#alanrickman pic.twitter.com/4WXwnoUtM7
— Emma Watson (@EmmaWatson) January 14, 2016
Earlier today, as you no doubt have heard, legendary British actor Alan Rickman passed away, at age 69, from cancer. Actress and activist Emma Watson, who had worked with Rickman on numerous Harry Potter films over the years, paid tribute to a man she had considered a friend, writing on Facebook that she felt
lucky to have worked and spent time with such a special man and actor. I’ll really miss our conversations. RIP Alan. We love you.
Watson followed up her tribute by posting a number of quotes from Rickman on Twitter, including the one above.
And that was all it took to rouse the vast internet antifeminist troll army, who took to Twitter to attack Watson for supposedly “exploiting” Rickman’s death to push her evil man-hating agenda. They called her a bitch, a feminazi, a whore, a tw*t, and of course an SJW; they dropped the c-word so many times I fear it might be permanently broken.
Never mind that the “agenda” she was supposedly pushing was in fact Rickman’s agenda too. She didn’t make up the quote; they were his actual words, from an interview he gave to Australian chat show One Plus One. Watson was remembering Rickman as the feminist he was proud to be.
Perhaps the most offensive Tweet of the day came from the unlovely and untalented “journalist” Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart. Several days ago, you may recall, Milo attempted to use David Bowie’s death as a way to get some cheap publicity for himself; he rather outdid himself in this department today with this insensate Tweet:
I told you feminism was cancer pic.twitter.com/syKFBkF3cG
— Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) January 14, 2016
Congratulations, Milo; you’ve won today’s Worst Person on the Internet award.
Delete your account.
@ pandapool
We have a number of statistics experts on here, so no doubt one of they could explain more about the natural phenomena of “clustering” but yeah, it does suck.
@Alan
Oh yes. I can’t even tell you how often I’ve listened to that sketch (and a lot of others). M & W Sound is such a great show, better than Look imo and both much, much better than Peep Show and Ambassadors.
@Jo
What? I’m tending to agree with dhag, both because of the longwinded discussion before and because you say you agree with me, but you claimed the exact opposite before while regurgitating what looks suspiciously like MRA talking points.
Slavery is not a valid comparison. Men and women are alienated within their own families – there are mirrors which don’t exist for any other form of discrimination.
That paper I linked is interesting around this#; ambivalent sexism – hostile and benevolent attitudes co-exist within the same brains and they have to, because there is no other way to live with each other. Greater equality is associated with less sexist attitudes towards both men and women by both men and women.
It’s system justification. Those who see what is and find reasons to explain why that ought to be. The better (more equal) reality, the less prevalent hostile stereotypes and the more ridiculous benevolent ones.
Bernardo
Can you quote me please? I’ve been at this game for decades but I mostly post on UK leftist fora and challenge casual bigotry on general fora so there may be a language barrier here. I have argued exactly what you are arguing.
If it wasn’t clear, I was responding to Alan’s claim that he didn’t deserve to benefit from feminism, and I was arguing that this dooms feminism to failure.
@ Jo
It might be a communication failure on my part, but I’ve not argued I don’t deserve to benefit from feminism. My point is that feminism offers me, and men like me, no benefit because we’ve already got it all.
Edited to add: and I can completely understand why feminists therefore concentrate on women.
There’s a good article addressing this: http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy
The key part:
Part Four: A List of “Men’s Rights” Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On
Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.
Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.
If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?
That is what I reacted to, and it sounds to me like you didn’t actually agree with my statements. Feminists have addressed and acted upon all these points for a long time, and you seem to lay the responsibility for not all of the goals having been achieved squarely at the door of “feminism” as a whole, without considering the heterogeneity of the movement and without considering that we still live in a patriarchal society that makes the achievement of these goals tremendously difficult.
This is a criticism which is valid, but formulated in an all-encompassing way that is just not true on that level of generality. You’re jumping from “middle class women”, which is an extremely broad term in the US as elsewhere, to rich ones who exploit poor women (and certainly rich women don’t dominate feminism as I know it). Again, your criticism that some women have furthered their career and children goals on the backs of others is not wrong, but a) it has been a looooong and thorough (albeit not finished) discussion in feminist theory and practice (like, there are so many feminist sociologists who for years have studied this exact phenomenon), and b) it certainly isn’t a failure of feminism as a whole.
And that’s the problem I have: you make valid criticisms, but you have formulated them in such a general sense (as failures of feminism in general), that they become indistinguishable from MRA talking points.
@dhag
Nope, you’re not the only one. My trolldar is going off on every single post.
On topic, I don’t remember who said it earlier, but I agree that this death is hitting me harder than usual, not as hard as Robin Williams, but close.
It’s got me remembering all the people cancer has taken from me and of their suffering towards the end. It’s important we don’t forget to appreciate people while they’re around.
@ Jo
Sorry if this adds one too many people to consider all at once, (so don’t worry about leaving replying for a while if you need to, I lose track of multiple people eventually), but what is it you mean by ‘doomed to failure?’ Do you mean because it could come across as ‘feminism shouldn’t ever benefit men’?
If so, I’m not sure it would. I used to be very pessimistic about equal rights, now I’m more optimistic for the future, so I’d get that easy misinterpretations could be a problem, but ultimately I think the fair, true benefits will get us there eventually. Apologies if I’ve gone off on a tangent.
