I don’t know whether to laugh that they’re accurate or cry that they’re necessary.
I know the men’s rights movement get a bad rep, but would you reject any legal favours they win for you? Exactly.
I don’t know whether to laugh that they’re accurate or cry that they’re necessary.
I know the men’s rights movement get a bad rep, but would you reject any legal favours they win for you? Exactly.
When this ad trend goes down, usually we see a buoy from the opposite e.g. Old Spice vs. Pyjama Boy.
Feminists know when something smells fishy.
….Welcome to the world of femvertising: where the hard sell has been ‘pinkwashed’ and replaced by something resembling a social conscience, and where advertisers are falling over each other to climb on board the feminist bandwagon.
…On the face of it, this might seem like a giant step forward for the industry. But is it as heartwarming as it seems? Aren’t we still just being sold to? Surely half the world’s population can’t be ‘having a moment’….
Meanwhile, Protein World is showing them how it’s done.
Who makes you more money long-term – a loud minority niche group ready to trigger on you eventually or a silent majority tired of their BS? They’re looking for proof, and something to calm down the stockholders at the meetings, who pay too much attention to Twitter because they’re too ancient to realise it’s a microcosm echo chamber without corporate relevance.
…It’s what women want. Last year, lifestyle website SheKnows surveyed more than 600 women about femvertising. A staggering 91 per cent believed that how women are portrayed in ads has a direct impact on girls’ self-esteem, and 94 per cent said that depicting women as sex symbols is harmful.
These women aren’t the sharpest tools in the box.
Note how they didn’t report how many, of those, actually purchased? Like the Dove campaign, it actually made sales plummet, because they got all their goodfeels from the Product (TM) advert – why would they need to spend more money on the product itself? (Original purpose for goodfeels marketing).
It also showed that femvertising can pay – half (52 per cent) had purchased a product because they liked how the ads potrayed women.
Did they say that unprompted?
How fickle is this 50% of your share?
Blackett suggests the move towards honesty in advertising is, in part, down to the recession. But I think the answer is much simpler: social media.
This girl is dumb.
Women have long held the spending power. Now, through social media, we’ve found a place to communicate that. We can hold advertisers – and anyone else perceived not to be meeting our needs – directly accountable (think Protein World’s ‘beach body ready’ billboards).
We can expose the realities of female life (#EverydaySexism) and rally behind causes via hashtag activism (think #bringbackourgirls #iammalala #yesallwomen). We can go into battle to see Jane Austen out on the tenner or to defend the victims of Gamergate.
Here is a place where the soft power – read influence – of women has never been more apparent.
False equivalence, most women are not feminists.
View at Medium.com
Our online presence is dominant (we use social media more, and we do 62 per cent of all online sharing).
Pictures of a druggie and stories about how much you hate yourselves don’t count.
We also have increasing power in the workplace – British boards now have 23.5 per cent women according to the latest Lord Davies report….
FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED ALREADY. THE DATA IS RIGHT THERE.
In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.
Strangely, this report has gone missing (cough sabotage cough). Thankfully we have a cache to the page: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gQjjZsLE5u0J:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06152.pd+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
And it does link to a very recent briefing paper: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06152/SN06152.pdf
Which edits out the FTSE250 data and gives the 100 ONLY. That isn’t dodgy at all…
This paper, yes, EU>our Government, snidely implies all-male boards will be banned in the top FTSE (I’m pretty sure this flouts corporate law and the rights of the stockholders with veto power), and since they’re publicly traded this can be regulated to an extent. On the economic losses, they have hidden their coverup of a lie in footnote 20 in this document, man I love the footnotes, protip always read those first: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeucom/58/58.pdf which reads;
It should be stressed that we reject any suggestion that improved diversity would be to the detriment of company performance, as was argued in some submissions we received.44 As the Employment Lawyers’ Association (ELA) stated, “it is difficult to see what disadvantages companies could suffer by reason of a higher representation of women on boards”.45 However, as the Minister said, “causality is probably impossible to prove one way or the other … ”.46 If this express link to financial performance cannot be proven more robustly, then it should be discarded from the argument. To do otherwise would put a case that cannot be proven at the centre of an argument for policy change. We urge the Government to argue forthrightly the case for improved gender diversity based on the “whole range of different advantages” that balance can bring,47 rather than on the direct financial impact of increased female board representation.
