TWIT~X Emma Watson - Paris, France - Feb 18th 2018 - LQ [Discussion after post 6, click at your own risk]

Emma Watson - Paris, France - Feb 18th 2018

 

Add: Same evening

and this morning
Emma Watson at the Council for Equality between Women and Men - Paris, France - Feb 19th 2019

 

Emma Watson - G7 Gender Equality Advisory Council pre-dinner - Paris, France - Feb 18th 2019

 

Gender 'equality'. Seven women, three men.

 

Pre-dinner?

 

At least they'll be doing something about the disparity between the two genders in mining, and I'm sure they'll set aside plenty of time to address the overwhelming discrimination against fathers in custody hearings. They may even find the time to push for women to play five-set tennis matches now that they get the same prize money as the men's game. This is a good thing. I have the utmost confidence that it's not solely dedicated to forcing Fortune 500 companies to shoehorn women into boardrooms irrespective of competence because thy're confusing equity of outcome with equity of opportunity.

I'd genuinely love to hear a live discussion on this topic between someone like Emma and someone like Ronda Rousey.

 

If you don’t get why that’s a GOOD THING then you should just stay in your hovel you savage

 

Anyone who thinks that such events are in any way "unfair" is clearly part of the problem.

 

Equality of opportunity is absolutely a good thing. The problem with this group - the Gender Equality Advisory Council, for those who're wondering - is that it's repeatedly left rather vague as to what is considered to be "equality", and their own mandate implies that they conflate equality of outcome with equality of opportunity.

I take it nobody wondered why I specifically mentioned Rousey in relation to this stuff? You'd be interested to hear what she had to say when asked about her becoming the highest-paid UFC fighter and whether she thought it was a positive step for women...

 

More like 9 women.
2 of them are so big they should count as 2 each.

 

It's a funny thing about privilege; it's generally only noticed by those who don't have it. More pointedly, those who pay the heaviest toll for it's existence - slaves vs masters etc. But, for those who have it, it's like breathing. You don't notice it until you can't do it. And, even then it's not recognized as a 'loss' of privilege, but rather the whole world is collapsing.
As to the false dichotomy of opportunity vs outcome. Listen, opportunity is reflected in outcome. Junk in, junk out. In the 'Autobiography' Malcolm said, if you're in a card game where the same guy is winning all the time, he's cheating. Even LeBron loses.

 

Well, then let's remember as since we are species with sexual reproduction and long gestation for live birth so for species to survive females MUST 'lose' (in economical productivity, experience and possibility for promotion/raise sense) several workyears (for producing at least "2.3" healthy offsprings) during most critical 18-35 age bracket.
No amount of opportunities in false 'equal means same' paradigm can 'fix' that - and in said paradigm any privilege to offset lack of opportunity IS rightfully considered discrimination.

 

Sure, equity of opportunity has some effect on outcome, but it's far from the only causal factor. Humans are simply too complicated - often arbitrarily so - for this to boil down to equal opportunity guaranteeing an equal outcome. The problem is that too many people don't understand the difference, and go on to conflate the two. The mission statement of this group appears to fall victim to this as well, strongly implying that anything other than equality of outcome will be considered acceptable.

Think of it this way. All of the highest-earning models right now are female, and the highest-earning male model earns an order of magnitude less (barely a 20th, in fact). This G7 council would have to consider this sexist, despite the fact that it is not, because the outcome is not gender-agnostic. What they should be looking at is the fact that, while the results are gender-biased, the opportunities are not. It's the same reason there's such a massive gender bias in mining - women simply don't want to be shearing years off their lifespan half a mile underground. And that's fine.

 

Let's return to LeBron. I don't follow this so I'm speculating a bit. But my guess is he gets paid more than his team mates (considerably more). But is that because he's being unfairly privileged or because - as Ali used to put it - he 'ups the gate', puts asses in seats? However when you look at the rest of the starting 5, and the bench you see (1) they're not on food stamps and (2) something quite different than what was the case back in the day. The NBA, NFL, and MLB were not once lily white because people of color 'had no game'. However some familiar arguments were used to 'justify' the ban: they're just not qualified, they don't possess the physical and mental aptitude etc... When Jack Johnson finally got to compete for heavy weight champ, the 'beloved' writer Jack London predicted he (and black men in general) had a 'yellow' streak and would therefore cut and run.
In these cases opportunity or lack thereof showed in the outcomes. Again junk in, junk out. There's no reason to believe the same 'formula' doesn't apply today.
For the modeling situation, again see LeBron. We live (unfortunately imho) in a world dominated by capitalism, and so whatever makes lots of money for investors is what's valued above all. It doesn't speak to the inherent value of the thing, but to the 'exchange' value for capitalists. When it comes to modeling especially fashion models the 'value' is in women, because women by and large spend big bucks on fashion. However let's look at another business where image is everything - Hollywood. Until today Male stars command paydays that tower over women; even though it's getting better for women. But the root cause of the disparity is the same for both industries - the value placed by, and peculiar biases of, the investors. Peculiar biases, example: 'The Equalizer' almost didn't happen because Sony investors didn't think a movie starring a black man (even Denzel) would make money. However, production costs: $55 mil; Box office: $192 mil. The movements you appear to have trouble with are largely addressing these 'peculiar biases', imho.
As for mining I doubt anybody is crazy about, or clamoring to work in a mine - unless that's the only job available.

