The psychology of nations
The psychology of revolution
The psychology of nations
The psychology of revolution
It’s almost as if she is slowly changing into Hermione, whom no one really liked for her politics <SPEW joke>, because her career is panning and she’s approaching the Hollywood leading lady Wall. It’s no coincidence they cut that irritating interlude to a passing mention in the films. I didn’t cover HeforShe first time round because I knew it would be a bust (as she hilariously admits in the speech at Davos) but it seems her inane #firstworldproblems are becoming a quarterly feature so my hand is forced. Side note: did she take a private jet like the other suffering millionaires?
Let’s go to the press release first, the official line, predictably called UNWomen because women are the centre of everything don’tchaknow.
What do you want?
unveiled the HeForShe IMPACT 10X10X10 pilot initiative to galvanize momentum in advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment. The HeForShe campaign’s IMPACT 10X10X10 initiative is a one-year pilot effort that aims to engage governments, corporations and universities as instruments of change positioned within some of the communities that most need to address deficiencies in women’s empowerment and gender equality and that have the greatest capacity to make and influence those changes. Each sector will identify approaches for addressing gender inequality, and pilot test the effectiveness of these interventions for scalability.
The report highlights a large current gap between men and women in terms of political engagement and opportunity and little improvement in equality for women in the workplace since 2006.
“Ultimately we need everyone to get involved if we are to turn the tide.”
Here, have some groupthink! It goes lovely with that delusion that everyone agrees with you and knows your opinion is the only good one. This is why people rightfully call social justice a cult, but strangely, the term isn’t used. PR hiccup? Even when that’s the entire point of the move. It’s redistribution of wealth to the people who, by definition, do not create it. Irony bounds we need one of the most privileged women in the world asking for the average man’s money as if she is oppressed by her sex when HR departments already hire according to SJ diktat and she made the bulk of her fortune off being a comely woman by modelling (professional objectification).
That last image was a sardonic reference to the last feminist UNWomen campaign, which used Google autocomplete as if it were totally serious.
n.b. “Male feminists” are anecdotally more verbally abusive to women such as myself (non-feminist) than any female feminist I’ve encountered. They seem to think they’re justified behind that non-sequitur shield of “I’m a feminist, I can’t be a cyberbully” (a masked man fallacy). I have frequently been told to kill myself, always by a male feminist. One notable example was actually a campaigner against cyberbullying which he didn’t like when I pointed out such hypocrisy. If anything, you should be telling them to calm the fuck down. Rather than target other women on behalf of a minority of cultists who clearly cannot logically defend themselves against their own sex. Or don’t these normal, non-feminist women know what’s good for them?
Yet this eloquent, illustrious man in the tweet, also a spearhead for the move ahead of a whole list of experienced men, is barely covered in the media. It’s almost as if sex sells, or to be more precise, Mz Watson’s sex.
I found another press release, although believe me it took some digging.
IMPACT 10X10X10 prioritizes legislative bodies and corporations in view of the gender inequality that exists in these areas, confirmed by findings from the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2014.
Mutual obligation? At no point does HeforShe accomplish anything for men, except some vague promises that, trust us, patriarchy is bad for men too! Even though it’s run by men for men (a male safe space?) and their exclusive benefit according to …feminist theory.
From their own mouths: ”
“The patriarchy hurts men too” is a set of silencing or derailing tactics in feminist discussions…. Men are, as a class, the group advantaged by the patriarchy…..men who want to discuss male identity, masculinity and the patriarchy need to create new discussions in spaces that aren’t marked as women-centred. [DS: like a manosphere? mens’ rights groups?] This tactic is sufficiently well known that the acronym is sometimes used to identify it: PHMT.
Ignore the cognitive dissonance behind the curtain.
We have equal opportunities. We do not have equal outcomes because women are free agents who make personal choices and reap the consequences, both positive and negative.
I invite anyone to prove that above bolded incorrect on a factual level. Truly.
There is a performance differential on any metric you care to measure. Men and women (if you choose that sex binary as the independent variable) differ in their colour perception, for example. Something as basic as saying red or orange. As this Cell link states in passing, it’s such old news, the perception differential is biological. Innate. Immutable. “Furthermore, despite abundant evidence for sex differences in other visual domains, and specifically in other tasks of color perception-”
I’m sure Mz Watson knows better than biology. I’m sure there’s some rock-hard science, unless she’s calling Newton’s Principia a “rape manual” like some other feminists. She can’t be coasting on personal attention-whoring, emotional appeals and political philosophy. I can’t put it off any longer.
