SO THERE!”
I once read through a comments section of some site; can’t remember which. A woman was emphatically agreeing with everything this misogynist was blabbering on about how women should conform to the ’50s stereotype … yet she got a huge backlash from saying she was in a relationship with a masculine, confident man.
BTW, here is some red panda brain bleach.
http://larsofcydonia.tumblr.com/post/78008949618/most-adorable-thing-ever
Giant pandas are awesome, but red pandas are best pandas.
Worth noting there’s a fairly large streak of American-centric assumption going on here that a football player is automatically a meathead “Alpha”. Rugby union is actually a fairly strategic game, especially compared to gridiron, AFL or rugby league (the dumbed-down version of rugby union). The guys who play rugby, at least in Australia, are the sportsmen most likely to be using words bigger than two syllables when they’re interviewed on TV.
And that’s before you even get to the idea that you can categorise a person based one one activity they participate in. This guy’s a rugby player, great. Does he also do ballroom dancing? Is he part of the debating society? Is he in a manga viewing club? What’s he studying? Does he paint in his spare time? What does he like to read? Does he restore antique cars?
tl;dr – Octo, you’re giving these guys way too much credit for thinking of other people as people, and not as simplistic stereotypes.
So, is this guy like Rosie Greer? Does he do needle-point? Because that would be a “feminist excuse” to date him, right?
As for their rating, I especially like the “too many purses” critique. Because it couldn’t possibly be that she was out with a group, and they all piled their purses in the same spot, to make it easier to keep track of them all. That would be un-possible.
“Would not bang?” I’m sure she’s very grateful. One less hanger-on for her to put up with.
Clearly that is what we so desperately need. Someone to speak for Richard Nixon’s poor put upon silent majority. Looks like another bunch of white d00dz who think they are the majority of the world cuz they are the majority of their neighborhood. Criminy!
Those grapes are really, really sour, aren’t they?
Ugh! Ashley Wilkes! He spent the whole time being madly in love with his wife, but never had the guts to just SAY it, already! So much trouble could have been avoided, if he hadn’t been such a wuss, in that regard.
As for preferring Rhett – it’s not about his character as an alpha male. It’s about the fact that he really wanted Scarlet.
I learned long ago not to do the unrequited love thing. On my list of requirements in a mate, the absolute #1 requirement is that he WANT ME. Any man who doesn’t want me, can’t have me. Saves a lot of time and heartache that way.
Now, as for Rhett being a male role-model or the kind of man a woman should aspire to marrying? Ummmm… No. Not for me. Totally not my teacup.
And I know of which I speak, because not only have I seen the movie multiple times, all the way through, but I also read the book! Rhett may be a match for a conniving, morally challenged, selfish woman like Scarlett, but he’s no role model.
Did you read the bio? The guy speaks 3 languages, has done internships in corporate banking and international law, spent a year in Russia for his studies, as well as being a star rugby player. In other words, a really, really smart jock.
Heck, he’s pretty close to being above Watson’s pay grade (kidding — she’s aces).
This is that classic MRA/RedPiller thing. Not getting a date is literally the worst type of oppression they can imagine, so when they hear Emma Watson saying that men should be free from restrictive gender stereotypes, all they can think is “What’s the point if hot girls won’t date me? WHAT’S THE POINT IF EMMA WATSON WON’T PERSONALLY DATE ME?”
@blahlistic
Yep – being able to identify those red flags is really important.
The fact that I can also use it to my benefit by writing a realistic abusive villain is also handy.
Memo to MRAs: Emma Watson can date who she likes, but that is never, never going to include you. Get used to it.
But I’m a nice guy! Why does SHE get hot boyfriend ice cream that isn’t me when I can’t even get regular variety girlfriend ice cream. Oppression!
By the way, through a friend commenting on one of her friends blabbing about “egalitarianism” showing up on my news feed, I saw that Cathy Young got to write for Time (blech to them lately) about how HeForShe and Emma Watson are man haters who don’t care about man problems. Somehow. Despite that whole stretch of the speech about sexism against men. The campaign doesn’t mention helping teh menz SO THAT IS HATE.
Egalitarianism – a “movement” that does literally nothing but snarking about how ITS name is BETTER.
When I was a kid, I didn’t know the red flags. I did know that sometimes I got “creepy vibes,” but no specifics. And I suffered for it.
When I got older, and started really putting the pieces together, I learned who to avoid, and haven’t suffered from that kind of abuse.
NOT BLAMING THE VICTIM HERE – There is no “She should have known better.” No, because most people don’t learn these lessons until after it’s too late. The lessons are really, REALLY hard to teach to other people. Oh, yeah, you can post lists of top 10 red flags, but they are almost always hand-waved away by the justifications the abusive jerks give.
Most long-term abusive jerks are extremely good at hand-waving, justification, and hiding their scariness. It’s the ones who aren’t very good at it, who wind up in only short-term abusive relationships, or else turn into the frustrated obvious bullies.
Obvious bullies are obvious, and when non-sympathetic victim-blamers look at people stuck in long-term abusive relationships, they conflate them with obvious bullies. The vast majority of long-term abusers are actually quite charming. It’s how they suck in their victims, as well as how they deflect blame from the community.
So, yeah, I learned, from experience and observation, and have been able to avoid being abused like that, since then. BUT, that does not mean that anyone, especially someone young and inexperienced, has the responsibility to be an expert on the subject of jerk-avoidance. The jerks have the responsibility to not be jerks!
And frankly, if you can find anyone who has become an expert on jerk-avoidance who didn’t learn at least half of their lessons the hard way, I’d be very much surprised. Some topics you just don’t learn from a book.
Eww. Sounds like that scumbag Danny Nalliah here. “Keep Australia Australian!” quoth a Sri Lankan fundamentalist bigot who hates Muslims and blames the Black Saturday bushfires on the decriminalisation of abortion.
It’s just you.
Not only does every type of manosphere dude seemingly base their entire world view on their personal observations about dating, every dating scenario, real or imagined (mostly imagined), they discuss involves guys saddled with unsuitably unattractive women. Misogyny has gifted the world with a subset of straight men who generally find all women physically repulsive in some way. These dudes then do a bang up job stoking the coals that fuel their own misery.
Oh noes! Stereotype BUSTED! Emma wins again! Curses!
So, why are “alphas” almost never described as renaissance men? Because the renaissance men are too alpha for the alphas?
Or maybe the renaissance men have too much “beta” in them, as a contributing factor in their desire to do all those artsy-fartsy renaissance things?
Or something?
Anyway, the boyfriend sounds awesome.
Chronic Lurker… your football team may have stunk, but ours stunk worse. The ski team and the cross country kids were pretty much the only jocks that did well for our school.
Most horrible thing about band in the interior: having to do pep band, sitting on the bleachers outside with a flute, with temperatures just above freezing… in order to not have to play a single “Yay, touchdown” song.
Urgh.
Admittedly, the oboe had it worse.
At least cross country and ski didn’t demand pep-band support.
They were also pretty clever. One of my Calc 2 buddies was totally into cross country.
“… 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.”
Including the stereotype that only brain-dead grunting cavemen can enjoy sports, certainly not highly intelligent, multilingual college students!
Those Red Pillers wouldn’t know what “Irony” means if I taped a dictionary to their face.
I hate the out of his/her league thing. You can’t rank people and put them in rigid little quality boxes. If people are into each other, that’s that. Who cares how attractive others judge them to be?
I thought “above her pay grade” must have been a joke, albeit a bad one, since her “pay grade” is in the millions.