 

I'm aware of things like the biases that saw black people (well, all non-whites, if we're honest) considered inferior, or "unevolved", as some would put it, and barred from civilised society and sporting competition as a consequence. I'm pointing out that people are aiming for the wrong solutions to perceived problems.

Lets expand on your mention of Jack Johnson as our example. Imagine that, rather than simply being given the opportunity to compete for the title he had the rules tweaked and twisted to gift it to him instead. Rather than allowing black boxers to finally compete for the heavyweight crown, people had pandered to them out of some bizarre sense of restitution to such a dizzying extent that it became embarrassing, even patronising. That's not solving the problem - it's just adding a new one to the one that already exists. Johnson didn't go after the belt because he wanted the belt; he went after it because it was a way of proving that he was a highly accomplished boxer. Johnson just wanted to show that he was good at what he did, and wanted a level playing field in order to give himself the chance to show it.

The modelling example I mentioned is exactly as you said: women are better-paid because they're more sought after and easier to market. It's why we can't seem to get rid of the fucking Kardashians. Women aren't paid more in that field out of a misguided attempt to patronise them, they're paid more because they know their value to that industry.

Hollywood is no different. At heart, it's a meritocracy (when Harvey isn't involved, at least). Watson is a perfect example of this: I doubt there's anyone alive that doesn't think Anne Hathaway would be absolutely perfect for Belle, but she's simply not as big a box office draw as Emma Watson is. The Mouse went with the option more likely to bring in more money. It's the same thing that gives us plenty of nice, reliable Tom Cruise mediocrities every year, and it's why Marvel would rather retire/kill off Iron Man than try to re-cast him. The fact is that Watson is something of an outlier here; historically, male actors are the ones who have drawn people into theatres. Sure, there are some exceptions - Sigourney Weaver was confident enough that she was the selling point of Alien 3 that she demanded $40k to shave her head again for re-shoots, for instance - but they're nowhere near as prevalent. As much as I like the walking masterpiece that is Scarlett Johansson I'd still watch Endgame if they re-cast her - I'm not sure I'd watch it if they did the same with Cap or Thor. Hemsworth being in Thor 4 would convince me to watch it (post-Ragnorok), whereas Johansson starring in a Black Widow standalone film doesn't really interest me, despite her being a crucial part of one of my favourite films.

Actually, that film is another ideal example. It's Lost in Translation, and Murray would have surely been paid more than her, despite them being equally outstanding. The difference is that Murray is a much better draw. If that film was made now then things would probably be reversed. Crucially, though, there's nothing wrong with either of those scenarios. It's perfectly reasonable for them both to be paid different amounts for, effectively, the same job, because the process of each of them performing that job produces vastly different amounts of money for their "employers".

That's where the problems arise in all this. People note a disparity and then instantly insist that it be closed without thinking whether there was a valid reason for that disparity. People would look at Johansson in that film and complain that she wasn't matching Murray's wage; they'd demand that male models earn as much as whichever Kardashian-Jenner is currently at the peak; they'd demand that arbitrary black boxers be given unearned title fights. The difference between those recent examples and Jack Johnson is that the latter earned his equity. He fought for that equality of opportunity and had the skill to turn that opportunity into equity of outcome. Emma Watson is good enough at taking advantage of her fortunate young life to earn herself Disney-grade paydays. She'd had equal opportunities and we now see equality of outcome.

This council, though, doesn't seem to be looking for that. Not entirely, at least, as their own documentation suggests that they're focusing largely on equality of outcome. The key problem there is that we're a sexually dimorphic species, and men and women differ significantly at a psychological level, resulting in us being interested in very different things. There'll always be some thing that one wants to do while the other does not and vice versa. It's like trying to make sure that the Olympic 100m final contains four men and four women, despite the fact that there are hundreds of men who can run 100m faster than the fastest woman on Earth.