It cannot be proven if you suppress the evidence.
Notice they never outright lie? I love that about EU shills.
I’d sue or demand insurance that if the law forces them to take on bad hires, either they get the right to sack them and take on whomever they want or they get a massive payout greater than the loss. I did a little digging, for those who want to contact the people telling the truth on this.
The evidence to support this hatefact was submitted by Ray Russell, Michael Klein, and as ‘Campaign for Merit in Business’ and you can see the links here: https://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/house-of-lords-select-committe-inquiry-on-women-on-boards-written-evidence-submitted/ who added “We’ve been in touch with most of these groups, and none has offered a shred of evidence of a positive causal relationship between more women on boards and enhanced corporate performance.”
It doesn’t exist, dawg. Technically, the law was brought through on a known lie, making it invalid and a breach of NGO power (you know they’re the ones pushing this). These companies could hustle together and file a class-action lawsuit. I mean, if they read silly little blogs like mine…
In Europe, recent legal changes allowed this if it’s in civilian benefit (they can be stockholders of the PLC structure) – just a thought….
Back to the dumb girl…
…. It’s a powerful message and one that’s also had plenty of ad-world back slapping (along with #LikeAGirl it won a coveted glass lion at the Cannes Lion ad awards earlier this month).
The starting point for the campaign was research: through talking to women came the realisation that they weren’t doing sport out of fear of being judged, even though 75 per cent wanted to…..
All the prestige and $$$$.
They must be hitting up against the original idea wall soon, like Hollywood. Scraping out the last of their credibility could be funny. We should mock them mercilessly when that day arrives.
…It smacked of a company adopting feminism because it seemed trendy; out of self interest. That’s where brands like Sport England and Always have got it right – they’re turning the mirror back on us. The moment those women in the first #LikeAGirl ad understood they’d been fed a cliche about their own gender was powerful, regardless of the motive. …
These people will never be happy.
…Indeed, femvertising is hugely popular with millennials who, recent studies show, value ethics over money. …
They have no money.
But this younger generation of women will see through such advertising strategies if they become too shallow. The more brands strive to appeal to them via ‘social movements’ or experiments, the more they risk becoming formulaic.
…So where next for femvertising? Personally, I think we desperately need more diversity on our screens. …
Companies – They’re gonna destroy you. They only care about pushing their beliefs, they’re like the New Church Ladies.
Women don’t aspire to ugly. You will lose.
Go ahead, with my full blessing.
Do everything they say and when they drop you, the rest of us will let you go under.
…Plus, if femvertising is truly going to be real isn’t it about time we saw red, not blue, liquid used in ads for sanitary towels and tampons? (It’s a myth that ASA rules prohibit this). ..
See what I mean?
…”We need to normalise the experience of being a woman in advertising. If companies have any sense at all they will embrace it and future proof their business.” …
You made your bed, motherfuckers.
A male Durham University student was so moved by the suicide of a close male friend that he felt compelled to start a society for other men who may need support – only to find it blocked by the Student Union this week for being too “controversial”.
poor dear (not sarcasm for once)
When Adam Frost, 21, a third-year Italian and French student, proposed the Durham University Male Human Rights Society, he was ridiculed on campus, with remarks such as “Isn’t this a bit like starting a society for white people’s rights?”
Adam told me: “Last October, a friend who was depressed reached out to me, but I didn’t know what to say. I tried to help, but two weeks later I found out he’d killed himself. That hit me hard. I started looking into male suicide and found some shocking statistics. The reason behind that is that male depression isn’t taken seriously – we’re supposed to just ‘man up’ and deal with it. Men are ridiculed.
