Emma Watson and equality

[Hype]

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-pu ... %5CC%3F%0A

One hundred two women (a record number) serve in the 113th Congress: 82 in the House,
including 3 Delegates, and 20 in the Senate. There are 42 African American Members of the
House and 2 in the Senate. This House number includes 2 Delegates. There are 37 Hispanic or
Latino Members (a record number) serving: 33 in the House, including 1 Delegate and the
Resident Commissioner, and 4 in the Senate. Thirteen Members (10 Representatives, 2 Delegates,
and 1 Senator) are Asian American or Pacific Islanders. Two American Indians (Native
Americans) serve in the House.

Those are the raw numbers (from August... not sure what they are now). But looked at proportionally, and compared to the ratio in populace at large, these are telling. There are 441 total reps in the House. That's 18.5% women. The differential from roughly 50% of the general population (actually I think there are more women than men but it doesn't matter), is, therefore, 31.5%.

There are 42 black people in the House, or 9.5%. The percentage in the general population is 12.6%, for a differential of 3.1%.

That's a huge difference.

[Hype]

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-pu ... %5CC%3F%0A

One hundred two women (a record number) serve in the 113th Congress: 82 in the House,
including 3 Delegates, and 20 in the Senate. There are 42 African American Members of the
House and 2 in the Senate. This House number includes 2 Delegates. There are 37 Hispanic or
Latino Members (a record number) serving: 33 in the House, including 1 Delegate and the
Resident Commissioner, and 4 in the Senate. Thirteen Members (10 Representatives, 2 Delegates,
and 1 Senator) are Asian American or Pacific Islanders. Two American Indians (Native
Americans) serve in the House.

Those are the raw numbers (from August... not sure what they are now). But looked at proportionally, and compared to the ratio in populace at large, these are telling. There are 441 total reps in the House. That's 18.5% women. The differential from roughly 50% of the general population (actually I think there are more women than men but it doesn't matter), is, therefore, 31.5%.

There are 42 black people in the House, or 9.5%. The percentage in the general population is 12.6%, for a differential of 3.1%.

That's a huge difference.

On last night's Conan, he talks about the underrepresentation of women in film.... just thought that was apropos.

Two things to add to this just occurred to me: 1) in case you're bad at math, what those numbers above say is that if the House were representative of the population there should be at least 220 women, but there are only 82, so there are at least 138 more men in the House than there would be if the population's gender makeup were represented (and arguably it should be). By comparison, if the House were representative of the population there should be at least 56 black representatives (half of them women, by the way), so there are at least 14 spots in the house taken up by non-black representatives that should be held by black people, if it were to be truly representative. 82:138 and 42:56 are the ratios of inequality. So yeah, women have it worse in the House.

2) There are 100 senators. 20 of them are women, so there are 30 extra spots taken by men (giving men 80% of senate seats... that's clearly wrong). But there are 2 black senators, when there should be 13. That's pretty bad. But the women still have it much worse overall.

As for other races or minorities of other sorts (disabled, sexual) and other failures of representation (income...) well they're probably pretty bad too, though it looks like Hispanic representatives are doing pretty well (I haven't checked how closely they track the population percentage though).

The claim that government should be "representative" of the population is contentious: there's no consensus on just how that representation is to be measured... whether by race, ethnicity, income, region, etc... but it is pretty clear that when the numbers are as out of whack as they are, something is wrong.

[SR]

It's an interesting, but epic failure, on the part f Americans that we are still engaged in this discussion. Epic because this issue of gender or race is dwarfed by other more pressing issues today. There are many possible scenarios in terms of Hill's ability to mobilize and polarize people (it's own thread topic). If the mutants at Fox news and the closeted masses (the real difference makers as those who can't spell are a small % and vocal) actually gain traction in what will essentially be a diseased campaign of slanderous and vaguely disguised sexist strategies, then well......I'll move to Canada.

Fear is another real component in the next election. In my long life lived so far, when fear prevails, so do the xenophobic neo-con tea baggin freaks as well as a steep decline in art and free thinking.

Where's Madison when you need him?

[SR]

When Obama and Clinton were campaigning for party leadership, I recall writing that Americans are racist, but they're also misogynist. There are two elements of hyperbole there, but the one thing that wasn't was the level of basic disdain for the idea that women are equal to men in certain important respects (namely, the respects which men take to be important to their manhood). And obviously these are general statements, but it's pretty common even still to hear period jokes as "joking" reasons why women can't hold important or powerful leadership positions. But, ironically, this is a joke, but on the people who believe that, not on women. I strongly suspect that if Clinton does get the nomination for the Dems, there will be some bounce-back support for the Republican candidate. Of course I hope that doesn't happen, but it seems likely.

I think you might have been arguing that the issue of race wasn't an issue at all. Maybe you were looking at what ought to be the case, but I just don't remember. What I do remember is thinking that, although I voted for Obama because of policy merits, I was damn fuckin proud to have been alive when this country elected a black president....that is was a very important transformative moment.

