HeforShe - Emma Watson holds Speech about equality

[Akhenaton]

A few days ago, british actress Emma Watson held a speech before the UN about Gender equality, in which she tries to persuade men and boys to join the "HeforShe" campaign.

Here is the speech



and for those who can't understand it well, again in written text

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Today we are launching a campaign called “HeForShe.”
I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality—and to do that we need everyone to be involved.
This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN: we want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible.
I was appointed six months ago and the more I have 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.
For the record, 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.”
I started questioning gender-based assumptions when at eight I was confused at being called “bossy,” because I wanted to direct the plays we would put on for our parents—but the boys were not.
When at 14 I started being sexualized by certain elements of the press.
When at 15 my girlfriends started dropping out of their sports teams because they didn’t want to appear “muscly.”
When at 18 my male friends were unable to express their feelings.
I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.
Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?
I am from Britain and think it is right that as a woman 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. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country. I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.
No country in the world can yet say they have achieved gender equality.
These rights I consider to be human rights but I am one of the lucky ones. My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn’t assume I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influencers were the gender equality ambassadors that made who I am today. They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists who are. And we need more of those. And if you still hate the word—it is not the word that is important but the idea and the ambition behind it. Because not all women have been afforded the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been.
In 1997, Hilary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women’s rights. Sadly many of the things she wanted to change are still a reality today.
But what stood out for me the most was that only 30 per cent of her audience were male. How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?
Men—I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. 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 look less “macho”—in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49; 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.
We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.
If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.
Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals.
If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom.
I want men to take up this mantle. So their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too—reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned and in doing so be a more true and complete version of themselves.
You might be thinking who is this Harry Potter girl? And what is she doing up on stage at the UN. It’s a good question and trust me I have been asking myself the same thing. I don’t know if I am qualified to be here. All I know is that I care about this problem. And I want to make it better.
And having seen what I’ve seen—and given the chance—I feel it is my duty to say something. English statesman Edmund Burke said: “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men and women to do nothing.”
In my nervousness for this speech and in my moments of doubt I’ve told myself firmly—if not me, who, if not now, when. If you have similar doubts when opportunities are presented to you I hope those words might be helpful.
Because the reality is that if we do nothing it will take 75 years, or for me to be nearly a hundred before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work. 15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children. And at current rates it won’t be until 2086 before all rural African girls will be able to receive a secondary education.
If you believe in equality, you might be one of those inadvertent feminists I spoke of earlier.
And for this I applaud you.
We are struggling for a uniting word but the good news is we have a uniting movement. It is called HeForShe. I am inviting you to step forward, to be seen to speak up, To be the he for she. And to ask yourself if not me, who, if not now when.
Thank you.

The Speech itself is quite good with some valid arguments. It's kinda cute how her voice is so high during her oration, but it´s totaly understandable that she is so jittery, since she is speaking in front of the UN

As always keep it somewhat civil

[Himster]

If the word isn't important as she said, then why not call yourself an egalitarian, rather than taking the inherently divisive word "feminist"? Well Ms. Watson?

[Astaroth]

If the word isn't important as she said, then why not call yourself an egalitarian, rather than taking the inherently divisive word "feminist"? Well Ms. Watson?

Why don't minority or LGBT rights activists call themselves "human activists"? Pretty dumb question tbh.

Might have something to do with the fact that on average, women are still incredibly disadvantaged all over the world.

Let's see, despite the age of enlightenment and us living in the 21st century, in most countries of the world women are: brutally oppressed, locked up, sold as slaves, genitially mutilated, aborted for being female, killed as babies, murdered when their husbands die, married against their will, kidnapped and gang raped. They have to obey their father, then their husband, are beaten daily and seen as beings of lower value.

While things are better in the Western world, women are still easily the more disadvantaged gender. Compared to men, they are paid less, raped more, beaten more, sold into slavery more often, abused more, objectified more. Even today, in most families in the Western world, the woman has to put her husband's career before her own. The woman is the one who has to stay at home to take care of the child. If she doesn't, she'll be considered a terrible mother by many. If a woman sleeps around, she's a slut. If a man does the same thing, he's a ing boss.

Nothing worse than young white males (such as myself) whining about being discriminated against. Boohoo, evil feminsts want to have equal rights, how dare they.

Calling yourself an "egalitarian" makes sense -- once there's actually a semblance of real equality and not "well, we are equal before the law, but we still have to respect nature and women should do what women do". Newsflash: a piece of paper banning discrimination based on sex cannot end millenia of abuse and discrimination in a few years or decades.

