#HeForShe: the real purpose.

Our young, while, university-aged woman is in the idealistic thrall of “Feminism means equality,” “Emma Watson reaches me because we’re in the same age group”, and many enthused repetitions of the typical messages one reads on any social media outlet. I present my counter-arguments, most of which faithful readers will already have heard, but which may be new to those who chance upon this post. This post is a slightly modified version of my comment.

 

Sadly, you don’t seem to be aware of what Feminism is. There are two definitions, the first refers to women having rights equal to men, with the presupposition that men have rights that women do not. You have rights that every male, world leaders included, does not. You have reproductive rights, and you have the right to bodily integrity. If you want rights equal to men’s then you have to accept that a man can force you to carry a child to term, raise it and pay for it, and that if a daughter is born, that she can be circumcised. Is this really what you want?

Of some 20 dictionaries or so, the only one that refers to “equality of the sexes” instead of “rights equal to man’s”, is (if I remember correctly) the Oxford dictionary.

The second definition refers to the advancement of women’s interests. This is the most accurate of the two.

You are accepting happy-clappy feel-good messages about a political movement without having actually learned what the genuine messages are, what is promoted, and what is practised. There is a difference between the sales pitch and the product, it’s a bait and switch tactic.

Feminism is not the Women’s Rights Movement, the movement of people that worked toward men and women having equivalent rights under law. Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that promote the advancement of women’s interests. Nothing in this suggests equality.

At about 1:17, you claim that what “women want to be treated the same as men.” I don’t  believe you’ve thought this through. If women were treated “the same” as men, you would be expected to be self-sufficient, take initiative and be given no special treatment, programs or prerogatives or have countless campaigns on your behalf for no reason other than being born female. Being “the same” as men means that you must abandon all of the privileges that are accorded to women that men do not have.

Do you note that the campaign’s name is He for She? Why not She for He? Better yet, why not One for All? No, the entire speech boiled down to this: men, do what we want, our straw man argument says you should; give women more, do this for us–because you believe in equality, don’t you? At no point does she talk about what women should do for men. She mentions some men’s issues, but then goes on to blame men for having these problems, implies that it is up to men to fix them so that when men solve their own problems, then women’s problems will be solved. She does not promote gender equality, she promotes the advancement of women’s interests and the men be damned.

Does that sound like “gender equality” to you?

While we’re at it, #HeforShe is not a movement, it is an advertising campaign. Its design is two-fold. The first is to re-brand Feminism’s current image, the one that comes from people paying attention to what it actually is. The second is to acquire one billion email addresses, presumably to garner at least 10%, a common marketer’s goal, to reach 1 million prospects to support the claim to their commercial sponsors, and lend support that there is enough political oomph! to warrant even greater funding and political support.

#HeForShe is a campaign brought to you by UN Women. What are they about?

The main roles of UN Women are:

  • To support inter-governmental bodies, such as the Commission on the Status of Women, in their formulation of policies, global standards and norms.
  • To help Member States to implement these standards, standing ready to provide suitable technical and financial support to those countries that request it, and to forge effective partnerships with civil society.
  • To hold the UN system accountable for its own commitments on gender equality, including regular monitoring of system-wide progress.

http://www.unwomen.org/en/about-us/about-un-women

In short: to set goals to give money to organizations that purport to help women (but not men), to raise funds to create more organizations that purport to help women (but not men) and to make sure that the UN toes the party line.

This is from their 2014 annual report

UN Women plays a leading role in supporting improvements in global norms and standards that accelerate the realization of gender equality. We provide expert knowledge and evidence, advocate for critical issues, convene key stakeholders, and engage with UN Member States to build consensus and forge agreements on new commitments.
http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2014/6/annual-report-2013-2014

I recommend that you take some time, learn about what the tenets of the various Feminist ideologies are, compare the words to the actions of those who claim to be practitioners of this ideology. Don’t just accept people’s lovely sounding words, listen carefully for the assumptions and submit them to an intellectually rigorous reality test. Check to see if money and daily actions accurately reflect this idealistic propaganda. If you are rigorously intellectually honest, you’ll find that they do not. Then you will understand why so many reject the political ideology of Feminism.

As a final pointer, I’ll start you off. You asked “Why do men get to call all the shots? Why can’t men and women work together?”

What makes you think men call all the shots and that men and women don’t already work together?

Take some time to listen to criticisms of her speech, the other side. Weigh the two then make up your mind.

Advertisements
Tagged , ,

3 thoughts on “#HeForShe: the real purpose.

  1. caprizchka says:

    The video is gone. Perhaps the reaction is not what was anticipated.

    • Francis Roy says:

      /me nods. I left her a note. I’m pretty sure that I wasn’t harsh in any way, knowing that I can too often be. I don’t assign malice to the author of the video, I believe that she was genuinely well-meaning within the idealistic thrall of early youth. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, if this letter comes across has harsh or jaded.

      • caprizchka says:

        I’m sure that my opinion of your letter would be tossed out by feminists given that I refuse their “protection” from “harsh” or “jaded” words. At the same time, I am fascinated by the concept of the amygdala hijack and how “triggers” by way of words or other stimuli can make sufferers react irrationally. What that means is that even a well-meaning piece of writing free of “harsh” or “jaded” language can trigger a reaction. I optimistically believe however that the mass hypnosis of feminist propaganda is starting to lose its hold on all but the most psychotic of its sufferers. Meanwhile, kind and calm letters may eventually by sheer weight appear in stark contrast to the nuttiest missives by their fellow ideologues. However, my approach is more toward deliberately using “triggers” in the hope that sheer repetition performs sort of a reverse-conditioning to force dispassionate responses in the future by sheer fatigue. I can get away with such tactics as a woman and besides I wish that someone had done that for me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: