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.
Okay sorry for the “let’s liven things up” part.
No, what I meant there was, when I hear about a woman dating a known abuser and get abused I have the standard insensitive douche reaction of “Well, she knew what was about to happen” even though a very similar thing happened to me. I feel unsympathetic as an initial reaction, then I remind myself that similar things happened to me, then I feel somewhat ashamed.
Well, it has been a while since I read that article, I didn’t take those “feminists are wrong!” into my question, because they are part strawman and part incoherent jibber jabber.
Being an insensitive asshole is something that people should be ashamed of, if/once they realize that they’re doing it, so I’m not quite sure what you’re expecting here. If it’s a pat on the head and an “it’s OK, you can’t help victim blaming women” then damn, did you ever come to the wrong place.
Ah, thank you for clarifying. I was confused.
Are you certain the women Henry has been with knew in advance that he is an abuser? Are you certain they know the red flags to watch out for? Are you certain Henry isn’t a really good manipulator who knows how to target vulnerable women? We haven’t heard the women’s side of the story and we don’t know that they went into this relationship knowing they would be abused. Also, abuse is a choice. A choice that the abuser makes. The abuser is the only one at fault because they are the only ones who made the choice to abuse.
Considering there are abuse survivors who are regulars here, it’s incredibly shitty of you to want to debate this point for funsies and livening things up.
I love when you’re around at the time someone decides to post bullshit.
Would it take more than an hour to learn how to be as good at being concise as you, Cassandrakitty? Because I may (desperately) require that skill :b
@ WWTH
Smooches!
@ Fibi
Aw, but the world needs wordy and kind just as much as it needs terse and no-bullshit.
(Except if you’re writing for a newspaper, then terse is essential.)
Yes, that’s what I am saying! That is so correct. I am not sharing a viewpoint that I recently realized that I had or whatever(one that I also believe is a deficiency underlies the mindset of people who talk insensitively against abuse victims), I am doing it for attention and positive encouragement.
Well, the guy said they knew and didn’t care. I said I had an initial insensitive reaction to that, despite having gone through something similar(and ,fine, less serious). Then I realised that the abusers always play themselves as “changed” or sometimes because the gonna-be victim believes they have changed because they aren’t seeing abusive behaviour right off the bat. And in an abusive relationship, even if the exit isn’t blocked shysically(sometimes it is), the abuse victim can’t get out.
My point was that even though I went through something similar, I have to come to this realisation consciously. Maybe this is something people who speak insensitively towards victims lack? That realisation?
I see no reason why that benefit of the doubt should be given in most cases. Also, you’re attempting to take your own gender (and that of the person you linked to) and how that impacts the way you’ve been trained to respond to all this stuff out of the conversation, which again isn’t going to fly here.
And we should definitely believe this third-hand information as objective truth that has not been at any point filtered through someone’s subjective preconceptions.
We should also talk about this highly gendered situation as if the misogyny involved didn’t exist, on this misogyny mocking blog, because that makes so much sense! Why didn’t I realize earlier?
(If this keeps up I’m going to end up trying to steal Fibi’s vodka rather than offering him any.)
… yes?
I mean, sorry, Shadow_Nirvana, I can’t really come up with any response to any of your statements that isn’t a joke like random-word association, or just “Yeah, sure”.
People lack a realization that there are often many reasons why someone doesn’t leave an abusive situation?
Yeah, sure.
It’s incredibly insensitive to jump straight to assuming women are stupid for dating abusers?
Yeah, sure.
Abusers often play themselves up as “changed” or different, and drag people back in?
Yeah, sure.
They change their behaviour sometimes to manipulate you?
Yeah, sure.
The author of the article Unimaginative linked to seems bummed up he doesn’t get as much romantic stuff as his abusive patient?
Yeah, sure.
His anti-feminist stance seems incoherent and somewhat jibber jabbery?
Yeah, sure.
The author is somewhat indirectly questioning the validity of the choices women make?
Yeah, sure.
Possibly, your lack of ability to sympathise comes from a frustration with people?
Yeah, sure.
You’re kind of dancing a bit back and forth with assuming people are defective for dating abusers?
Yeah, sure.
The author having been brought up in a culture that often claims women are rewards for a set of behaviour / achievement is notably bummed out by the lack of women in his life when he has achieved those things, and contrast that directly with someone else who he feels is not achieving and acting as he has been coded to expect will lead to sexual availability?
Yeah, sure.
His arguments thus becomes that the conversation about this is strange, when someone says “I’m lonely” and the response is “You’re a shitlord”, missing the essential point of the narrative about Nice Guys(tm)?
Yeah, sure.
Fibi likes vodka?
Yeah, sure.
Being cheated on by people in a monogamous relationship with explicit agreements about not cheating sucks?
Yeah, sure.
It can be difficult to understand the specific choices people make under pressure, which leads to having a hard time understanding the decisions of people in abusive situations?