1st thing I noticed: No like/dislike ratio data. No comments. Yes, what a welcoming invitation from HeforShe. I want to be a part of this “discussion.”
11 million views. How many unique? No, that’s asking too much. I watched it about 10 times to pick apart all the subtle jibes at supposed male dominance. And for laughs with free-thinking friends over drinks.
“Response” is great n’ all, but she isn’t really selling the real-world changes implemented as a result of her September edition [Vogue reference]. Were there any? Any at all? Surely she would point them out unless this is five minutes of self-congratulation that a few million men probably masturbated to her in a tight-fitting suit on mute.
1.2 billion social media conversations. I would wager at least 1 billion of those were arguments. Attention isn’t always positive deary. And going by the statistic you pulled a moment before, that means most people discussing your speech, didn’t watch it.
That’s right. Less than 0.01% of people talking about you actually listened to what you had to say.
She name drops. Keep it classy.
Marathons. Don’t people run those anyway? Merchandise? No sales data? None? You’re leaving it up to our imagination? That single 15 year old boy who wrote into his newspaper did it on a whim. I’ve seen more people write into papers about Bigfoot and UFOs.
Young girls collecting hundreds of signatures.
How many? How many girls and how many did each collect? If it were thousands of girls and that’s all they got, it wouldn’t seem as impressive, so I’m not surprised you missed out half the data. And only hundreds? At least two hundred then. Where is the link Emma to check for ourselves? Let’s see another petition in the ranks of 15k.
From their own website, out of billions of men worldwide: 208,003.
From this count, 3,665,665,350 men in the world at the time of checking (rounded a dozen or so down to 50) divided by 208,000 (rounded down by three).
Average 17,623 men per country. Is that it?
Average population of a country: 34,020,600.
That isn’t a “stunning” response Emma. That’s a rounding error.
Less than 0.001% of men in the average country. That’s a level of (in)significance a biomedical study could be proud of!
In your own country, where support should be sky-high: 26,942 men signed. 1 in 7 daily Guardian readers signed your petition. [192881/26942= 7.1]
Back to her first two stats. 11 million views/208,003. I’ll give you the three. 52.88. For every (non-unique) view of your speech, you persauded 1 in 52 men (rounding up for you because I feel pity) to sign your bloody petition.
Of the 1,200,000,000 social media conversations, bearing in mind you double that number of participants because you need at least two people to have a conversation (unless on tumblr);
Conversations on HeforShe by the number of men they induced to actually sign the fucking petition, expressed as percentage.
0.0002%, kindly rounded up. I can see those social media conversations were very fruitful.
Go on Emma. Tell us what a success this effort was. Try to sell us this again. Try to justify more money poured into it. How much did September cost? How much for each individual male signature? Four whole months?
“I couldn’t have dreamed it, but it’s happened. Thank you so much.”
Yeah. Sounds more like a nightmare. As you are speaking at an ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
“Thank you so much for watching-“
see above stats
“-and thank you so much for your support.”
Is that sarcasm? She can’t be that deluded to be serious, could she? And such eloquence, she comes across as SO educated. Like wow. so educated.
Reading off a speech card what the 10^3 campaign is. Isn’t her entire job in that role to memorize? Isn’t her acting non-career also based on her memory? It’s five minutes of monologue. *sigh*
“but I want to hear from the human beings that are behind these organisations.”
You already can. They send out these things called press releases and do interviews and sometimes even documentaries, so you don’t have to worry your pretty little head about more reading.
“I spoke about some of my story in September.”
If I were her editor I’d change it to: I shared my experience-. That’s all she wants to do. Talk about herself. Now she’s trying to justify her childish entitlements by asking for other people’s anecdotes too. Other people in power. No room for poor people in this warfare. A war of the sexes long outpaced Marxist class warfare in focus: “Class struggle is the women’s struggle! Women’s struggle is class struggle!” Two+ instances of logical fallacies don’t make for logic. Let’s all empathize with the poor rich people who need your help, poor people. Have a care for those in need. In Parliament. The C-suite. Ivory Towers.
