Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio, I hope you're doing magnificently.
So recently, Emma Watson gave a speech at the United Nations dedicated to inviting men
to join women in the fight for gender equality, and made some excellent, excellent points,
while other points were, at least to me, somewhat confusing.
First, 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." Now, I'm not sure if she means some feminists
hate men, which has to stop - or whether the incorrect assumption that some feminists hate
men has to stop. Assuming she meant the former, kudos to Miss
Watson for naming the elephant in the room, which is that certain elements of the feminist
movement have become kind of virulently anti-male. Now, certainly, no movement can be defined
by its extremists, but movements can be - and I think should be - defined by how they react
to those extremists. So for instance, I recently gave a speech at a men's conference in Detroit
that had to move venues, pay tens of thousands of dollars in extra security costs, and was
almost canceled as a result of radical feminist death and bomb threats. I did not see any
write-ups, any outrage or any condemnation of the violence from feminists as a whole
- even though a number of women speaking at the conference would also have been blown
up if the threats had been made real. Just imagine if a feminist conference was
disrupted, and almost destroyed, by threats of extreme violence from men's rights extremists.
The outrage would be universal - and I guarantee you that men's rights activists would loudly
and repeatedly condemn such actions and threats. Miss Watson claimed that many people misunderstand
what feminism really is: "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 have found it a generally wise policy to judge groups empirically, rather than according
to their mission statements, their public relations texts, or whatever the dictionary
happens to says. For instance, if feminism was really about gender egalitarianism, then
feminists would be working hard to correct imbalances which favor women at the expense
of men. For instance, women now significantly outnumber men in the halls of higher education,
in many countries, and girls are significantly outperforming boys in many school. Feminists
worked very hard to promote the interests of women in the field of education - now that
women are outstripping men, are feminists promoting policies that help men and boys
achieve equality? If they are, it must have escaped my notice - with due exception to
the wonderful Christina Hoff Sommers. From family courts to divorce settlements
to alimony; from father's rights to child support; from inequalities in criminal convictions
to gender-biased sentencing, there are many areas where women are generally treated better
than men, but I have not seen feminists spend any real effort attempting to promote egalitarianism
where women have the upper hand. In other words, empirically, feminism is generally
more "that which promotes the interests of certain women" rather than "that which aims
for true equality between the sexes." I'm sure that there are exceptions, of course,
but reciting a dictionary definition and pretending that this somehow alters the accumulated evidence
of many decades is somewhat naive, to say the least.
Miss Watson then provides some examples of sexism that she has witnessed and/or experienced
in her childhood: "When I was eight, I was confused about being
called 'bossy' because I wanted to direct the plays that we would put on for our parents.
But the boys were not. When at 14, I started to be sexualized by certain elements of the
media. When at 15, my girlfriends started dropping out of their beloved sports teams
because they didn't want to appear 'muscle-y.' When at 18, my male friends were unable to
express their feelings; I decided that I was a feminist."
First of all, I don't think I would have the arrogance to imagine that I understood everything
that a young girl had gone through in her childhood.
If, as a boy, I had constantly told my friends that I was in charge, and they had to do what
I wanted, I would certainly have been rejected as 'bossy,' but Miss Watson imagines that
she knows what all of the boys in her childhood circle experienced. Has she asked them?
Also note that she does not talk about sharing directorial duties, but rather wanting them
all to herself. In every childhood group, everyone wants to try out being a leader,
learning to negotiate a hierarchy among equals is an essential task that all children really need to learn.
Now, it goes without saying that the sexualization
of 14-year-olds is reprehensible, that certainly gets no argument from me, of course.
I am confused when Miss Watson reports that her female friends dropped out of their beloved
sports teams because they did not want to appear "too muscle-y." Did they imagine that
toned and muscled female bodies are unattractive to men? There appear to be countless cheesecake
shots of female athletes scattered around the web, and dancers are often considered
to have wonderful physiques - and women's health websites are continually promoting
the value and attractiveness of exercise, so I don't quite understand what this means.