Yeah, sure.
The sky is blue?
Yeah, sure.
Mountains are tall?
Yeah, sure.
This is a blog?
Yeah, sure.
I’ve just had liqourice-peppermint tea?
Yeah, sure.
The old tale of Chen Shung serves as a fun illustration of the dangers of punitive zeal?
Yeah, sure.
People will question the mate choices of women for a whole host of reasons?
Yeah, sure.
The system is often unfair and rigged against individuals, straneg, in a dance of machines and automation and terrible processes and random whim that leave us in strange situations?
Yeah, sure.
Sometimes peoplare fun and happy and nice?
Yeah, sure.
*snicker* All the MRA comments are dripping with sour grapes. It’s clear they know that Emma Watson IS out of their league, and would not touch any one of them with a 100 foot pole. So, they decide to salvage their fragile egos and pretend that THEY wouldn’t want her anyway.
The patheticness of it is amusing .
This is like saying understanding why a rich person is saying ignorant things about poverty is giving the benefit of doubt. Isn’t that the definition of “privilege” in a sense that you don’t understand the situation completely because you’ve never lived, experienced and learned from it? Yes, they should be held accountable for those viewpoints, but in order to change the viewpoints don’t we need to understand the basis?
This is, of course, assuming that the mentality I posted is the basis. It may not be, as I thought of it myself. And I don’t how the change will happen even if we understand the basis. You can’t make people go through abuse so that they may learn.
I understand what you’re saying, like rape this isn’t an issue that men are at the receiving end majority-wise(even less so if you take into account the impact of the violence), but the most ignorant shit I heard about it was from Karen Straughan who was talking about “hey some women get hot tingles from domestic violence! this is all evolutionary. there was this couple i lived with…” etc etc.
I am also going to confess I don’t know how men are trained to respond to this. I always think these sort of stuff are the result of disinformation or non-education and effect the perseption of a population as a whole.
I just want to point out that everything after the “but” in that statement is a non sequitur to everything that came before the “but.”
You realize that nobody here was suggesting that as a plan, right? Seriously, what’s wrong with you?
As to the rest of your comment, oy. Like I said, if I’m going to do Feminism 101 I’m going to have to charge for it.
Yes, damn the Helsinski declaration of 1964. And my study on the impacts of blunt force trauma to jerks kneecaps would have revolutionized the field of ballistic science.
They said I was crazy, they all laughed, they told me I had no way to prove my theory, but who’s laughing know, ethical board of scientists? I am! ME AND MY KNEE-KICKER-O-MATIC.
As a super instructive example, read the link by Unimaginative. It is a perfect example of someone conflating points and missing subtleties and responding, very poorly, to the entire thing.
For your advanced course, you can read the comments. They’re… certainly instructive.
I am saying that even if they knew and didn’t care, it doesn’t matter, because abusive people can also be very charming or good at hiding their abusive sides initially, leading you to the conclusion that they have changed.
There is always the very probable chance that the guy is lying about the women knowing about his previous history.
Not frustration with people, but with the situation. How do you overcome this? Also, it is initially, after I empathize(if that is the correct term), I can sympathize and I feel bad.
Well, no, I don’t think the people who date(or continue to date) abusers are defective. I am just saying my kneejerk reaction has been insensitive, which bothered me.
But yeah, I guess all of my posts can be replied with a “Yeah, sure”. I just wanted to share the realisaion I got when I was reading things about the Rice/NFL ordeal.
Yeah, it’s so weird how sharing the moment when you realized “wow, women are people too, which means that I probably shouldn’t assume that they’re to blame for being abused!” on a blog full of feminists isn’t meeting with an overwhelmingly positive response.
Pardon, the chemical admixture today is serotonin and benadryl-intensive, so I’m a little….MMMM….
Abusers are good at what they do. Mr TL;DR hasn’t been through an abusive relationship…yet. Here’s hoping he never does.
Yes, he could.
Even a psychiatrist could end up hooked like a fish on a line. Abusers are good at what they do.
About the whole “WHY AM I NOT GETTING ANY!” Waaambulance ride…
It’s not like access to my vagina is a Good Citizenship Award.
The criterion for access to it are unique to me, because I’M FUCKING UNIQUE.
Mr TL;DR seems to view access to vagina as a merit badge kinda thing.
Meaning he views women as interchangeable components and not unique human beings.
This is a problem.
What Mr TL;DR has yet to figure out is that the reason Henry gets women is because Henry goes after women until he gets women.
…Basically, if you want sex, you really can just keep asking and eventually you WILL find someone who says “Ok.” If you want a relationship you just keep going after one and getting smacked down until you don’t get smacked down.
The solution is within him. But he displaces the power, and the blame, onto women.
Craniorectal insertion detected.
…Mr TL;DR is young, he still has a lot of time to pull his head out and figure out women actually are fully human. Let’s hope he achieves that.
