https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/emma-watson-delivers-stirring-speech-at-u-n-204442194.html?bcmt=comments-postbox

When it comes to celebrities my default position is to dislike them. That may seem unfair, but the fact is the majority of celebrities are fruitcakes, and/or deliberate leftwing shills. What they need to do is shut up and act, but far too many of them are willing to advocate some stupid leftwing cause. Emma Watson is one of those kind apparently. A willing mouthpiece for leftist and statist agendas. I don’t think that the celebrities are the evil masterminds behind cultural Marxism, but they are most definitely useful idiots.

She says:

“I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for U.N. Women six months ago and the more I’ve spoken about feminism, the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.”

Because feminism is man-hating. What is a “UN Woman”? I don’t even know what that means, because it doesn’t refer to a particular country or people group.

“Feminism,” Watson continued, “is, by definition, the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”

No it’s not. Feminism is about group advocacy for women, which is why it’s called FEMINISM. If they were about group advocacy for all human beings it would be a different “ism,” probably communism. I find it interesting how she is trying to rehabilitate the term feminism, as opposed to slapping a new name on it as the left has done with liberalism, changing the title from “liberal” to “progressive” in order to avoid the stigma attached to liberalism.

The reason why the idea of feminism is increasingly unpopular is because more people are becoming aware of it, not because of any sort of misunderstanding. On the contrary, the more we understand it the uglier it looks.

Supposedly classical feminism was about getting women the ability to vote and work. Now women can vote and work, but it didn’t stop there. Women can also abort their children without the father’s consent, or they can have a child and collect child support from the father while denying him access. They can divorce for any reason and take the kids. Why are women the default custodians of children when a divorce occurs?

But this still isn’t enough. Now they expect us to pay for birth control for women that we don’t even know, and if we don’t want to pay then it’s called “the war on women.” There is no war on women in any western country. If you want to see a war on women then look to Afghanistan or Iran. But actually, in those countries there is no war either. Women are simply beaten into place and killed or maimed if they object. Ironically, the same people who are feminists in the west are also highly pro-Islam. Just like the LGBT crowd is pro-Islam.

I’m wondering where the “social inequality” is between men and women, and why feminists still think they have a cause.

If a man and a woman go to apply for the same job, the woman is far more likely to get it, unless they have a racial quota which takes precedence over the gender quota. But if race isn’t a factor, it’s far more advantageous to be a woman than a man when it comes to job seeking. There is all this talk about male privilege and white privilege, but neither of those are an actual privilege. Being a white male confers absolutely no advantages when it comes to jobs or scholarships. Everyone has an advocacy group EXCEPT for white males. No one gets a scholarship for being a white male, and no one gets a job for being a white male. As a white male, you are the last to be considered for a job if there are non-whites or females applying for the same job. You are the last to be considered due to either quotas, or nebulous assumptions about privilege. Can I reach into my privilege pack to get a job? No? Alright, then I don’t want to hear any more allegations about my being privileged, or others being unprivileged.

The funny thing is she also talks about male suicide, as if feminism has some sort of remedy for that. Yes, accept the feminist choke chain to go around your neck. Whenever you think naughty thoughts, or stray in any fashion your female overlord can jerk the chain.

She says:

“Gender equality is your issue too. Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence, as a child, as much as my mother’s. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help, for fear it would make them less of a men—or less of a man. In fact, in the U.K., suicide is the biggest killer of men, between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either.”

Any attempts to conflate feminism with gender equality are 100% disingenuous. Feminism is all about upsetting traditional gender roles in order to “empower” women. Women already have all the same legal privileges as men, as well as others that men don’t have. Yet they still want more, so clearly it’s not about gender equality.