Perhaps some of Miss Watson's friends were weightlifters - but the unattractiveness to
some people of extremely large muscles is not confined to either gender - many women
find extremely muscled men unattractive as well. Thus if women were toned and healthy,
that would seem to be an ideal that most women aspire to - if they were excessively muscled,
that's a different story, not one really just confined to women.
Miss Watson then sounded the clarion call for male involvement:
"I want men to take up this mantle so that their daughters, sisters, and mothers can be free
from prejudice—but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human, too,
We claim that there is part of themselves that they've abandoned
and in doing so, be a more true and complete version of themselves."
To be honest, this troubles me enormously, because she is basically saying that women
cannot free themselves, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the cycle of oppression,
and require men to release them from bondage. I certainly applaud her encouragement of male
vulnerability and emotional openness - one significant way that feminists can help that
process along is, as I mentioned before, to strongly reject and oppose feminists who threaten
to murder, bomb, and kill men for speaking their minds and sharing their experiences
at - say - conferences. But smuggled into this general statement is
also an incredible condemnation of men and excusing of women. Men must get involved because
only men are bad - women cannot free themselves without men saving them because women are
only victims, never perpetrators. Men-bad/Women-good…
If a woman is drowning, and she needs someone
else to save her - yelling at her to save herself is worse than useless, she can't instantly
learn how to swim if she doesn't know. Demanding, or requiring, or inviting men to save women
strips women of any moral responsibility or moral agency in the cycle of violence that
so consumes the world.
But - but is that true? Are women always victims of men?
Ah, well… Welcome to the underground world
of female violence, the great unspoken horror that drives so many of the world's evils.
Women are responsible for half of domestic violence incidents, in many Western countries.
80% of British mothers hit their babies before the babies are even one year old. 25, estimated
25 percent of pedophiles are women. In a recent US study, middle-class mothers hit their babies
and toddlers, on average, over 900 times a year. The idea that endlessly bashing toddlers
has nothing whatsoever to do with the perpetuation of the cycle of violence is absolutely jaw-dropping.
I, for one, would be thrilled to hear a feminist say something like the following:
"Certainly there is anti-female prejudice in the world, and we have been speaking about
that for decades, if not centuries - but ladies, my sisters, I invite you to turn away from
men, and look inwards, towards yourselves, and see what we can do - independent of men
- to bring about a better world. Most mothers hit their children - this cannot be blamed
on children, it is a moral failing of women. No man stands behind us and commands us to
hit our children - men have their issues and faults, and evils, to be sure, but in this
instance, in this circumstance, we need to look directly in the mirror to find the source
of so many of the world's ailments, evils and catastrophes. It is time for us to stop
only blaming men, which merely disempowers us and insults men, and accept the responsibility
of becoming peaceful parents. This is, in fact, our fight to win, and it will probably
take a generation or two at least to turn the tide of this female-fueled violence against
children. Let us turn our eyes away from the faults of men, which has had our attention
for far too long, and support each other in finding ways to be parents without being violent."
Now that would be what I would call empowerment! Her next point:
"Men, I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation.
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. 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."
It may seem nice for Miss Watson to extend the olive branch to men, and tell us that
men suffer from gender inequality - but frankly, men already know that, and we have known it
for a very long time. Men around the world are drafted into insane wars, work night and
day to provide for women and children, die by the tens of thousands in horrible industrial
accidents, are regularly barred from seeing their own children,
have no reproductive rights,
and are forced to pay alimony to ex-wives for decades -
die sooner, just to name a few!
It certainly is true that men often find it hard to ask for help,
and sometimes do have a distorted view
of what constitutes male success - and I certainly do appreciate Miss
Watson for bringing these two topics up -
but I'm afraid I must take issue with her reliance
on her merely personal observations rather than, say,
asking men what is important to us.
She is speaking at the United Nations, after all, not to her tiny circle of friends
and family. Women are supposed to be great listeners -
might not be a bad time to take that for a spin.
I mean if I were to do a speech addressing
the issues of Gypsy migrants in Romania, I don't think I would talk about a Gypsy I saw
once in a fairground in Pennsylvania.
If I want to speak to men about gender issues,
what should I do? Well, what feminists seem resolutely opposed to doing,
which is, say, googling the term "top men's rights issues."