Shadow Nirvana,
I think everyone probably has insensitive asshole thoughts sometimes. Nobody is perfect. I’m not a very patient person. I’m also a bit claustrophobic and get anxious when the bus is crowded and slow. This leads to me sometimes getting annoyed when a person in a wheelchair has to board the bus. However, I keep that reaction to myself. Because it’s wrong. Intellectually and morally I know that disabled people have the right to public accommodations. I deserve no cookies for coming to that realization. Being annoyed isn’t the acceptable reaction in the first place and it’s my own failing that I am not very patient.
However, I’m not sure what the point was of bringing up your knee jerk victim blaming impulses? I only brought up my own asshole reaction that I sometimes have to illustrate a point. I would never start a comment with “isn’t it annoying when you’re trying to get to work and someone in a wheelchair gets on the bus and takes forever!?” If it’s not what you believe upon reflection, there was no need to say something victim blamey. If you’re not trying to get cookies for realizing it’s wrong. There’s no need to bring it up. If you were framing it as a confession to the darker side of yourself, that would be one thing. But you were acting like you wanted a spirited debate on whether or not an abuse victim is partially at fault for her abuse and are now backpedalling after being called out.
Harrumph. Au contraire, mon frère, Henry clearly has a great deal of trouble with women. Starting with the fact that he sees and treats them as objects — a combination of dick-ornament and punching-bag. Having multiple live sex toys does not “success with women” make, unless you’re the sort of dolt who values quantity over quality, or sees them as his “just reward” for being so damn whatever. And if you are, well…there’s your problem. Women don’t like that kind of dude, no matter what he looks like or how pleasant he initially seems. That entitled air that wafts off such a dude is the very opposite of an aphrodisiac.
As for the claim that they “knew exactly what they were getting into” — um, NO. One thing abusive repeat offenders are very good at, when it comes to disclosures of their past, is cleverly framing it so that the previous women always look like the real baddies in the whole thing, and that they Somehow Deserved It. Or else the guy will frame it as a sob story, claiming he’s Learned His Lesson And Changed. Or he might even claim he was Wrongfully Convicted, Because THAT VINDICTIVE BITCH. Of course, none of that is likely to be true. But if he comes on as attractive and “normal” enough, no doubt, the next one will be hooked like a fish and not believe that anything bad will happen to her. And it’s not until he’s truly got his hooks into her that the abuse will begin. New brides and newly-pregnant women find that out the hard way every time. Whether it’s the expense of a big wedding or the vulnerability conferred by pregnancy, those particular women will be far more reluctant to try to get out in time. Whereas, if he hit them on the first date already, there wouldn’t even be a second. They’d be doing their damnedest never to see him again, and warn every single woman they knew against him, too.
Yes, Henry does indeed have “trouble with women”. His trouble is that he thinks they’re interchangeable, disposable, and lesser than him. His trouble is that he thinks he has the right to treat them like shit. It’s not the women giving him trouble; it’s him doing it to THEM. HE is the “trouble with women”. HE is the common denominator in the whole sorry mess. That’s why none of them have lasted very long in his life. It doesn’t matter if he nails them in droves; do they still want to see him again after they’ve seen his true colors? Clearly they don’t. Henry is not a loverly success, he’s a rank failure. He may be cunning and calculating when it comes to the “catching” part, but he’s no good at maintaining relationships. And no one who knew the whole truth and was capable of a fully informed decision would want to stay with him, either. He purposefully messed with their heads BEFORE hooking them. So much for the “they knew what they were getting into” bit.
And no, I’m sure Mr. Nice Guy™ isn’t saying he “deserves” women as a reward for his Niceness™. Not a bit. Except of course he is saying exactly that. He’s not saying it was aliens. But it was aliens! See how totally different he is from all those other Nice Guys™ out there? Hey…wait…where are you going? Come back!
This is a bit US-centric so apologies, but check out #IAmARepublican on Twitter for hilarity. Republicans put out a video about how “Republicans are people too” because they apparently have no sense of irony and don’t realize that being a member of a party that routinely dehumanizes women, POC, immigrants, poor people, gay people, etc. means they have no reason to complain that liberals are so mean to them. The campaign backfired and liberals are having a ball with it.
Just thought after a round of dealing with victim blaming stuff, some off topic mockery would be in order!
I’m sitting here looking at Zulily (because Mr C isn’t feeling well so he took some cold meds and went to try sleeping it off, so I’m waiting to see if he’s going to be up to doing anything later) and I came across a pair of tights that were designed to look as if they’re laddered. Literally a pair of tights that look as if they’re covered in ladders.
Those tights are about as practically useful as Shadow Nirvana’s argument, imo. Like, OK, you could say this/wear these, but why? What’s the point?
Okay, come on! My first post with the “let’s liven things up” was focused entirely on the linked guy’s view. My second post was about my reaction but I wrote the same clarification there. There is literally one or two posts in between, neither of them calling me out.