The comment that Watson made shows a gross misunderstanding of male psychology. More feminism isn’t going to result in less male suicide, but more. Men cannot be mentally healthy in the role of a stay-at-home mom. Men and women are different. We don’t want to take on the traditional female role of staying at home and being supported by someone else. Male self-esteem is tied to their accomplishments, their ability to provide, and their ability to support themselves. If a man can’t get a job, even if it’s because of preferential hiring which automatically sifts him out due to racial or gender preferences, it’s going to be a blow to his self-esteem.

So rather than address the issues that are causing men to be unhappy, which are the lack of opportunities/an inability to provide, and increasingly belligerent females, what she wants to do is tell men that it’s OK to be losers, or to be pounded into a subservient and dependent role. Wanting to be able to provide, at least enough for personal independence/survival, is not a “distorted sense of what constitutes male success.” Men are hardwired to be providers, women are designed for support roles, which include nurturing and emotional support. It’s a fact that women, in general, are more amenable to being provided for, which is why single women are overwhelmingly supportive of left wing parties.

It’s a mistake to assume that men and women are psychologically interchangeable, or that any differences in psychology are social constructs. It’s also a mistake to try to feminize men, or push them into female roles, and expect them to be fulfilled and happy. Also, women don’t truly respect weak and effeminate men. They will leave a weak cloying dependent male for a stronger alpha male who earns (more) money in a heartbeat.

I don’t blame men in western countries for wanting to commit suicide. It’s basically the real life equivalent of the rage-quit. Rage-quit is video game terminology for quitting out of frustration when victory in the game becomes untenable. When playing against human opponents the rage-quit is also an expression of defiance in situations where both you and your opponent know that you cannot win. By quitting prematurely you at least deny your opponent the pleasure and satisfaction of beating you down.

As opportunities dwindle, men are forced into working long hours for little pay in fields that never interested them, and others are not even fortunate enough to have any job. When a man looks at his life and realizes that things will never get any better, that there is no chance for improvement or success, the only thing he really has left to look forward to is death. Prior to death he must deal with the specter of dwindling physical strength, stamina, and mental capacity while living under the same hopeless conditions. When this occurs, it is understandable that he may opt for an early death over choosing to continue playing a losing game. Being supported by the state, or a woman, is not a viable substitute for self-sufficiency or personal achievement.

Also, being supported by a woman is not a simple matter either. The fact is women are disdainful of men who cannot provide, and due to feminism and the prevalence of the princess mentality, women are often even disdainful of men who do provide, pushing them to spend more and more money until they are broke, and then often leaving them for other men. The price of upkeep for white women and non-white women who have been westernized is growing in proportion to their level of rebellion against traditional female roles. For example, rather than cooking they want to eat out, which puts more stress on the man as eating out takes a much higher toll on both his physical and financial health. Men are forced to evaluate potential relationships with women in terms of opportunity cost, now more than ever, and more men are determining that it is not worth it to engage in a long term relationship, or to impregnate a woman regardless of whether or not they are married. For the most part the “fear of commitment” is not a male failing, but a reaction to the decreasing incentives of having committed long term relationships with women, and the increasing danger of exploitation.

Given how heavily western society has stacked the cards against the white male, the rage-quit can be seen as a form of opting out of a series of hardships which have no rewards attached, as well as a means of expressing disapproval for a system that makes winning impossible for some. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for many men, just a longer, darker tunnel, where footing becomes less stable, and where the snarling of monsters can be heard up ahead. At this point men will resort to escapism. They may resort to alcohol, drugs, pornography, movies, videogames, or anything that makes them feel good and takes their mind off of the reality of their situation. Others will opt for death.

When men choose to end their lives, they should not be condemned as mentally unstable. There is a good chance that they were quite stable, and saw a premature death as the only way out of their predicament. Personally, I do not advocate suicide for religious/metaphysical reasons. One should not be in a hurry to rush to death without knowing for certain where one will end up after death. After all, death is irreversible and permanent. Once dead, it will be too late for recriminations and second chances, unlike a videogame where you have an unlimited amount of retries. But I do understand why some men choose to make that choice.