[Hype]

When Obama and Clinton were campaigning for party leadership, I recall writing that Americans are racist, but they're also misogynist. There are two elements of hyperbole there, but the one thing that wasn't was the level of basic disdain for the idea that women are equal to men in certain important respects (namely, the respects which men take to be important to their manhood). And obviously these are general statements, but it's pretty common even still to hear period jokes as "joking" reasons why women can't hold important or powerful leadership positions. But, ironically, this is a joke, but on the people who believe that, not on women. I strongly suspect that if Clinton does get the nomination for the Dems, there will be some bounce-back support for the Republican candidate. Of course I hope that doesn't happen, but it seems likely.

I think you might have been arguing that the issue of race wasn't an issue at all. Maybe you were looking at what ought to be the case, but I just don't remember. What I do remember is thinking that, although I voted for Obama because of policy merits, I was damn fuckin proud to have been alive when this country elected a black president....that is was a very important transformative moment.

No, I definitely thought, and still think, that race is a huge issue... but my reasoning was that misogyny runs as deep. Both issues are issues of power and the structures that are built up around powerful people to sustain the status quo. It was indeed a proud moment for the United States to elect a black president. It'll be a great moment when you guys finally elect a woman, too.

Canada, btw, has yet to elect a woman Prime Minister... we have had one -- Kim Campbell -- but she was appointed after winning the party leadership after the previous PM retired. She didn't win a general election. Actually, she lost miserably... So there's a ways to go for us too.

[MorningGlory123]

I am curious to know and you don't have to answer...under what circumstances would a gentleman who you don't know be able to approach you?

I'm with farrellgirl on this, it's not ok to just say stupid stuff like 'smile'. I hate that shit too. Guys just have to be nice, I've talked to people on public transportation or bars and have had really nice, funny, interesting or just weird conversations. Just don't be a tool and say 'smile' to someone you don't know.

As a barman for many years, I heard this and it always infuriated me. I've never understood why my lack of smiling entitled them to essentially tell me what to do, or appraise my expression and offer their opinion on it, without any idea of what I was feeling at said time. Also, I'm just adverse to the pricks who think we should all walk around with feigned smiles and unwavering positivity. But I'm a man, and I was told this by both genders, so I'm not seeing why this is the go-to case for feminism? All too often there's a tendency within feminism to take societal issues, and diagnose them as a gender issue - default to binary (woman experienced this from a man = feminism needed), and it's not helpful to say the least.

As for the generational gap, I'm a millenial and I must admit, popular feminist discourse on twitter and tumblr often leaves me cold, to the point where I've started to reappraise whether I want to continue associating myself with it. Not denying feminists have plenty to be angry about in modern society, but the stock phrases that often sound like gendered slurs (#notallmen #mansplaining #checkyourprivelege ) highlight for me a movement that is comfortable propogating harmful prejudices about men and far too antagonistic to what, in a less hostile environment, would be their allies.

I must admit, I've always seen things through a class lense, and am convinced that's the best way to organise for equality, so I've never been that enamoured with identity politics anyway, but I'd naturally assumed feminists would easily fall within that grouping and swell the ranks. However the way things seem to be going, such a coalition would never get off the ground.

However, what little I seen of this speech, Emma seem to be leading with the right approach.

[Hype]

I will say that although there's a lot of territory covered by "contemporary feminist discourse" that I just straight-up agree with, I do have to admit that one negative consequence of the use of silencing power-moves like "mansplaining", which is a real phenomenon (I've seen), are co-opted for the purpose of merely silencing opposition of any form (albeit from men in particular). In fact, I've been in a position where I've been accused of mansplaining, not for mansplaining (i.e., not for explaining to a woman her own view as an expert in the field we were discussing, as if I know more than she does), but for explaining MY reasons for holding a view I HOLD! I was so taken aback by that strategy of use of that term that I decided to just abruptly opt out of any reasonable discourse with that woman altogether.

But I do think that these kinds of corruptions aren't necessarily reasons to reject some of these concepts wholesale... but we do need to have a good handle on what they are and WHY they are (or why people think they are) not good.

[SR]

As for the generational gap, I'm a millenial and I must admit, popular feminist discourse on twitter and tumblr often leaves me cold, to the point where I've started to reappraise whether I want to continue associating myself with it. Not denying feminists have plenty to be angry about in modern society, but the stock phrases that often sound like gendered slurs (#notallmen #mansplaining #checkyourprivelege ) highlight for me a movement that is comfortable propogating harmful prejudices about men and far too antagonistic to what, in a less hostile environment, would be their allies.

Winner

[SR]

whoa!!!&%$%#&$**$(&^%@%



http://vimeo.com/109573972

[kv]

really? wow

[Larry B.]

That's ridiculous. Ridiculous and pointless.

That's an embarrassment.

