Emma Watson and Author Valerie Hudson Discuss "Sex and World Peace"

Well, well. This vies for the mantle of most cringe interview ever. Strap in for a wild ride.

Teen Vogue, the aptly chosen repository of knowledge. As with Greta Thunberg - appeal to female teen sensibility as the world standard is a cunning and malicious choice. The world could be a wonderful place. If only we abdicated the earth to them.

Emma Watson - EW
Valerie Hudson - VH

VH: When I went to graduate school in international affairs, you could have taken my entire coursework and never known there were women on Earth. It was that woman-less.… The idea that national security could have something to do with women would have seemed ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous.

It is ludicrous. History will not judge the present era kindly.

"the largest risk for poverty in old age is determined by whether or not one has ever given birth to a child."

This book quote is designed to inflame feminist sensibility. Simply, one can horde resources - like Emma Watson - or one can devote them to a child. Nothing burger.

EW: When you hear that if women’s caring labor were valued even at minimum wage, it would account for 40% of world production, it’s hard to hear that and remain unmoved.

It already is valued. By that outmoded thing called marriage. Assets and income are split.

VH: Is capitalism itself predicated on all of the life-giving/caregiving work being completely unpaid, being on the backs of women? And if it is, what does that say about the sustainability of capitalism?

A push for single mother socialism. World peace indeed.

EW: words are rated higher coming from men. It’s likely why Harry Potter is not known to be written by Joanne Rowling.

Yes. J K Rowling chose her own pen name, presumably.

EW: If promoting their own success is a helpful strategy for men, but women highlighting their accomplishments is a turn off, how do we get to a more level playing field?

No matter what social meddling is done, it will remain a turn off.

VH: neuroscience that suggested that women's voices may be processed by men in the same area of the brain that processes background music and noise

I heard something.

VH: We have difficulty even accepting women’s expertise and authority...she may actually be the one with the most expertise in the room, but she’ll be processed by those around her, including women, as having half that.

Yes.

VH: I challenge my male students. I say, "When a woman is speaking at a table where you are and people are ignoring her, there are things that you can do to bring attention to what she’s saying, and retrain our brains to listen to women."

Gobbledygook.

VH: I think that’s one of the reasons why the #MeToo movement has given me such hope.... Women were not heard when they said these things before, and now there’s a decent chance they will be.

Moron. Equates listening to having to put up with hysterical screeching.

VH: men don’t pay attention until the big guys are taken down

Ahem, its women she is talking about - only caring about the apex.

EW: since #MeToo, a lot of men are telling me that they won’t even take meetings with women on their own, that they have to have somebody else in the room, or that this is going to hurt the women’s movement because men will just be so much less likely to want to work with them.

Correct.

VH: unless women are content to live by male rules, we won’t treat them like human beings...I think that’s outrageous.

Of course you do, dear. Run along now.

EW: I love that you say "silence is the sturdy ally of gendered microaggression."

Let's talk about every little thing, and then be outraged when men don't listen.

VH: The reason that the #MeToo movement exploded on the world stage was that you had millions of women, tens of millions of women, who had experienced a reality that they literally could not speak about.

I'm really a whore, I tried to keep it a secret, but now I can blame someone else. Yippee.

VH: silence is exactly the carpet under which we shove all of these nasty little things, and there can’t be any change when that happens.

The feminist revolution will not be televised. It will be a microchip implanted in your head, endlessly talking.

EW: I love the word microaggression. I’ve been doing therapy for years and think it’s the best thing ever

Fucking A.

VH: It’s those tiny little moments that each woman knows about and yet there are no words for these things, or at least there haven’t been any words before.

Forget space exploration. This is real pioneering.

EW: There’s so little vocabulary. In Thomas Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd, Bathsheba says, "It is difficult for a woman to define her feelings in language that is made by men to express theirs." You know, I’m trying to express myself in a language that just doesn’t have vocabulary for me.

Could it be that Emma is a gigantic baby?

VH: I often think that one of the most revolutionary things that women could do is to begin to develop words for these feelings that they’ve always had.

Viva la revolucion. These are babies trying to speak.

EW: in the run-up to my 30s, [I felt] this incredible, sudden anxiety and pressure that I had to be married or have a baby or [be] moving into a house. And there was no word for this kind of subliminal messaging and anxiety and pressure that I felt building up but couldn’t really name

We are dealing with imbeciles. 'The Wall'. History is surely replete with countless other names.

EW: I needed to create a definition for something that I didn’t feel there was language for

Kill me now.

EW: we need to reclaim language and space in order to express ourselves, because sometimes it’s really not there.

Feminist geography. Look it up.

EW: I guess there should be no surprise that men created legal systems that generally favored male productive success and interests

Indeed. A gynocentric system will be subsumed and Emma will become a war bride.

EW: the law is language at the end of the day and it can always be interpreted in different ways, so you need someone that has the right intention to apply it in the right way.

Looky here. Language, despite all the dirge above, is secondary. We need stronk, empowered, independent, self-partnered wahmen to 'correctly' interpret it. Lord Emma, you are appointed as grand dictator. Greta can be your 5 star general.