I did just that, and chose the first result,
which gave the following top ten list: "10.) The Male Gender Role (4%) That's right,
folks, chivalry has got to go. No longer should men be expected to be the providers and protectors
of society. There needs to be no shame in showing weakness, fear, and emotions other
than anger. No one should be expected to 'man up' and internalize their problems until they
go mad. We don't want to be conscripted and sent over to die to protect the womenfolk,
or be expected to do all [of] the backbreaking labor on our own. Just because we have penises
doesn't mean we should be forced to abide by additional societal expectations, especially
when those lead to an early grave."
So, Miss Watson, in her attempts to motivate
and enroll men by addressing our issues, chose the very least important aspect of the very
least important men's rights issue. Also, she appeals to chivalry - “heforshe” - and
asks men to man up and be the providers and protectors of women,
which is exactly what men don't want any more.
The very essence of disposable masculinity
- that men are faceless utilities only useful for delivering resources to women and children
- is so ingrained in society
that a woman attempting to address men's issues cannot
conceive of actually asking us what our issues are!
It only matters what she has noticed,
not what men have been desperately crying out for… for decades.
The number 9 Men's Issue: "Negative Portrayal of men in the Media (5%).
Tired of seeing dumb and deadbeat dads? Sick of every man on TV being a sex-obsessed
womanizer? So are we.
Men are often seen as incompetent, misogynistic, brutish slobs with
few redeeming qualities.
When there is a boys vs. girls competition in a children's television show when scripted,
the girls always win and the boys are treated like fools.
When boys complain, they're expected to 'man up.'
TV shows, commercials, and movies ought to
portray men in a more positive light."
"Number 8: Educating Boys (5%) Boys are being
misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD from the time they enter grade school. They are falling behind
in math and literacy, and the number of boys
going for college degrees is incredibly low—something
needs to be done about that.
By expanding help and assistance for boys' education,
we can continue to help boys learn to enjoy school
and continue learning, leading to better futures
for themselves and society."
"Number 7: Making Government Programs Gender-Neutral
or Accompanied by a Male Equivalent (6.2%)
Whether for single mothers, domestic violence,
or health research, tremendous amounts of government money goes to
women's aid. Men have the right to the same assistance
Domestic violence programs and policies that name women
as the only group that are abused—and therefore the only group deserving of assistance—
should be expanded to cover men as well.
Men and women are different, and sometimes an approach
that will work for women will not work for men.
Other aspects, such as health research,
cannot be gender-neutral all the way,
which is why a male equivalent is needed."
"Number 6: Better Treatment of Men Regarding False Accusations (7%).
Unfortunately, false accusations of rape and domestic violence occur.
Men are publicly shamed and often face
ire even after proven innocent. Court trials for accusations last too long,
and there is a minimal sentence , if any,
when a false accusation is discovered. A major goal of men's rights
is to expand anonymity for men accused of rape, and for false accusations to be treated
like the serious crime they are."
"Number 5: Reproductive Rights (7%)
Tied with false accusations is reproductive rights.
There is no male pill, and there is no way
to avoid fatherhood at will. If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to have the child
but the man does, the man loses.
At the same time, if she wants to have the child and the
man doesn't, the man loses.
The goal is not to let men walk away in the middle of parenting,
But to have the choice if they want to be involved in raising the child in the first place.
When a man chooses not to be involved from the start,
he's considered a deadbeat,
yet when a woman chooses to give a child up for adoption
or [to] not be involved, [or] to have an abortion, is completely [accepted].
There are countless options for women,
and none for men."
"Number 4: Removing the Notion That All Men
Are Potential Rapists/Pedophiles (9%)
In her 1977 novel, The Women's Room, author Marilyn
French wrote a line of dialog in which a female rape victim says,
'All men are rapists, and that's all they are.'
This line has become a well-known quote among the Men's Rights
Movement. Today, the idea is rather strong in people's heads that men in the company
of small children are, by nature, abusers.
We have organizations such as 'Men Against Rape'
teaching that women are afraid and we need to be careful not to rape women.
The overwhelming majority of men
have no interest or intention of raping a woman or being a pedophile,
yet all men are treated as a threat.