If we're talking about giving women the opportunity to force their way into Fortune 500 boardrooms then I'm all in favour. If we're talking about ensuring that half of those board members are female irrespective of competence then I'm dead against it. It's the difference between letting Johnson ruthlessly punch his way to the title through sheer ability and handing him a title for being black. This council seems to be a step backwards. As you said, lack of opportunity can show in the outcome, but it doesn't mean it's the only cause, nor even the most important one. It is, however, the only one that this group - and others besides - seems to focus on, and that's a problem.

As a side note, I have to wonder what would have happened if Johnson and Jeffries had fought back when the latter was champ. He said after their eventual fight that he wouldn't have won, but six years into retirement he went 14 rounds with the much younger Johnson, so it seems like it would have been a hell of a test for both. Apparently boxing has always had this problem of top fighters avoiding each other until at least one is past the point of caring enough to make it worth watching (thanks, Floyd and Manny).

 

If one noted , over last several decades in showbiz and politics it's all about supporting and bribing minorities, disadvantaged and special interests groups. Basically because it's easiest way to get guarantee slice of followers . Also past certain point it became safe and fashionable and kinda mainstream. And so - as thinking IS hard - it brought calls for fast and simple solutions.

 

‘I'm pointing out that people are aiming for the wrong solutions to perceived problems.’

Actually, I don't know if you have. You’ve taken a real-world example and pushed it down Alice’s rabbit hole.

For example, why would I, ‘Imagine that, rather than simply being given the opportunity to compete for the title he [Jack Johnson] had the rules tweaked and twisted to gift it to him instead’? No such thing has ever happened. And no realistic view of the world – not to mention any serious activist - would call for it. Have fights been fixed? Yes. But, never, ever for the reasons imagined in your scenario. No, they’ve been fixed for money, for profit and the least of all beneficiaries have been the fighters. The fighter who wins a fixed fight this week could be called upon to lose the next – no questions asked, or else.

The point you seem to be trying to make is that in the event SJW’s (not a fan of that term, but whatever) get their way, then undeserving people will start getting things they don’t deserve. And, we will cease to be a meritocracy. Well…. Not to bust your bubble but America has never really been much of a meritocracy. 60% of all wealth is inherited. For an example blatant enough to be parody, do you think Ivanka would have her position in the White House if her name weren’t Ivanka? You can’t make this shit up; no one would believe it.

No, the foundational wealth of this nation was built on genocidal land theft and slavery. All subsequent wealth is derivative of that foundation. The discrimination that we speak of has been here since day one. And to the extent that it has let up, it has only been thru the struggle of those who’ve suffered. That struggle is far from over – let alone being anywhere near a place where the once discriminated against are now being disproportionately and inappropriately advantaged. To paraphrase and slightly butcher a line attributed to the physicist Wolfgang Pauli, ‘that doesn’t even rise to the level of fiction.’

A young man came upon an aged Frederick Douglass and asked, ‘sir, what advice would you give to someone just starting out and trying to make the world a better place?’ Douglass replied, ‘Agitate, agitate, agitate!’

‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.’ -- Margaret Mead
Real words to really live by in a real world.
I don't think any minds will be changed her, today. Shit, I don't even know if we'll make it as a species; right now it don't look good. But, when I see young people agitate, agitate, agitate to try and make it better - it gives me some glimmer of hope. Hell, I can run on that all day long.

 

Problem is - perceived injustice and ways to deal with it are different things. Both Nazis , ISIS and Khmer Rouge grew from feeling of injustice, if we talk extremes.

 

So wait - what?
I'm gonna try to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I'll just ask. Are you seeing a line from today's activism to the Nazis? Or that the 'perceived injustice' [what does that mean, it's all in their heads?] will so delude them that they'll become violent religious fanatics like Daesh?
Again, this stuff doesn't even rise to the level of bad fiction.
I can feel the moderators about to pull the plug on this, so I'll just leave you with your thoughts. Bon Chance!

 

The intent of striving for equality for ALL people is noble. It is in the founding documents of the USA and the European Magna Carta among other written records. Over the centuries, the definitions of "equal" and even "people" have changed as societies have evolved.

Humans have been combative in all of recorded and archaeological history, trying to achieve the best for themselves, often at the expense of other humans (and non-humans). The current efforts to achieve the various forms of equality would seem the next step in that evolution. For some it is a gender equality summit. For others it is civil unrest. For still others it remains violence. I prefer the discussion of ideas to violence.

Just saying.....