Emma Watson’s UN Speech: What She Didn’t Say #HeForShe

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.