Abortion, America, American Liberty, AVFM, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Emma Watson, Feminism, Feminist, Harry Potter, Liberal Feminism, Liberation, Militancy, UN, United Nations, Women, Women's rights
It would be something of an understatement to say that Emma Watson’s speech at the United Nations last week – in which she argued for a revitalisation of global feminism – has been well received. Such is the intensity of the world’s approval that criticism of the speech could well be greeted as blasphemy.
‘How could you not be moved by that?’ ‘She’s so humble and brave. What right have you got to say anything…?’
And it’s certainly impossible to deny that the speech Watson delivered was delivered extremely well. The 24 year-old actress, dressed in white with a plunging neckline, commanded sympathy with her blandly perfect appearance, her velvet Estuary tone like a well tuned violin, and her balanced and rehearsed acting (some of it very close in quality to the performances which made her name.)
How could anyone criticise that?
Well, if by ‘that’ you mean Emma Watson herself, I don’t want to. But we must all take issue with the content of her speech, for our own sake and for the sake of civilisation.
In order to react rationally to a speech given by a charismatic orator, it is important to read a transcript afterward before making a final judgement. The words on paper, robbed of the distortions of visual and audial bias, must stand on their own two feet, and if they cannot, then something is amiss.
Watson spoke well. But did she speak sense? Let’s examine a few quotes:
“Feminism, by definition, is 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.”
This is quite simply untrue. Feminism, whatever its founding ideals, has mutated into something far stranger and more destructive than the commonsensical sentiment described. Indeed, the notion or belief that ‘men and women should have equal rights and opportunities’ has never been exclusive to feminism and it represents a very arrogant appropriation of moral ground to remark otherwise. Marxism is not the owner of social justice, and feminism is not the owner of sexual equality. Marxism and Feminism thrive on society’s failures to address social justice and sexual equality, and without them, would die.
“Women are choosing not to identify as feminists. Apparently, I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, ‘too aggressive,’ isolating and anti-men, unattractive, even. Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one?”
The answer here is that feminists have a long and ignominious record of making hateful comments about men, up to and including calls for the elimination of the gender entirely. The women who want no part in that are not ‘uncomfortable’ – they are not prepared to sacrifice their humanity for their sex.
“I am from Britain and I think it is right that I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body (applause)”
Though the third-worlders who applauded this might have imagined it to be a reference to genital mutilation, that baleful phrase ‘make decisions about my own body’ is more likely referring to abortion; a totally invalid point and a horribly deceptive misuse of language.
When a woman is pregnant, she has inside her body another body. The body inside her body (possibly a woman) also has the right to make decisions about her body, and the only way this is possible is if she/he survives to make those decisions.
“No country in the world can yet say that they have achieved gender equality.”
Not even Sweden – where to be a man is to be guilty from birth? How much more ground can men give?
“We don’t want to talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive, women won’t be compelled to be submissive. If men don’t need to control, women won’t have to be controlled.”
This is one of the most radical and sinister strains of feminist thought. The idea that men (with their signature aggression and masculinity) must become woman-like in order for women to live in peace and the world in justice. Just how anti-natural and ruinous a thought is that? For the answer, look no further than the West today; where immigrant communities unaffected by feminism rule the streets, and White and East-Asian pansies are trampled demographically underfoot.
The remainder of the speech (which can be found on YouTube in full) was dedicated to emotional posture and snakish charm. The points quoted above were the warheads wrapped so deviously in the fruit.
Let it be understood, I have nothing at all against women’s rights. For a just society to work, a woman must have exactly the same liberties as a man. But this is moral common sense. It does not require the murder of children, the emasculation of men, or the demographic collapse of the only civilisation capable of upholding the rights of women.