[Heathen Hammer]

Why don't minority or LGBT rights activists call themselves "human activists"? Pretty dumb question tbh.

Might have something to do with the fact that on average, women are still incredibly disadvantaged all over the world.

Let's see, despite the age of enlightenment and us living in the 21st century, in most countries of the world women are: brutally oppressed, locked up, sold as slaves, genitially mutilated, aborted for being female, killed as babies, murdered when their husbands die, married against their will, kidnapped and gang raped. They have to obey their father, then their husband, are beaten daily and seen as beings of lower value.

I'm pretty sure that mostly relates to North Africa or Gulf states, which definitely do not constitute "most countries of the world". Nice generalization thou.

While things are better in the Western world, women are still easily the more disadvantaged gender. Compared to men, they are paid less, raped more, beaten more, sold into slavery more often, abused more, objectified more. Even today, in most families in the Western world, the woman has to put her husband's career before her own. The woman is the one who has to stay at home to take care of the child. If she doesn't, she'll be considered a terrible mother by many. If a woman sleeps around, she's a slut. If a man does the same thing, he's a ing boss.

Nothing worse than young white males (such as myself) whining about being discriminated against. Boohoo, evil feminsts want to have equal rights, how dare they.

Calling yourself an "egalitarian" makes sense -- once there's actually a semblance of real equality and not "well, we are equal before the law, but we still have to respect nature and women should do what women do". Newsflash: a piece of paper banning discrimination based on sex cannot end millenia of abuse and discrimination in a few years or decades.

Now lets address this from logical perspective:
Are women forced by law to prioritize their family life over their career? No. They only do that because they chose to do so.
Do women have less rights then men? No. In fact, there are various "affirmative action" policies in both government and private companies which enforce "positive" discrimination, which is just as wrong. Thus, the only group that really ends up discriminated are white heterosexual males. But of course, we are inherently all evil and deserve it because we are somehow responsible for "millenia of abuse".
And yes, equality before the law is real equality. Which is why modern feminism is a joke, unless it addresses places where discrimination of women is real, such as Saudi Arabia or Somalia.

[Astaroth]

I'm pretty sure that mostly relates to North Africa or Gulf states, which definitely do not constitute "most countries of the world".

Nice try. Most of Africa. India. China to a degree. South America. All of the Middle East sans Israel. Central Asia. Eastern Europe to a degree.

Are women forced by law to prioritize their family life over their career? No. They only do that because they chose to do so.

Yeah, a perfectly free choice. What utter BS.

Do women have less rights then men? No. In fact, there are various "affirmative action" policies in both government and private companies which enforce "positive" discrimination, which is just as wrong. Thus, the only group that really ends up discriminated are white heterosexual males. But of course, to Social Justice Warriors we are inherently all evil and deserve it because we are somehow responsible for "millenia of abuse".
And yes, equality before the law is real equality. Which is why modern feminism is a joke, unless it addresses places where discrimination of women is real, such as Saudi Arabia or Somalia.

Who cares about actual discrimination as long as there is faux equality stated by a piece of paper, right? No need to protect minority rights as long as the white males are happy, eh?

[Heathen Hammer]

Nice try. Most of Africa. India. China to a degree. South America. All of the Middle East sans Israel. Central Asia. Eastern Europe to a degree.

Evidence? Not that I'd expect you to start backing up your claims, but I'd like to see some statistics that would back that up.

Yeah, a perfectly free choice. What utter BS.

Cite a law that obligates them to prioritize their family life over their career, or stop making stuff up.

Who cares about actual discrimination as long as there is faux equality stated by a piece of paper, right?

What do you mean by "actual" discrimination? Care to provide examples?

No need to protect minority rights as long as the white males are happy, eh?

Where did I say that?

Totes what I said. Try harder.

What is your point then? Prioritizing background over individual merit is bad, even if it implies discrimination against the majority.

Congratulations. We'll be over here with reality.

And by "reality" you mean the imaginary world of tumblr/social media where "discrimination" is anything that feminists do no like?

[Raubritter]

Emma Watson became famos starring in the Harry Potter Movies where this pretty girl was casted for the Role of a Figure that in the Book is described as an ugly swan, grey mouse and so on with way to big glasses. When she became 18, celeb outlets were calling her already a sex symbol and stuff. So who is she to speak about Equality.

Its so ridiculous how now they, i say "they" for the old feminists because Emma Watson is just a empty pinhead mouthpiece, act as they would have just discovered how bad our society treats Boys. But its basicly just "Get back to the plantation" nonsense, that Men should go back to the role of provider and workhouse so that dumbs like Emma Watson can blow it all on stupid things like cloathing and makeup. He for she... I pass this cup of tee. Don't need lecturing from Emma Watson or their pitty because i just don't care.