“What are your stories? Girls, who have been your mentors? [implied boys cannot have mentors because masculinity is toxic to boys but masculine behaviour isn’t for girls] Parents, did you make sure you treated your children equally? [instead of fairly] If so, how have you done it? [ignoring their biology and sex-specific needs, I imagine; girls need to be taught about periods, for example] Husbands, have you been supporting your female partner [DS: I think the word you refuse to use is wife] privately so that she can fulfill her dreams too? [ignore the male NEETs, 73% male homelessness and how female NEETs chose to have children young, have more mental health problems or don’t even look for work] Young men, [poor men] have you spoken up in a conversation when a woman was casually degraded or dismissed? [there are so many things wrong with that I shan’t bother] How did this affect you? [as a man, even if 97% feminist-leaning you will be casually degraded by feminists and your opinion is dismissed as mansplaining, trick question] How did this affect the woman you stepped up for? [the part where she was spoken over and for like a paternal figure would or the implication that she cannot defend herself and requires a White Knight to protect her?] Businessmen, [only men? What Sisterhood?] have you mentored, supported or engaged women in leadership positions?”
“18% of SMEs are female led, and 22% of FTSE100 board members are female.” ~ A report written by your Government – why don’t you read?
“Using these data we can estimate that 32.9% of TEA was accounted for by women in 2011. In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.” Seems rather fair to me. They’ve had equal opportunity and ample incentives. In fact, excluding men would be the most unfair, sexist things you could do-
Hidden away in another report by your own Government freely available online if you bother to look, it reads: ” In the FTSE 250 – the 250 next largest companies after those in the FTSE 100 – 13% of company directors were women. This figure has doubled in the last seven years.”
FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED ALREADY. THE DATA IS RIGHT THERE.
Worst of all, this is terrible news for the UK economy. Measured in Tobin’s Q, more women on the board, even on the lowest rung, makes the quantifiable company profits drop in reduced performance. Don’t worry your head about it Mz Watson, I’m sure your political ideology is more important than the economy. You’re rich, it hardly matters to you on a personal level.
She goes on (and on and on);
Daily Mail I presume, with among the highest levels of female journalists employed? [n.b. The Guardian doesn’t report its own figures]
have you challenged the language and imagery used to portray women in the media?
CEOs, have you implemented the women’s empowerment principles in your own company?
And why would they do that?
Note how she doesn’t claim it will make them better off. Interesting omission. They hushed up on that false claim as they began to study it and they didn’t like the real-world results going against their dream. [see above Tobin’s Q]
What change have you seen?
Less money. More lawsuits.
They’ll call you.
Are you someone that has persauded men to become HeforShes?
Sounds like a transsexual thing. By someone, do you mean feminist or the hardcore SJWs? Weasel words.
-and collecting their signatures for our website.
We’ve seen. What a bang-up job they did of that.
How many have you got?
You don’t want to ask that question. Wait… you don’t know. You really don’t know. Are you telling me you haven’t bothered to pull out a calculator once? You had the numbers before me. Nobody told you. Oh my God. Awkward.
We want to know.
They do. The UN already must. They didn’t tell you.
We want to hear from you.
One of the biggest pieces of feedback I’ve had … is that men and women want to help but they aren’t sure how best to do it. Men say they’ve signed the petition [over muffled laughter] – what now?
Here we go. This is it. This is the bold decisive action from a woman in your position of power and leadership. You may not be the feminist we deserve but… Be the feminist we need, Emma!
The truth is, the What Now? is down to you.
…………………………..wait, what’s your job again? ….Why are you even here?
Of all the anti-climaxes. You do the stereotypical female verbal defence mechanism of throwing the need for a logical answer back onto the persons asking the question, in a monologue speech in support of female assertiveness. I didn’t even know that was possible. You deflected with a tag question. To yourself, because the audience can’t talk back and give you that feedback, making the question rhetorical (and online there are no video comments, like/dislikes etc). You’re asking a rhetorical question about the need for and function of the very movement you’re meant to be promoting.
Ask Brown University for your money back.
What your HeforShe commitment will be is personal.
If we know one thing about human nature, men love commitment.
And there is no best way.
Is there a worse tactic than this? Give us a way. One single way to extrapolate from. Use your brain and come up with something. One thing. Is the best you can do to say: figure it out yourselves? Underwhelming.
Everything is valid.
Can I order this on a t-shirt.
It’s such a mindless, empty platitude it would sell like hotcakes.
Decide what your commitment is, make it public, and then please report back to us on your progress.
Like good little tin soldiers. Those are your marching orders.
-so that we can share your story.
Hang on, so the justification of this campaign is to gain information to justify this campaign?
We want to support, guide and reinforce your efforts. IMPACT 10^3 [lazy] is about concrete commitments to change, the visibility of these commitments and the measurability of them too.
