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.
Just a small comment about this: I don’t think that whether you tolerate bullshit or not depends that much on how popular you are and how many options you have. Anyone can be abused and end up in an abusive relationship. That kind of shit wears you down gradually, and being popular is no protection. And if you’re, for some reason, in a vulnerable state of mind to start with, you might tolerate bullshit from the get go, because you don’t have the strength to stand up to yourself – and anyone can be in a vulnerable state, for a variety of reasons.
I already saw a couple of guys throwing fits over this on Doctor Nerdlove’s site. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by the number of geeks out there with unhealthy fixations on Hermione.
Feminist ladies get all the hot dudes.
Leah:
::snicker:: He’d have to say that, wouldn’t he?
I’d go further: she simply finds Matt attractive, not “a guy like Matt”. Him, the individual.
Dvarg:
Precisely. Prime example: Ike and Tina Turner.
“I think I posted this here once before but as to why men think they’re entitled to women, I thought this was a pretty accurate reason: http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html”
correction: why some men think they’re entitled to women. The terms “mangina” or “White Knight” is used to describe any man who disagrees with the manosphere, and trust me, they exist.
I also read that cracked article and the reasons they give as to why men hate women are stupid. They do not justify misogyny.
One of my best friends from high school took second in the state in a mixed martial arts competition, did a tour in the marines, and was generally one of the most outgoing, witty, and confident people I’ve ever met.
He’s also met his wife in high school and got engaged right after. His “notch count” is around 2 or 3. He went two years stationed in Thailand, the sex tourism capital of the world, in his early twenties, but remained faithful. He’s not particularly religious. His wife has a PhD. in psychology and makes quite a bit more money than him now.
So, yeah. Not convinced that the whole alpha-beta thing is a meaningful way of categorizing real people
Indeed. In start contrast to the average boner-note, I couldn’t begin to tell you what my “type” was in terms of looks or shape. Pretty much the only thing my serious long-term partners have had in common is high intelligence, a keen wit and a zero-tolerance attitude towards bullshit – otherwise we’re talking fat, thin, superfit, physically disabled, a height range from 5’2″ to 5’11”, you name it.
So if you took a snapshot of any one moment of my life, the chances are you’d draw a whole string of wildly inaccurate conclusions about my alleged preferences – because if you don’t know the actual people involved (and in the case of Emma Watson we’re talking the actual woman versus the media construct) and are only going by superficial surface details, you’re missing 95% of the necessary information. At least.
Well, a Red Piller’s response to that would be “Yeah, but she dumped that guy and started dating an alpha! See, red pill mechanics at work!”.
If, at any time, Emma Watson breaks up with that guy, they will say “He probably dumped her to get younger pussy!” or “He probably got betaized. Women in LTR’s do that to you.”. If they don’t break up, however, they will exclaim “Seee, you need to be an alpha to keep a woman from dumping you!”.
If it’s the other way around(if Emma Watson had dated a jock before and now started dating a guy who they would consider a “beta”) they would go “She got used and abused by an alpha, now she’s all washed up and clamoring for a beta”. If they ever break up, redpillers will go “You see once a woman has the taste of an alpha, she cannot go back.”. If they don’t break up, they will say “She has hit the wall, she knows noone else is going to take her”
Unless those women started dating them at a young age(without ever having dated or had sex someone else) and continued to be with them until death(whilst supplying an endless stream of sex), redpillers will find something to say. Any and every information gap they see, they fill it with their own viewpoint (regardless of whether it is true), then they say it proves their viewpoint.
They only have a hammer, so everything seems like a nail to them.
The reason why the man Emma is dating is OBVIOUSLY a meatheaded asshole jock is because if and attractive woman is dating/otherwise involved with any man but the particular misogynist speaking, that woman is making the WRONG CHOICE. It’s why they think women always go for assholes- any man who is dating a woman you want is an asshole, because he is depriving you of your god-given right to date/bone any woman you want. It’s why a woman who refuses to sleep with you is a filthy slut. Because the ONLY right choice to make is YOU.
If they ever notice women who they are NOT attracted to, it is only to rain scorn down upon the bamboozled pitiful beta guys who are dating someone who is OBVIOUSLY a disgusting used-up harpy because she doesn’t fit dudebro’s idea of attractiveness and therefore has absolutely no value to anyone ever.
In short, these fuckheads are so soliphistic and self-centered that they believe everyone in the world should cater exclusively to them and that any slight inconvenience (or even hypothetical possible inconvenience) they experience is worse than anything else ever was, because it is happening to THEM.
At art college in the UK I remember some American students being surprised by people kicking a ball around, that somehow art and sport could never mix, like oil and water. ‘Jock’ isn’t a word I’ve ever heard seriously used over here. You can be super good at football and super good at maths. How dull and narrow minded does someone have to be to not realise this?
Emma has apparently been seeing this guy for at least 8 months. Get with the program guys!
I met my partner at art college, he is the typical starving artist type but (gasp) has a beard and lovely big shoulders and a big nose that has been broken multiple times (through playing sport mostly!) I’d like to imagine these red pill chaps heads exploding in unison.
It’s ALMOST as if you can’t judge a book by it’s cover! HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!
Well, not in connection with playing sports, anyway. “Jock” in British English is a slang term for a Scotsman, and used pretty much exclusively in that context.
I’d love to agree with you in general, but I’m afraid it’s not true – even in Britain we’ve fully bought into the “Plays sports? Must be thick!” stereotype. As demonstrated by the gobsmacked astonishment shown by the British media a couple of decades ago when Eric Cantona (a foreigner, of course) turned out to possess more than the tiniest smidgen of cultural awareness. In fact, many years later Cantona approached Ken Loach and asked if he could appear in one of his films (which became Looking for Eric) – and I just can’t imagine a British footballer approaching a mainland European equivalent like Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne with a similar request.