[Denny Crane!]

Emma Watson became famos starring in the Harry Potter Movies where this pretty girl was casted for the Role of a Figure that in the Book is described as an ugly swan, grey mouse and so on with way to big glasses. When she became 18, celeb outlets were calling her already a sex symbol and stuff. So who is she to speak about Equality.

Its so ridiculous how now they, i say "they" for the old feminists because Emma Watson is just a empty pinhead mouthpiece, act as they would have just discovered how bad our society treats Boys. But its basicly just "Get back to the plantation" nonsense, that Men should go back to the role of provider and workhouse so that dumbs like Emma Watson can blow it all on stupid things like cloathing and makeup. He for she... I pass this cup of tee. Don't need lecturing from Emma Watson or their pitty because i just don't care.

Not one sentence of this remotely applied to anything happening in real life.

Sell it. Fiction gold. Next harry potter why not. The magical MRA, anti misandry all over the place. In peoples eyes, in their hair. You name it, pro MRA everywhere.

[Dromikaites]

While things are better in the Western world, women are still easily the more disadvantaged gender. Compared to men, they are paid less, raped more, beaten more, sold into slavery more often, abused more, objectified more.

Women being paid less than men for doing the same jobs at the same level of performance is illegal in most of the Western countries I believe.

The difficulty is in enforcing such a law, since it is often hard to compare the performance of two men doing the same job.

However every year we see in the business media that some companies are found breaching those laws and get fined, so even though the law is hard to enforce, it gets enforced. Maybe not as often as it would be needed in order to eliminate the pay gap between men and women, but that gap is shrinking because the companies learn the hard way it is bad for their business to discriminate based on gender.

Even today, in most families in the Western world, the woman has to put her husband's career before her own. The woman is the one who has to stay at home to take care of the child. If she doesn't, she'll be considered a terrible mother by many.

That is the by-product of biology and evolution.

The human male might have been since long gone or dead by the time the baby was born, so if the human female wasn't hardwired to care for the newborn we would not have lasted as a species.

That hardwiring isn't going to be wiped out by a mere 50 years of human history, during which the risk of men being wiped out in large numbers had spectacularly diminished.

Also from the biological point of view, as revolting as it might sound for some, a woman who prioritize something else over her child is risking the survival of here genes.

This is why such "prejudices" about the gender roles are here to stay for another 100,000 years or so, until the evolution gives the men the ability to get pregnant. Or maybe genetic engineering gets us there first.

Pregnancy is the key issue here: in order to sacrifice the career for a child, one needs to give birth to a child first. The one who gives birth to the child is guaranteed to be in the immediate proximity of the child from the first second the child is out in the world, so evolutionary pressure is for that individual to prioritize the child above everything else.

No amount of education or affirmative action can deal with that unless the ability of the men to get pregnant is drastically improved.

If a woman sleeps around, she's a slut. If a man does the same thing, he's a ing boss.

Evolution hasn't learned yet about pills and condoms. Give it another 100,000 years or so.

From a biological point of view, sleeping around carries asymmetrical risk with regards to pregnancy.

The female of the human species carries a non-negligible risk of getting pregnant and thus being vulnerable for about 4 long years (9 months of pregnancy + the minimum of 3 years till the child is developed enough to require a much lower level of caring than before).

The male of the human species carries zero risk of getting pregnant and therefore vulnerable for 4 years.

Society did something about men sleeping around and getting women pregnant in most of the Western countries - they are forced to contribute to the expenses of raising the child.

But just like the pill, the evolution hasn't factored in the alimony. As a result the brains of the humans are still hardwired to disapprove sleeping around in the case of the women, and to be much more lenient when it comes to men sleeping around.

It is not only men who consider merry women to be sluts. It is the majority of the other women too. Not because they were "trained" to do so by the society but because their brain (product of the evolution) tells them to avoid engaging in such biologically risky behavior.

Calling yourself an "egalitarian" makes sense -- once there's actually a semblance of real equality and not "well, we are equal before the law, but we still have to respect nature and women should do what women do". Newsflash: a piece of paper banning discrimination based on sex cannot end millenia of abuse and discrimination in a few years or decades.

Not everything some people dislike about gender relations is discrimination. Some things, like unequal pay or unequal civil/political rights are discrimination.

Some others are pure biology. Prioritizing the child over career, avoiding sleeping around or being more exposed to rape are consequences of biology.