This is a trashfire. My head will explode if I keep reading. Maybe another day...

Aldous Huxley, foreword to Brave New World

"Chronic remorse, as all the moralists are agreed, is a most undesirable sentiment. If you have behaved badly, repent, make what amends you can and address yourself to the task of behaving better next time. On no account brood over your wrongdoing. Rolling in the muck is not the best way of getting clean.

The theme of Brave New World is not the advancement of science as such; it is the advancement of science as it affects human individuals. The triumph of physics, chemistry, and engineering are tacitly taken for granted. The only scientific advances specifically described are those involving the application to human beings of the results of future research in biology, physiology, and psychology. It is only by means of the sciences of life that the quality of life can be radically changed. The sciences of matter can be applied in such a way that they will destroy life or make the living of it impossibly complex and uncomfortable; but, unless used as instruments by the biologists and psychologists, they can do nothing to modify the natural forms and expressions of life itself. The release of atomic energy marks a great revolution in human history, but not (unless we blow ourselves to bits and so put an end to history) the final and most searching revolution.

This really revolutionary revolution is to be achieved, not in the external world, but in the souls and flesh of human beings. Living as he did in a revolutionary period, the Marquis de Sade very naturally made use of this theory of revolutions in order to rationalize his peculiar brand of insanity. Robespierre had achieved the most superficial kind of revolution, the political. Going a little deeper, Babeuf had attempted the economic revolution. Sade regarded himself as the apostle of the truly revolutionary revolution, beyond mere politics and economics - the revolution of individual men, women, and children, whose bodies were henceforward to become the common sexual property of all and whose minds were to be purged of all the natural decencies, all the laboriously acquired inhibitions of traditional civilization. Between Sadism and the really revolutionary revolution there is, of course, no necessary or inevitable connexion. Sade was a lunatic and the more or less conscious goal of his revolution was universal chaos and destruction. The people who govern the Brave New World may not be sane (in what may be called the absolute sense of that word); but they are not madmen and their aim is not anarchy but social stability. It is in order to achieve stability that they carry out, by scientific means, the ultimate, personal, really revolutionary revolution.

But meanwhile we are in the first phase of what is perhaps the penultimate revolution. Its next phase may be atomic warfare, in which case we do not have to bother with prophecies about the future. But it is conceivable that we may have enough sense, if not to stop fighting altogether, at least to behave as rationally as did our eighteenth-century ancestors. The unimaginable horrors of the Thirty Years War actually taught men a lesson, and for more than a hundred years the politicians and generals of Europe consciously resisted the temptation to use their military resources to the limits of destructiveness or (in the majority of conflicts) to go on fighting until the enemy was totally annihilated. They were aggressors, of course, greedy for profit and glory; but they were also conservatives, determined at all costs to keep their world intact, as a going concern. For the last thirty years there have been no conservatives; there have only been nationalistic radicals of the right and nationalistic radicals of the left. The last conservative statesman was the fifth Marquess of Landsdowne; and when he wrote a letter to The Times, suggesting that the First World War should be concluded with a compromise, as most of the wars of the eighteenth century had been, the editor of that once conservative journal refused to print it. The nationalistic radicals had their way, with the consequences that we all know - Bolshevism, Fascism, inflation, depression, Hitler, the Second World War, the ruin of Europe, and all but universal famine.

...

There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianism should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment, and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient - and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors, and schoolteachers. But their methods are still crude and unscientific.

...

The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored inquiries into what politicians and the participating scientists will call 'the problem of happiness' - in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude. Without economic security, the love of servitude cannot possibly come into existence; for the sake of brevity, I assume the all-powerful executive and its managers will succeed in solving the problem of permanent security.

Meanwhile the other characteristic features of that happier and more stable world - the equivalents of soma and hypnopaedia and the scientific caste system - are probably not more than three or four generations away. Nor does the sexual promiscuity of Brave New World seem so very distant. There are already certain American cities in which the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. In a few years, no doubt, marriage licences will be sold like dog licences, good for a period of twelve months, with no law against changing dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time. As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to day-dream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.

All things considered, it looks as though Utopia were far closer to us than anyone, only fifteen years ago, could have imagined. Then, I projected it six hundred years into the future. Today it seems quite possible that the horror may be upon us within a single century. That is, if we refrain from blowing ourselves to smithereens in the interval. Indeed, unless we choose to decentralize and to use applied science, not as the end to which human beings are to be made the means, but as the means to producing a race of free individuals, we have only two alternatives to choose from: either a number of national, militarized totalitarianisms, having as their root the terror of the atomic bomb and as their consequence the destruction of civilization (or, if the warfare is limited, the perpetuation of militarism); or else one supra-national totalitarianism, called into existence by social chaos resulting from rapid technological progress in general and the atom revolution in particular, and developing, under the need for efficiency and stability, into the welfare-tyranny of Utopia. You pays your money and you takes your choice."

1946
...

Brave New World first published 1932