Emma Watson stars in “Attack of the Gender-Enders”

There’s been a movement recently for women who are actually feminine to speak up in favor of feminism, or at least their version of it. Emma Watson and Taylor Swift have both done so.

Videos by Rare

When I first heard about Watson’s “game-changing speech” on feminism to the U.N., I immediately thought, “What else could they possibly want?”

The answer I got from listening to Watson (did anyone else think she seemed really nervous?) was that this new wave of feminists want “gender equality,” and for some to be more equal than others.

Watson said that it is her “right as a woman [to be] paid the same as my male counterparts.”

If Watson is basing her wishing on the 77 percent gender pay gap number perpetrated by feminists, she should know that “once education, marital status, and occupations are considered, the ‘gender wage gap’ all but disappears.”

Watson also said it is her right that she should “be able to make decisions about [her] own body.”

Well, as we’ve pointed out time and time again, you have the right to do with your body whatever you please. We also like to afford this right to you and your own money.

By the way, Miss Watson, since you’re worth a cool $60 million, you’re probably glad you’re not paid “the same as your male counterparts.”

“I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decision-making of my country,” she said.

Are there laws against women serving in the U.S. government or in Parliament of which I am unaware? Or are there laws forbidding women to vote for fellow women?

Isn’t “women and minorities encouraged to apply” the government’s favorite slogan?

“I think it is right that socially I am afforded the same respect as men,” Watson concluded.

“Sadly I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights.”

That’s because men are treated as the enemy and women as victims, because the feminists of the 1960s got their way.

Watson wonders why more women these days aren’t keen to identify with feminism. She then attempts to re-define feminism as a movement for “gender equality,” which sounds great. Of course men and women should be offered the same opportunities, but they shouldn’t be judged the same, because all things are not equal.

Watson insists her brand of feminism is “not anti-man.” It is simply anti-manliness. She and her fellow feminists want to erase what it means to be masculine. (And if Karl Lagerfeld had his way, boys would get “pregnant too.”)

These feminists don’t want to end gender inequality. They want to end gender (at least gender determined by the Y chromosome). They are gender-enders.

Today’s feminists say they want to abolish “gender stereotypes,” leaving intact, of course, the labels of empowerment and strength they themselves have applied to women.

A boy in the U.K. was so inspired by Watson’s speech that he wrote to the Sunday Telegraph: “By using words such as ‘girly’ or ‘manly’ we inadvertently buy into gender stereotyping. We play with toys designed for our gender, we go to segregated schools, we play different sports based on gender, and yet it takes some effort for many people to acknowledge the existence of gender inequality and the injustice it entails for both sexes.”

Are the girls’ toys of a higher quality and greater variety, or does the “inequality” and “injustice” exist because the girls’ toys are unequal in appeal to boys? So much confusion.

Watson and her ilk and that 15-year-old boy want us to stop “defining” each other. They want a sensitive, gender-neutral society of androgynous creatures who have no expectations for or standards of one another.

Women are not expected to act as women and men are definitely not to be held to a manly standard. In fact, should we even be identifying each other as men or women? That sounds a bit unequal, because “woman” has more letters than the word “man.”

It’s all nonsense, of course.

I support Watson’s call for underprivileged women to be given the same advantages as men in countries where they’re treated like dirt, but let’s address the real reasons women are treated so poorly in places like China and the Middle East: it’s Communism and Islam, not ignorance of “gender equality” ideals.

In the end, Watson had the nerve to alter an Edmund Burke quote. How much more “empowerment” does the girl need?

Her speech inspired this girl not to be anti-gender equality, but more pro-man.

I hereby declare myself a menimist in favor of menimism.

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Obama decides civilian casualties are so five minutes ago

Is Obama really just trying to get the Syrian intervention he wanted in the first place?