Luzbelitx is right — the correct thing to do would have been to succinctly point Jo to the comment policy, and if she kept banging on, link her again and/or email David. That’s what we’ve agreed on in the past as the best way to avoid long, annoying arguments and bringing the “Dogpiling! This is why I never comment here!” people out of the woodwork.
Honestly, I failed to do this because I forgot that clause was in the policy.
@dhag
For what it’s worth I do think she’s a sincere feminist, just the kind of feminist who complains about liberals and rails against other feminists who go “too far” and has no concept of intersectionality. In short, she’s a kind of feminist that I don’t much like, and who doesn’t fit in here terribly well.
@Dhag
IKR? He certainly uses a lot of MRA jargon and talking points. And I certainly am skeptical about his allyship. Buut let it be.
“Luzbelitx is right — the correct thing to do would have been to succinctly point Jo to the comment policy, and if she kept banging on, link her again and/or email David. That’s what we’ve agreed on in the past as the best way to avoid long, annoying arguments and bringing the “Dogpiling! This is why I never comment here!” people out of the woodwork.
Honestly, I failed to do this because I forgot that clause was in the policy.”
That’s partly what I meant about there being fault on all sides.
Sorry to be a bit picky, but Jo I believe specifically said she was female.
Well, everyone else is only at fault for that in the sense that adults are at fault if they don’t just ignore a kid having a tantrum. Jo is 100% at fault here; everyone else (self included) was just responding like normal human beings instead of doing what would make her shut up the quickest.
In America I’ve heard my friends make fun of men who wear pink shirts, but it’s actually a class and subculture thing more than strictly a gender thing. Pink shirts are associated with fraternity members, Long Islanders, and young businessbros.
@nparker
That’s interesting, because in one of the first comments she said she was an ally/potential ally. I never saw a woman refer to theirselves like that in relation to feminism – only “feminist”, “anti-feminist” or “pro-feminism”. Is that a thing? Legitimate question.
My phone also eats some comments… That may also be why I didn’t see Jo saying to be female.
“Well, everyone else is only at fault for that in the sense that adults are at fault if they don’t just ignore a kid having a tantrum. Jo is 100% at fault here; everyone else (self included) was just responding like normal human beings instead of doing what would make her shut up the quickest.”
You know what, never mind. Really, just forget it.
@ Orion
Over here in Britain, I’ve heard acquaintances being made fun of fo having a pink shirt. Though those times were just light teasing, its made me realise that its really stupid. Its just a colour, I’ll tell people now.
(Seriously though, a pastel colour. How even colours became gendered frankly baffles me.)
Yeah, Jo said her pronouns are “her”. Although, like, it was suppose to be obvious because “Jo” is a feminine version of “Joe” but, I mean, so? I have a feminine name(s) but I’m not a woman. Ashley is considered a feminine name but
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/fictionalcrossover/images/7/7d/Ash_Williams.jpg
So I don’t know what a feminine name has to do with anything? I guess we’re sorry we didn’t automatically assume you were a woman just because your name doesn’t have an “e” in it?
@ Chiomara
Well, you don’t have to call yourself a feminist to agree with feminist points, I think that’s the implication. Maybe Jo doesn’t call herself a feminist in this sort of way. That’s what I got out of ‘ally.’
Yeah though, good question. Although its obviously a very different case, I guess you could liken it to the terms used with there being one school of thought that males can only be ‘allies’ and another that says they can be feminists proper.
If ‘a very different case’ and using the two in comparison works together. (I’m tired, I can’t quite tell right now (: )
Any word from your phone on whether comments taste nice?
@ Jo
I really like that Jezebel article.
I saw orcas today. 🙂
Good night!
NParker – I mean that men will not let go of this macho shit and do their fair share at home until they are not afraid of being bullied for it. So we need to address how we stereotype boys and men and how that fucks us all over.
Viscaria – intersectionality is the only form of feminism I can more or less subscribe to, but I think there is a flaw in the usual way it is presented. Class is not one amongst many oppressions, it is the over-arching oppression into which all the others feed. Class is an assessmet of power and that is what it is all about. Being black or female or gay or trans or disabled affects your chances of being born into/becoming/remaining economically privileged. A middle class black woman is, by definition, more powerful than a working class white man (I am using UK definitions here – middle class is some strong combination of good education, income, home ownership – not absolutely everybody who is not actually homeless which seems to be closer to the US terminology).
Orion – some insecure men do, but I am more interested in why so many women puke at the mention. It is not my preference for clothing or decor but I don’t see why I should denigrate other women for having different preferences, even if I will fight to the death to make sure my nieces and nephews get choices other than pink and blue.
@ Orion
If you can face another of my turquoise elks, I ‘answered’ that query you had on the other thread.
@ nparker
The explanation I was told for gendered colours was that red (of which pink is a shade) is associated with blood and violence so was therefore a blokey colour. Grrrr! 🙂 and blue is the colour associated with the Virgin Mary (the ultimate role model for women of course) and so was seen as a feminine colour.
Then, for unfathomable reasons, that got swapped a while back. But yeah the concept of gendered colours is pretty daft.