Which group ridicules men?
“It’s incredible how much stigma there is against male weakness. Men’s issues are deemed unimportant, so I decided to start a society.
“But it was rejected by [Durham’s] Societies Committee; they said it was ‘controversial’ – and that my aims were ‘too similar to those of Fem Soc [Feminist Society]’. That’s just not true. They told me I could have a men’s group, but only if it was a branch of the Fem Soc, which struck me as unacceptable.
No boy’s clubs allowed. Start one off campus, I found out some time back the rules usually only apply to communal campus space. Then find a no-win no-fee lawyer and go to town. On proceeds (because you WILL win) fund the group’s space.
“To show why, I went through the Fem Soc policy documents, where it specifically says, ‘Feminism exists for women’ and ‘it would be extremely unreasonable to expect this space to support and cater for the needs of men’…..
Men are the enemy.
Tweet Emma Watson for her opinion, with a picture of the “Feminism exists for women” document. I am 100% completely serious. The bitch can’t deny you the opportunity for your own space, since she tried that UN BS. When even she ignores you, you have certifiable proof they’re all like that.
Many people will be surprised to discover that what has served and is serving as the basis for public school sex education (and is even being used in many Catholic schools) has its roots in scientific fraud. Most of this could be credited to one individual: Alfred C. Kinsey, with the help of his colleagues Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul Gebhard. Their research and studies have undoubtedly shaped current attitudes and perceptions concerning human sexuality. These perceptions have ultimately worked themselves into the current sex education programs.
And how it places women and children in danger;
In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990), Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel unmasked theKinsey studies as a massive hoax. The medical journal The Lancet reviewed theirfindings and said: “[T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint areimperfections in the (Kinsey) sample and unethical, possibly criminal, observations onchildren. … Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of thetwo (Kinsey) reports.”…..
- Defining American husbands and fathers as sex offenders
- Sanitizing child sexual abuse
- Going easy on rapists
The male of the species becomes, by definition, a sex offender before he has even grown up. Soon there will be no hiding place for him– not even in the cradle.
So woe betide any boy who does not learn to be gender compliant and subservient – any boy who has the temerity to rebel against compulsory feminisation.
And on a related note, the problems caused by too much explicit PC “Sex Education” are still being proffered the solution of….. more explicit examples of the same, younger and …..harder?
Ignore the Voice of Reason, whoever supports this ‘education’ supports paedophilia. Then again, Lena Dunham.
The more we teach them, the more they want them to be interested. And so, other than warning children that they should not take drugs and should avoid sexual behaviour until they are very much older, we avoid stimulating interest and activity, We say less rather than more. …
That may not be its aim, but it is its inevitable consequence. We are exposing children to pornography.
This child abuse has to stop. It doesn’t matter if the person grooming the child has a teaching license.
There are countless things wrong with this article but Imma post it for comedic value.
Not the slightest attempt at objectivity, no real research, libel, total smear piece hackjob.
…Conspiracy theorists, Men’s Rights Activists, Pick-Up Artists, GamerGate, even the Neoreaction: all of these communities share a common creed, tech-fluent and superficially self-aware. To outsiders, it’s distinctly conservative. But they don’t see themselves as conservatives at all.
Welcome to the Red Pill worldview, where the entire world is a game and the people who are winning are the best players.
Someone fell for the joke. We all live in volcano lairs. ALL OF US.
It links to that ad hominem Guardian piece from the other day.
Hold in my sides, I’m crying.
They think we’re so organised, totally 100% agree, and actually talk to one another.
This takes active forms, such as the conclusion any woman or person of color who outperforms a Redpiller must have cheated to do so, either with sexual favors or affirmative action.
This bigotry is most often seen in action within the Men’s Rights Movement.
That bunch of pussies? Yes, they are the manliest among us.
Chuck Norris is a whiny little bitch compared to the average MRA.