We don’t care what you do for us, just do something for us, and then tell us what you did, and make sure whatever you do is really obvious and annoying to your friends and you measure it somehow for us, even in feels, to use it for some reason for this campaign that really needs you to do stuff for us because stuff needs to be done for us.
This is bringing back hard flashbacks of that classic study on automaticity. If you give people an order, whatever it is, if you give a non-reason as a reason, most of the time, they’ll still do it. Why? They don’t process the reason. There is no higher brain function and use of logic involved. They’re just following orders.
How has the campaign impacted me so far?
Well you’ve been getting paid, you’ve got more publicity than the last few years of your acting ‘career’ combined and numerous photoshoots.
I’ve had my breath taken away-
SOMEONE hire this girl a speech editor. CHRIST.
A domestic abuse case story …ended by the victim. The victim had the power to make the abuse stop? Bad example Emma. *makes cut motion rapidly*
Men in your life use a sudden excuse to talk to you and be your shoulder to cry on. Didn’t you stop to consider why?
Terrible attempt at “I have a dream”. “Economic and political parity?” Ah, when are you redistributing some of your wealth to me, from one woman to another? When can I expect the transfer? A tenner? How about some third world shithole, they could do great things with your millions? Oh, you want to keep all of your own money but lecture average people who are by definition poorer than you to give away theirs. That isn’t parity, it’s hypocrisy.
-This campaign and the result of it are a result of my incredible speechwriting skills. I know that it is not.
First instance of self-awareness. 4/5 in.
It is because the ground is fertile.
Sweeping statement. Evidence? No, I give up expecting any.
It is my belief that there is a greater understanding than ever that women need to be equal participants.
Let’s hope your understanding of that belief is better than your grasp of statistics.
How about the understanding in the past two centuries? In fact the first person to call for female suffrage was a man in 1818. When “Only 58% of the adult male population was eligible to vote before 1918.” Government source again: “In 1918 the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification to vote. …The same act abolished property and other restrictions for men, and extended the vote to all men over the age of 21. Additionally, men in the armed forces could vote from the age of 19.” Votes here with names listed: 385 Ayes to 55 Noes. Or how about when “the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 [stated] that women over 21 were able to vote and women finally achieved the same voting rights as men.”As wikipedia admits: The act was passed by the Conservative Party without much opposition from other parties.
Ever, Emma? Ever?
There’s your ‘political parity’, you don’t want to see it.
In our homes, in our societies, in our governments, and in our workplaces.
NOWHERE IS SAFE FROM US.
Weasel use of the collective pronouns. Like the patronizing ‘We’.
And they KNOW, that the world is being held back in EVERY way [name one], because they are not.
Again, prove my opportunities statement false in the First World societies aka civilizations. You can’t. You don’t even bother pretending to prove that claim which dismisses the entirety of feminism up until now, you just say: You know. Oh, you KNOW. Vaguely paranoid assertion. Generic You. Switching to they is an us v. them confrontational paradigm assuming the audience agree, when you just said you want peace, harmony and men working
with for women, did you mean as servants instead? Is that your idea of equality for women? If women=men doesn’t that go both ways? And it’s a black/white fallacy to throw one group up against another like the only options (they/we). If they did hold you back, how are you able to make this speech at all? You speak nonsense. There is no sense in it. You can’t be consistent for five fucking minutes??? [4:35]
‘Right side of history‘ myth tied to Marxism’s ripoff of misread Hegel. History isn’t teleological . If you’re so sure you’re going to get your own way eventually, you wouldn’t be pushing so hard because it’d be like gravity, effortless. Your very actions betray insecurity in your ideology.
Ten Tell-Tale signs of Deception:
I won’t bother to apply that to this. Check most of them, inc. #3 “Answering questions with questions“
Women share this planet 50:50.
Ah. Oh. Uh. Um. No.
I see what you did there. Women like to claim minority status when it’s a mathematical status.
Women are the global majority.
“In a study around 2002, the natural sex ratio at birth was estimated to be close to 1.06 males/female. In most populations, adult males tend to have higher death rates than adult females of the same age (even after allowing for causes specific to females such as death in childbirth), both due to natural causes such as heart attacks and strokes, which account for by far the majority of deaths and also to violent causes, such as homicide and warfare 6] resulting in higher life expectancy of females.”
I guess that information wouldn’t sound as good in your speech, would it love? No, say the populations are equal mathematically, without support from the actual maths.
And they are under-represented.
You believe. It’s an ever-moving goalpost.
You want more women to make a different choice. One you haven’t actually made yourself e.g. to board a company, go into STEM. You wanna force them? Forcing women to do what you want? That’s the only way it can happen. And you wonder why the term feminazi exists. Comments on #womenagainstfeminism?