We need to hold these few people accountable-
not the entire male gender."
Number 3: Anti-Male Double Standards (10%)
This is a widespread issue that's related to #10. There seems to be the notion that
when men break a gender barrier,
such as playing field hockey, they're being aggressive, bent
on winning. At the same time, if a girl wants to play football,
she's a groundbreaking fighter
for women's rights. An adult man has a relationship with a younger teenage girl?
He's a disgusting pedophile.
A teenage guy with an adult woman?
She's lauded and called a cougar—it's considered hot.
While women seldom go unpunished in cases of abuse,
their sentencing is often nowhere near as severe as men's.
"Number 2: Feminism (11%)
You can debate whether the original goal of feminism to bring men down,
or if it was an unintended consequence.
But when we started helping girls more in school, boys were pushed aside.
In recent years, we've seen protests
against anonymity for rape accusations, denial of false accusations
as an issue, and fathers' rights groups demonized for wanting power
instead of time with their children
and fair alimony/child-support payments.
We can't undo what has been done, but, by
dealing with the parts of feminism that are anti-male, we can prevent further damage."
"Number 1: Fathers' Rights (20%)
Winning twice as many the votes as the second-place option
and one-fifth of the votes overall,
father's rights reigns supreme as the top issue.
A father has the right to see his child after a divorce
and to have his child in his custody more often.
Accusations without support are exactly that—accusations—
and a father should not be separated
from his children on that basis alone. Child support payments
are often extreme and unmanageable,
making it a struggle for men to even meet the necessary
payments while keeping a roof over [his] heads.
In some states, rates do not change—even
if there is a pay cut, unemployment, or a career change involved."
Miss Watson, if you want to speak to men,
you first must listen to us. The previous
list is just from some websites, it's not comprehensive,
it's not scientific, it's not perfect-
but it's not a bad start. Look, I'm sure you spent many days or weeks preparing
your speech, but you clearly did not spend even 10 minutes of that time actually finding
out what men need and want, what our issues are,
what our priorities are, what is actually
destroying so many of us.
Your speech in this area is the equivalent
of me doing a speech about the needs and wants of Native Americans,
and earnestly telling
the world that I knew a Native American once who got drunk a lot.
People would rightly
castigate me for my complete failure to research the Native American perspective at all.
"Did you actually talk to a Native American?"
"Ummm, I guess it never really crossed my mind…"
If you are a feminist, and you want to enroll and motivate men,
lecturing us about our supposed
failings - while failing to ask us any questions whatsoever -
is mere finger-wagging narcissism.
Anti-male prejudice is so ingrained in our hive minds that not one mainstream or female
commentator - to my knowledge at least -
has pointed out the blindingly obvious fact that
Miss Watson wants to talk about gender equality
and the needs of women, and cannot even conceive
of asking men what our needs are.
There are thousands of passionate, committed
and dedicated men's rights advocates throughout the world - Miss Watson could have called
any of them up to ask about men's issues.
I'm sure they would have leapt at the chance
to bring men's issues to the forefront of an international discussion.
Can you imagine how powerful it would have been for men
throughout the world to see their most desperate and
essential issues brought to the intention of the entire planet? Miss Watson's speech
was a tragically missed opportunity
to genuinely speak to men, and to genuinely motivate men,
to trigger an outpouring of relief and gratitude from men at finally being heard - sadly, her
speech contains no curiosity, no questions, no men's voices or concerns
- it was just yet another example of a woman lecturing
at men without listening to us - and demanding
that we provide resources for the safety, security and comfort of women to boot!
It was about as retrograde a speech as can be conceivably imagined,
and it only served
to remind men just how far we still have to go to be heard.
So other than repeating the endlessly debunked myth that women make less than men for the
same work - in fact, women with the same education have been in the workforce for the same amount
of time as men actually make a little bit more than men - Miss Watson had two last points
she wanted to make: Men suffer from gender stereotypes, too:
"We don't often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes, but I can see 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."