[SR]

[Essence_Smith]

whoa!!!&%$%#&$**$(&^%@%



http://vimeo.com/109573972

I dislike this, mainly because imo you tend to lose some people when you lose foul language to get ANY point across regardless of if it's little girls or grown women saying it...and they LOST me...first F bomb from a little girl and I'm done...

[SR]

Yes, I know. The over the line nature of this is the point.

I was alarmed and sat back and asked myself if I would like my daughter to participate in this. My answer was unequivocally, yes. I can parent the mores and folkways of language, but can't monitor these injustices and sexual expectations of society as unilaterally.

Language can be impact-full both ways.

[Hype]

Too many little girls (not to mention adult women) have been violated physically, mentally, intellectually, economically, and socially, by adult humans (mostly but not entirely men), for too long, for videos like that to not only be permissible, but a long time coming... even if it is annoying and off-putting as all hell. When it comes to human rights, I'm of the opinion that a plurality of tactics is always a good idea, though I tend to want to draw the line at outright violence. Little girls kicking ass is probably a good metaphor for what should be done though...

[Larry B.]

At least from my perspective, it doesn't make a difference if they're little girls. I mean, it's not the gender or the age. It's just an obnoxious video that tries to be socially incorrect to make a point, but to me ends up being obnoxious as hell and pointless. A bunch of people yelling. I couldn't get through 10 seconds of that nonsense.

[Hype]

At least from my perspective, it doesn't make a difference if they're little girls. I mean, it's not the gender or the age. It's just an obnoxious video that tries to be socially incorrect to make a point, but to me ends up being obnoxious as hell and pointless. A bunch of people yelling. I couldn't get through 10 seconds of that nonsense.

It gets heavy quickly. And it's not socially incorrect. In fact, the more I think about it, the better this video seems... if people are going to find it objectionable that little girls are swearing (and then speaking frankly about how fucked it is to be a woman)... man... you can say it's not the gender or the age all you want, but I'm not sure you're right.

[Larry B.]

And isn't it possible that you may be over-analyzing something that's not much more than a strange juxtaposition? But you may well be right, maybe the video just doesn't work for me because the fact those girls were swearing made no difference to me, and it's not even part of my internal discussion. The resource of having people being loud and annoying is what doesn't sit well with me.

My girlfriend was in Nottingham a couple of days ago and while walking around she saw a mosque with a separate, smaller entrance for women. She told me she felt a strange mix of sadness, anger, curiosity and shock. It was the first time in her life she saw a socially accepted, explicit sign of gender segregation.

[LJF]

got no problem with the video. I think it is very effective and eye opening. Not just because of the cursing, for me it hits harder because it's little girls talking and the subject matter. It hits home and I just think of my daughter.

[SR]

[Essence_Smith]

At least from my perspective, it doesn't make a difference if they're little girls. I mean, it's not the gender or the age. It's just an obnoxious video that tries to be socially incorrect to make a point, but to me ends up being obnoxious as hell and pointless. A bunch of people yelling. I couldn't get through 10 seconds of that nonsense.

It gets heavy quickly. And it's not socially incorrect. In fact, the more I think about it, the better this video seems... if people are going to find it objectionable that little girls are swearing (and then speaking frankly about how fucked it is to be a woman)... man... you can say it's not the gender or the age all you want, but I'm not sure you're right.

Larry's point is exactly what I'm trying to get across...the delivery alone can be a turn off for some even listening to it in the first place. I have NO issue with what is being said, just the way it was being done. I saw it first with the curses bleeped...I find bleeped curses annoying when I see it on those reality shows...then I saw it without the bleeps and it was still annoying because at the end of the day I KNOW the point could have been made just as effectively without the kids cursing in it. I think it was a LAZY way to get people talking about the video in the first place and the people that produced probably did it because they knew it'd get more press that way. And again it takes away from the point imo...if some get to thinking about the issue that's great, but personally I think you lose some for a multitude of different reasons. This is like those "this is your brain on drugs" commercials or "one to grow on" type of things where I look at it and think if you didn't know this was an issue before you saw an ad for it you're completely brain dead to begin with and you're not going to walk away better informed or more open to changing how you think etc...This is right up there with those TRUTH anti-smoking commercials...ok rant done...

[SR]

You may be turned off, but despite your anti prude declarations, if you actually watched the entire video, you won't forget the message.....nor the resolution of those who produced/participated in it.

[kv]

Nor the fact they exploited young children for the almighty dollar

[LJF]

Nor the fact they exploited young children for the almighty dollar

But they're women or girls so they only get $.50 on the dollar

[Hype]

I don't want to detract from the main point of the thread, but I do want to note that I'm glad LJF sees the rationale behind that video as I do, and I also think it's interesting given our past disagreements, that his reasoning seems to have involved a direct relation to his own life (which some studies have shown is precisely the way in which conservatives tend to decide issues like this... gay marriage is wrong until you see your Uncle Steve and his loving partner being human... etc.).