Formally, they assert that objective methods are applicable to every imaginable field. Informally, however, Redpillers tend to simply reject other people’s opinions as subjective while prizing their own as objective.
This approach comes along with a narcissistic idea that their superior understanding of “real” science can propel Redpillers beyond the fools who prize subjective or emotive qualities.
Gambling and investment schemes of all sorts appear in Redpill communities; lately, Redpillers have frequently fallen victim to ones surrounding digital currencies such as Bitcoin.
I don’t know a single person who uses Bitcoin.
They’re really trying, aren’t they? Any tar, any brush.
We’re going mainstream, boys.
Proponents of HBD, such as neoreactionary video blogger and self-described “white nationalist on paper” Davis Aurini,
You can find Redpiller arguments in any sufficiently young, sufficiently white, sufficiently male internet company, be they neoreactionaries or bitcoiners, hardcore skeptics or GamerGaters, tax evaders or pick-up artists.
Just standing here like –
We don’t exist, girls.
The Redpill Right is the new conservatism of a secular, internet-savvy generation, and its perceived enemies are legion.
When you hold a mirror up to them, they are still ugly.
Medusa couldn’t pull that off.
It’s ‘written’ by professional ditz Radhika Sanghani, and has comedic value.
Men are feeling victimised. And it’s all because of feminism.
That seems to be the message of Mike Buchanan, leader of political party Justice for Men and Boys, which has the alliterative and depressing goal of ‘fighting feminism’.
His main points appear to be that feminists are “hatchet-faced miserable women”; it’s not really a proper sexual offence to “pat someone’s bottom”; and he’s “not aware of a single area where women are disadvantaged relative to men.”
In other words, he’s a sexist idiot who’s too busy moaning inside his man cave to see the world for what it really is.
You’re calling him the sexist idiot? Man cave?
But somehow, Buchanan is not alone. His puerile nonsense is attracting supporters. Other men’s groups and movements are sprouting up, claiming they’re being victimised by society.
People like you?
Take the tough new rape rules, which saw Director of Public Prosectutions Alison Saunders explain that ‘no means no’ isn’t enough. Men need to ensure that their sexual partners have given affirmative consent.
Rape campaigners rejoiced. But some men complained about needing to ‘get a contract’ every time they wanted a shag.
Because the expectation is on MEN only. Women have no equal obligation, or agency, it seems.
A recent Telegraph article, headlined ‘If as many women killed themselves as men, we’d never hear the end of it’, is another example.
It explains that suicide affects almost four times as many men as women. If the tables were turned, it laments, this would be top of the agenda.
Obvs. Hashtag Meninism.
We never heard the end of female *self-harm* and that’s a less serious issue than suicide. And why are men committing it? Hmm? The results of feminist social engineering. Sure, miss that out.
Meninism is the semi-satirical name given to a movement sprung from men’s rights activists (MRA). On Twitter, its main goal is to mock feminism. But many ‘meninists’ really do want to spread the word about issues affecting men. It’s similar to a Reddit subculture, known as ‘Red Pill’ – a group of social media users who feel that men, not women, have been socially disenfranchised.
A photo of a meninist on Twitter
With so many men relating to this feeling of alienation – the same one Mike Buchanan is trying to capitalise on – perhaps it’s time to ask where there is something in these labels. By calling ourselves feminists and meninists, are we actually doing ourselves any favours?
You’re making it clear feminism is a supremacy movement.
Meninists want a language and label
Maybe it’s the terminology that is disenfranchising men – intelligent men who care about social justice and equality,
but don’t feel that their voices are being heard? The sort of men that feminism, ironically, needs.
#HeforShe #maleslaves #EqualityEmma #menoppressus #menhelpus
Dan Bell, features editor for insideMAN magazine, tells me:
“There clearly are a lot of social issues and social exclusion where men have it markedly worse than women do.”
He lists homelessness, suicide rates, prejudice in family courts, lower life expectancy, underachievement and military death rates.