Yes, even the risk of rape is higher for women because of the biology.:

- Men happen to be stronger on average, thus putting the rapists at considerable higher risk than if those rapists would prey on women;

- Men interested in men are less than men interested in women, thus men interested in men and rape are considerably less than men interested in women and rape;

- The functioning of the human body makes it less likely for a man to be successfully forced into having classical sexual intercourse with a woman, even if she overpowers him or holds him at gunpoint.

That makes the issue of rape less of a matter of discrimination and more of a matter of prevention and law enforcement.

[Astaroth]

Women being paid less than men for doing the same jobs at the same level of performance is illegal in most of the Western countries I believe.

The difficulty is in enforcing such a law, since it is often hard to compare the performance of two men doing the same job.

However every year we see in the business media that some companies are found breaching those laws and get fined, so even though the law is hard to enforce, it gets enforced. Maybe not as often as it would be needed in order to eliminate the pay gap between men and women, but that gap is shrinking because the companies learn the hard way it is bad for their business to discriminate based on gender.

That is the by-product of biology and evolution.

The human male might have been since long gone or dead by the time the baby was born, so if the human female wasn't hardwired to care for the newborn we would not have lasted as a species.

That hardwiring isn't going to be wiped out by a mere 50 years of human history, during which the risk of men being wiped out in large numbers had spectacularly diminished.

Also from the biological point of view, as revolting as it might sound for some, a woman who prioritize something else over her child is risking the survival of here genes.

This is why such "prejudices" about the gender roles are here to stay for another 100,000 years or so, until the evolution gives the men the ability to get pregnant. Or maybe genetic engineering gets us there first.

Pregnancy is the key issue here: in order to sacrifice the career for a child, one needs to give birth to a child first. The one who gives birth to the child is guaranteed to be in the immediate proximity of the child from the first second the child is out in the world, so evolutionary pressure is for that individual to prioritize the child above everything else.

No amount of education or affirmative action can deal with that unless the ability of the men to get pregnant is drastically improved.

Evolution hasn't learned yet about pills and condoms. Give it another 100,000 years or so.

From a biological point of view, sleeping around carries asymmetrical risk with regards to pregnancy.

The female of the human species carries a non-negligible risk of getting pregnant and thus being vulnerable for about 4 long years (9 months of pregnancy + the minimum of 3 years till the child is developed enough to require a much lower level of caring than before).

The male of the human species carries zero risk of getting pregnant and therefore vulnerable for 4 years.

Society did something about men sleeping around and getting women pregnant in most of the Western countries - they are forced to contribute to the expenses of raising the child.

But just like the pill, the evolution hasn't factored in the alimony. As a result the brains of the humans are still hardwired to disapprove sleeping around in the case of the women, and to be much more lenient when it comes to men sleeping around.

It is not only men who consider merry women to be sluts. It is the majority of the other women too. Not because they were "trained" to do so by the society but because their brain (product of the evolution) tells them to avoid engaging in such biologically risky behavior.



Not everything some people dislike about gender relations is discrimination. Some things, like unequal pay or unequal civil/political rights are discrimination.

Some others are pure biology. Prioritizing the child over career, avoiding sleeping around or being more exposed to rape are consequences of biology.

Yes, even the risk of rape is higher for women because of the biology.:

- Men happen to be stronger on average, thus putting the rapists at considerable higher risk than if those rapists would prey on women;

- Men interested in men are less than men interested in women, thus men interested in men and rape are considerably less than men interested in women and rape;

- The functioning of the human body makes it less likely for a man to be successfully forced into having classical sexual intercourse with a woman, even if she overpowers him or holds him at gunpoint.

That makes the issue of rape less of a matter of discrimination and more of a matter of prevention and law enforcement.

You are making good points, but regardless of the cause (I mostly agree with you on that), matter of fact is that women are still disadvantaged compared to men, even in the developed world.

It's a different question how and to what degree these things can be addressed, but as long as women remain the clearly more disadvantaged gender throughout the whole world (and even in the western world to a degree), feminism maintains its "right of existence".

As far as rape is concerned, I don't think it's just about strength differences, although that does play a role. To illustrate this, I'm pretty sure that there are more male on male rapes (let alone male on female) than female on female and female on male rapes combined in absolute numbers. That's partly because on average, men have a higher sex drive than women and are more willing to use violence to reach their goals. Does that make all men evil? Of course not. But it's one example of many to show that this is still a "man's world".

[Phier]

You are making good points, but regardless of the cause (I mostly agree with you on that), matter of fact is that women are still disadvantaged compared to men, even in the developed world.