On the other hand, it does seem to be the case that rugby players give more intelligent interviews than football (soccer) players – which may well be a wider cultural thing, as rugby is a sport that’s much more associated with expensive private education. I’ve just looked up two of the only British rugby players that I can name off the top of my head, and Will Carling has a degree in psychology while Jonny Wilkinson was at least offered a university place before he decided to pursue a full-time sports career.
(I’m fully aware, of course, that this deeply unscientific sampling is ripe for demolition, so please feel free!)
What do Ben Cohen (6’2 rugby player)
and
Gareth Thomas (6’3 rugby player)
have in common?
If you said, both amazing rugby players who had played for their countries you would be correct! If you also said both gay men who are activists and had posed virtually nude on the cover of attitude magazine you would also be correct!
Openly gay activist rugby players. What has the world come to.
Wetherby, professional footballers have (justifiably) gained the reputation for being thick as 2 short planks but that’s where it ends.
“I’d love to agree with you in general, but I’m afraid it’s not true”
So…are you calling me a liar or wot? Do we need to take this out side?
“Well, Brian…I hit the ball first time and there it was, in the back of the net.”
(Seemed like a good place for a Monty Python quote)
I don’t see where Emma Watson dating a rugby player is hypocrisy. Dating Heartiste would be hypocrisy.
You can always trust the Menchildren’s Rights Movement to disguise a juvenile discussion of a celebrity’s f*ckability (no need to use sofisticated names for crude concepts) as a great “A-HA!” moment of pulling back the curtain on hypocrisy.
I was wondering about that when I read this. The whole “jock” thing is so US secondary school, stereotypically so, and so irrelevant to other countries (and, I bet, to chunks of the US as well).
This is also not entirely true, btw. Even if all those conditions were met, red pillers will probably say that the guy is probably very alpha, he probably dominates every conversation or environment thus she stayed with him. No other way possible.
Plus they’d still complain because she wasn’t fucking them. It always boils down to that.
Hey everybody, chronic lurker here who just had to post something in response to the ridiculous criticisms of Emma Watson. I’ve been dating a guy on that rugby team for years, and can safely say that as well as typical lads there are lots of guys on the team, including my boyfriend, who are lovely, intelligent, sensitive, non-sexist people. The former captain is a psychotherapist and the current captain is an advocate for consent and healthy relationships (basically the opposite of the creepy stuff MRAs think alphas/”real men” do). I don’t know Emma Watson’s boyfriend personally – but my boyfriend, who does, literally laughed out loud at these allegations.
P.S. Ben Cohen is a gay rights activist and happy to be a gay pinup but is not, in fact, gay, as someone above claimed. Just a straight ally, which is equally cool.
P.S.S We don’t use the term “jock” on the UK but we do have “lads” who are frat-boy style guys, who do tend to congregate in sports teams, but aren’t necessarily sporty.
It’s common here in Canada. When I was a kid in British Columbia it was interchangeable with “dick” but as our culture as slowly been displaced by American media it seems to have lost its dual meaning. And now it’s just “unintelligent guy who plays sports in high school and has a crumby job after graduating.”
Re: “jocks”, my US public high school had a course in multivariable calculus that about a dozen of the school’s upper-level mathematicians took each year. About half of my class was on the varsity basketball team, and most of the boys definitely gave a “jock” or “frat boy” vibe, not in a good or bad way but just in the rhythm of conversation and the way they presented themselves. Smart and academically ambitious jocks. What can I say—as a more “nerdy” type myself, actually opening my eyes to the accomplishments of my classmates disabused me of any notion that the high school stereotype lines couldn’t be crossed regularly and dramatically (and don’t even get me started on the “ditzy” girls who partied by night and were the pillars of our school’s math team by day).
It may come as some shock to them to know that big brawny good-looking dudes can sometimes be smart and sweet, as well. And that bald scrawny dudes — poet or otherwise — can be complete douchebags. I once dated a scrawny guy with not much hair who turned out to be one of those, and he wasn’t even a fucking POET! Book, cover. Lesson learned.
Figures that in their blind hatred of women and the desperate attempt to frame their “woman are shallow *****s” as a viable worldview, redpillers out themselves as shallow people completely obsessed with appearances.
Still, I’m confused. Obviously they view women through dehumanizing lenses that give them some arbitrary 1-10 rating, that’s practically a given, but shouldn’t judging men by their appearance (muscular, athletic=abusive, dumb jock; scrawny, nerdy= smart, decent person) be considered misandry acording to these losers?
Dammit, every time I think I’m starting to figure out these reactionaries, they contradict themselves in some way.
Whore make-up? Really?
Rolls? Excuse-moi, but _I_ have rolls when i slouch while sitting, and I’m pretty severely underweight. (Its prolly mostly skin. Lost more than 5kg in a short time and I was underweight even then :/ )
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/210-would-not-bang
Coming in late, but I stumbled across a blog posting that frustrated the hell out of me, by a nice guy.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/
TL;dr: He tells a story about one of his patients who’s a total, abusive asshole, and women are falling all over this guy. But, of course, he’s actually a nice guy (not a Nice Guy™), and OF COURSE he doesn’t think he “deserves” sex or female attention. But still. He deserves it more than his asshole patient.
So frustrating. He’s working hard at being a decent human being, but deep down, in his heart of hearts, he thinks women’s sexuality is a reward for men’s behaviour, one way or another.