Don’t you have something to say? Oh wait, it would involving criticizing feminism. Can’t have that. #narrative
“Where people get frustrated with feminism is where it’s seen as a zero sum game. Basically that women are disadvantaged and oppressed and men aren’t.
People look at the pyramid and see a lot of men at the top, but they don’t bother to look down and see most of the people at the bottom are also men.”
He thinks that movements like ‘meninism’ were created for exactly this reason: “One of the issues, on a deeper level, is men struggle to find a language to talk about collective disadvantage in the way feminism does for women – both as a label and a set of ideas.”
Forget the battle of the sexes
He’s right, of course. There are particular social issues that affect men. And, of course, they want to talk about these.
But I find it hard to believe that the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ is full of men.
Women can’t read statistics. What a shocker.
We just can’t ignore the fact that many serious issues almost exclusively affect women – such as sexism and the gender pay gap.
In your subjective opinion, and that gap doesn’t exist as I have covered.
Others affect both genders – such as domestic violence – but have a dramatic slant towards women. Currently two women a week in the UK are killed by a current or former partner.
Conservative MP Dominic Raab, however, doesn’t think it’s helpful to view these issues in a gendered light.
The MP who once said some feminists were “obnoxious bigots”, tells me:
“Fewer and fewer issues, when they’re looked at seriously, really boil down to gender. I don’t find painting it through the prism of the battle of sexes is helpful. I’m all for girl power, but how relevant is the divide between the sexes to our daily life?”
His point is that these issues overlap both genders. Childcare isn’t exclusively a women’s problem, and neither is maternity leave or flexible working. If these issues are seen as belonging to the realm of feminism, they could leave men feeling alienated.
Five years ago, he said that men should “burn their briefs” in protest at feminists. But now he tells me that “men need to stop engaging in a pity trip about feminism”.
It won’t get you respect and/or laid.
Forget the ‘feminist’ v ‘meninist’ labels
The problem doesn’t actually seem to be feminism’s views – it’s the label, and the way that certain issues are put under its umbrella. [by whom?] Many men are automatically put and incorrectly assume that the movement is all about women taking control, and becoming ‘superior’.
That is feminism’s view. That is literally it.
But of course, it’s not about one sex being better than the other, at all. It’s just about gender equality.
No it isn’t. You just insulted men for daring to disagree with you. #mansplaining
Deep down, it looks like this is the main goal of ‘meninism’, too.
But perhaps these separate labels are what’s really hindering progress. Underneath it all, meninists and feminists all want the same thing – it’s just hidden underneath bickering that all seems to stem from linguistic problems.
I see a Trojan Horse. Could be her face.
Meninists imagine feminists as angry, hairy ranters – the No More Page 3 campaigners were called ‘no bra wearing man haters’ – and feminists are now starting to see meninists as whining victims.
Men can’t ever be victims. Even when they’re literally victims.
None of this is helpful, and neither is seeing serious societal issues as gendered, particularly in the run up to the General Election.
helpful to whom? She is of the journalism school which states half an opinion expecting the reader won’t miss the other.
If we all want to avoid Buchanan’s sexist manifesto really taking hold, then we’re better off ditching the labels and working together in the name of gender equality.
Puts societal dysfunction in a whole new light, doesn’t it?
Some 95 percent of male mammals have little to no interaction with their children. Homo sapiens are one of the most notable exceptions, leading some scientists to think fatherhood is an important part of what makes us human.
Tender years feminist myth. Men have higher cognitive flexibility.
While fathers do play key roles in securing the physical health of their children, they also can be important for the optimum development of psychological and emotional traits considered to be primarily human, such as empathy, emotional control and the ability to navigate complex social relationships.
Daddy Issues just got much funnier.
Unlike many other animals, humans need their fathers well beyond the act that leads to conception, researchers are coming to realize.
I’m posting this one to annoy the feminists who hate-read this blog. Hello.
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.