Okay, so here, she explicitly states that women are helpless victims of male actions,
with about as much free will and moral autonomy as your average shadow. This is standard feminist
accusatory tone: when men improve, women will naturally improve as well - the idea that
the exact opposite could be possibly true is so foreign and incomprehensible to people
that it's like going to a physics conference
and stating that gravity actually repels rather
than attracts. Ladies, my sisters - let me lay it out for
you as plainly as I can:
Before we are men, we are boys. When we are boys, we are under
the command and control of women almost exclusively.
We are parented by women, disciplined by women,
educated by women - we are raised by women.
And those women scream at us and hit us.
A lot.
In a recent study, as I mentioned, middle-class
American women hit their toddlers - age 7 months
to three years - over 900 times a year.
80% of these British mothers hit their babies.
African-American mothers are even more violent
towards helpless and dependent boys and girls.
In India and China - the most populous regions
of the world - hitting children is an epidemic, and staunchly defended. Treatment of children
in Africa remains, in general, brutal.
Feminists, are you concerned about male aggression?
3-5 year old toddlers spanked by mothers are much more likely to break rules and act aggressively
by the age of 9 than children who aren't spanked.
Miss Watson, feminists as a whole - do you
want men to use their words, rather than act out aggressively?
Spanking reduces verbal
fluency, and increases aggression.
And mothers, in the West hit helpless children
50% more than fathers do.
Do you really, really, really think that women
can do nothing whatsoever - other than lecture men -
to end the cycle of violence in the world?
Ladies, now, now, now is the time for empowerment.
Forget about blaming others - empowerment means focusing on
what you can achieve, right now,
today, without begging for their participation of others.
Mothers, mothers, mothers, stop
hitting your children… Just stop.
Don't blame men, don't blame poverty, don't blame
your children, don't blame some abstract institution,
don't blame “the patriarchy…” Just stop
hitting your children. You are individual moral agents.
You don't give excuses to men
for hitting women; there are no excuses for you hitting children,
which is a far worse moral crime,
because children are completely helpless and dependent, and never chose you
as their mother.
Boys - and countless girls of course - are
hit by their mothers hundreds of times a year;
from babyhood onward they crawl forward under
a literal hailstorm of female assaults.
For women to claim that they are helpless in the
face of male aggression, that they can do nothing
to change the cycle of violence, is
literally madness - it's like planting an apple tree,
and then railing against the apple
tree for being an apple tree.
We reap what we sow.
If there is one thing that I know,
it is that women have the greatest possible power and
influence over the cycle of violence
that has forever strangled peace in this world.
I am a stay-at-home father to a wonderful daughter, and I'm certainly sensitive to the
needs and issues of women,
but really, ladies, my sisters: crying out that you can do nothing
to end violence - and that men need to rush in and save you from the patriarchy - turns
women into hysterical Victorian caricatures,
fainting on couches and helplessly weeping
for salvation.
Yeah, there's this old myth about the "rule of thumb".
You know, that men could hit women
with a stick no bigger than their thumb.
This has always been a falsehood calculated to slander men
it was never true by the way…
The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating in 1655:
"No man shall strike his wife nor
any woman her husband on penalty of such fine
not exceeding ten pounds for one offense,
or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."
Hmmm, well, no rule of thumb there.
Do you get what that means, ladies, my sisters?
Do you get what that means?
359 years ago it was illegal to hit your wife.
And yet mothers still hit their children,
and complain about the violence in the world
- the violence they help create.
Punishments for wife-beaters in history could
be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute,
the culprit could receive forty lashes at
the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty lashes.
In New Mexico, you could
be fined from $255 to $1,000 -
one to five years in prison. Religious groups - especially
the Protestant, Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists
punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters.
Husbands, brothers, and neighbours often took vengeance against the batterer. Vigilante
parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.
That's the kind of protection that women have had throughout history.
Not perfect, but hitting
children remains legal in most of the world's countries.
Ladies, women, my beautiful sisters,
you can change the world - you are the most essential
aspect of fixing the world, of healing the world.
And it fundamentally has nothing to
do with men, or the patriarchy - it relies on you,
your children, your fists and your conscience.
The hidden violence of the world is the violence
of women - and the men they choose - against children.
Stop hitting children, and save the world.