It's a different question how and to what degree these things can be addressed, but as long as women remain the clearly more disadvantaged gender throughout the whole world (and even in the western world to a degree), feminism maintains its "right of existence".

If they are clearly disadvantaged it should be easy to cite examples. Mind you I don't think salary is a good example being it usually doesn't take into account off time. In my profession women make less then men, but they also work less hours.

[Pinarius]

Evolution hasn't learned yet about pills and condoms. Give it another 100,000 years or so.

From a biological point of view, sleeping around carries asymmetrical risk with regards to pregnancy.

The female of the human species carries a non-negligible risk of getting pregnant and thus being vulnerable for about 4 long years (9 months of pregnancy + the minimum of 3 years till the child is developed enough to require a much lower level of caring than before).

The male of the human species carries zero risk of getting pregnant and therefore vulnerable for 4 years.

Society did something about men sleeping around and getting women pregnant in most of the Western countries - they are forced to contribute to the expenses of raising the child.

But just like the pill, the evolution hasn't factored in the alimony. As a result the brains of the humans are still hardwired to disapprove sleeping around in the case of the women, and to be much more lenient when it comes to men sleeping around.

It is not only men who consider merry women to be sluts. It is the majority of the other women too. Not because they were "trained" to do so by the society but because their brain (product of the evolution) tells them to avoid engaging in such biologically risky behavior.

"Mater semper certa est, pater semper incertus est" as the Romans said. Men with a slutty wife are simply afraid that sooner or later this women would become pregnant from another guy, while he on the other hand could have impregnated many women in far away countries without the knowledge of his wife or even without realizing it himself.

[Sir Pignans]

Nothing worse than young white males (such as myself) whining about being discriminated against.

How dare they want equality for themselves as well. How very dare they.

Utter nonsense.

Tell you what, I'll go call all the white feminists and tell them they can't ask for rights either because there are women in Africa with worse rights we need to tackle first. What, is there some sort of limit on the amount of equality we can fix each year?

[removeduser_487563287433]

If the word isn't important as she said, then why not call yourself an egalitarian, rather than taking the inherently divisive word "feminist"? Well Ms. Watson?

When you're talking about a campaign specifically about making feminism inclusive of both genders it's a bit dumb to call it inherently divisive.

Nice tmblr-tier rant. Now lets address this from logical perspective:
Are women forced by law to prioritize their family life over their career? No. They only do that because they chose to do so.
Do women have less rights then men? No. In fact, there are various "affirmative action" policies in both government and private companies which enforce "positive" discrimination, which is just as wrong. Thus, the only group that really ends up discriminated are white heterosexual males. But of course, to SJW's such as yourself, we are inherently all evil and deserve it because we are somehow responsible for "millenia of abuse".
And yes, equality before the law is real equality. Which is why modern feminism is a joke, unless it addresses places where discrimination of women is real, such as Saudi Arabia or Somalia.

Erm... what affirmative action policies specifically?

[Heathen Hammer]

Erm... what affirmative action policies specifically?

For example, the ones that prioritize occupational advancement for minorities and women.

Interesting development, apparently it wasn't 4chan behind the Emma Watson nudes hoax, but a social media marketing company, whose "expertise" are various traffic-drawing hoaxes such as "leaked footage" from upcoming games and stuff like that:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Given the current campaign against 4chan in mass media, this will probably end up overlooked.

[removeduser_487563287433]

For example, the ones that prioritize occupational advancement for minorities and women.

We're talking about women. Can I have specific examples?

[Heathen Hammer]

We're talking about women. Can I have specific examples?

Employment Equity Act in Canada?

[Sir Pignans]

When you're talking about a campaign specifically about making feminism inclusive of both genders it's a bit dumb to call it inherently divisive.

Feminism is inherently a divisive word. This would seem to me to be common logic. Just because there's a campaign to make it equal between genders doesn't mean it's not divisive. That's like saying there's equality of the sexes because there is a campaign for the equality of the sexes.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Feminism is inherently a divisive word. This would seem to me to be common logic. Just because there's a campaign to make it equal between genders doesn't mean it's not divisive. That's like saying there's equality of the sexes because there is a campaign for the equality of the sexes.

Why is it inherently divisive?

[Sir Pignans]

Why is it inherently divisive?

Personally I would argue it's inherently divisive because the connotation can mean so many different things, I would equate it with a phrase similar to 'left-wing' or 'right-wing', the idea of feminism encompasses many different ideologies. Just as the left and right wings of politics have hundreds of different ideologies across the world, I would argue so does feminism.