Their potential astonishingly untapped.
Stats from your own Goverment yet again: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2013.html Whereas in full-time, men earn more but in part-time, women earn more in £/hr. [chart] Why? More women are in part-time work. [chart] Men work more overtime so their full-time pay is bound to be higher for literally more hours of productive work. [chart] What equality, you say? This equality. [chart] And this equality: “At the same time (2013 Quarter 2), the Labour Force Survey (LFS) indicates that the UK workforce consisted of approximately 12.8 million men (51% of the employee workforce) and 12.5 million women (49% of the workforce).” If anything, women earn more than men for contributing fewer productive hours. In that sense, they are untapped.
See where the % change in earnings for full-time women was higher than men and the ‘All’ average of both sexes combined? Let’s look at the inequalities in part-time.
“The mean weekly paid hours of work for full-time men were 40.1 hours compared with 37.4 for women. For part-time employees the mean weekly paid hours worked were 17.5 hours for men and 18.3 for women.”
Where men earn more: 556.0 median gross weekly earnings for full-time men in 2013 for 40.1 hours of work.
Where women earn more: 164.3 median gross weekly earnings for part-time women in 2013 for 18.3 hours of work.
a) Men earned 13.86 per hour weekly. b) Women earned 8.978 per hour weekly. Where each in their category earned more than the opposite sex under the same conditions. Simple explanation? Male overtime for (a) [chart above]. The female earnings exceeded men in part-time work because they worked longer hours than their sex competition, behaving like men in a! It comes down (result – amount paid) to N hours that are chosen to work, irrespective of the sex of the worker (proven in b) or the type of work employed (ft/pt).
Untapped = lazy. Women are 49% of that workforce.
To bring HeforShe into its next phase.
What was the phase before?
What are you doing aside from passing the buck for feminist failures?
She does the question thing again. MLK didn’t say “What’s your dream?” Why make a huge mistake once when you can make it twice?
We want to know and we want to hear from you.
That can’t have been it.
What a gigantic waste of time covering this has been.
Taken to its logical extreme, a serial killer could daub HeforShe on the walls of his victims in blood and they’d wanna know about it. That’s how silly this entire thing is.
One of the main roles that the modern state performs is that it at least theoretically backstops all contracts, which makes it easier to do business with strangers and near-strangers. As that critical role becomes more theory and less practice, direct, unmediated trust becomes more critical for getting anything done. This means that it becomes more important to defect your primary loyalty to some combination of your family, ethnic group, religious affiliation, and quite probably gang or local business affiliation. This process is common within all collapsing states and need not be cause for all that much mourning, although it is cause for alarm.
Trust is a scarce resource, probably the scarcest resource in a society becoming increasingly chaotic, and it’s also crucial for constructing anything of consequence. Rather than having that resource provided to you for ‘free’ as an entitlement that comes with your birth certificate, you have to build it for yourself or pay in to an alternative network to gain access to it.
What we should expect to see is a contraction in the above-ground, official society, and a growth in the underground, unofficial society in which the work of actual survival can take place. Attempting to extract resources from the official network will become harder and less consistent, while extracting resources from the occluded networks will become easier and more profitable.
“A group of people will often engage in actions that are contrary to the private moral standards of each individual in that group, sweeping otherwise decent individuals into ‘mobs’ that commit looting, vandalism, even physical brutality.”
Guess the sex of the person who did the study.
Guess whether it is was personal or professional.
“Once you start feeling attacked on behalf of your group, however arbitrary, it changes your psychology.”
But not yours, huh? Princeton grad? You’re immune to all effects.
“The subjects also saw their personalized moral statements mixed in with sentences about social media. Brain scans revealed that when subjects were playing for themselves, the medial prefrontal cortex lit up much more when they read the moral statements than the social media statements, consistent with previous findings. However, during the team competition, some people showed much lower medial prefrontal cortex activation when they saw the moral statements.”
“Those people also turned out to be much more likely to harm members of the competing group during a task performed after the game.”
Us v. them.
“”If you need to encode something with regard to the self and that ability is somehow undermined when you’re competing with a group -“
Never been in a fight, huh?
Try getting someone in a bar fight standoff to contemplate philosophy, you dumb bitch.
“hopes to follow up on these findings to investigate what makes some people more likely to become “lost” in a group than others.”
Patronizing liberal cunt.
Hopefully she’ll never have to fight for her life. I don’t fancy her odds.