My favorite part of the speech. 

Join the HeForShe campaign. 

Whatever you think of Emma Watson, you have to say that if Hermione Granger were in the real world now, in the 21st century, she might make this kind of speech - it's beyond male or female gender roles, and strikes at equality on a larger scope. I particularly like the comments about it being right for men and women to be vulnerable, and for both men and women to be strong. We will indeed need everyone in on this challenge - it affects all of humanity. As Watson noted, there is no country in the world where gender equality is actually firmly established. But we can do something about that. 

Here is a link to the United Nation's HeForShe campaign. Watson's transcript follows the video, and your thoughts are welcomed below. 

Emma Watson's standing ovation speech to launch UN's HeForShe initiative on gender equality.  (Transcript & Video)


Today we are launching a campaign HeForShe. I am reaching out to you because we need your help. We must try to mobilize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for change. We don’t just want to talk about it. We want to try and make sure it’s tangible. I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for UN Women 6 months ago.

The more I spoke about feminism, the more I realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain is that this has to stop. For the record, feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes.

When I was 8, I was called bossy because I wanted to direct a play for our parents. At 15, my girlfriends didn’t want to join sports teams because they didn’t want to appear masculine. At 18, my male friends were unable to express their feelings.

I decided that I was a feminist. This seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Women are choosing not to identify as feminists. Apparently, [women’s expression is] seen as too strong, too aggressive, anti-men, unattractive.

Why has the word become such an unpopular one? I think it is right I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decisions that affect my life. I think it is right that socially, I am afforded the same respect as men.

But sadly, I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to see these rights. No country in the world can yet say that they achieved gender equality. These rights are considered to be human rights but I am one of the lucky ones.

My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. These influences are the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today. They may not know it but they are the feminists needed in the world today. We need more of those.

It is not the word that is important. It is the idea and the ambition behind it because not all women received the same rights I have. In fact, statistically, very few have.

In 1997, Hillary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women’s rights. Sadly, many that she wanted to change are still true today. Less than 30% of the audience were male. How can we effect change in the world when only half of it is invited to participate in the conversation?

Men, I would like to give this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue, too. To date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society. I’ve seen young men suffering from illness, unable to ask for help for fear it will make them less of a man. I’ve seen men fragile and insecure by what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either.

We don’t want to talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive, women won’t be compelled to be submissive. If men don’t need to control, women won’t have to be controlled.

Both men and women should feel free to be strong. It is time that we all see gender as a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals. We should stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by who we are. We can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom. I want men to take up this mantle so their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human, too and in doing so, be a more true and complete version of themselves.

You might think: who is this Harry Potter girl? What is she doing at the UN? I’ve been asking myself at the same thing. All I know is that I care about this problem and I want to make this better. And having seen what I’ve seen and given the chance, I feel my responsibility to say something. Edmund Burke said all that is need for the forces of evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing

In my nervousness for this speech and my moment of doubt, I told myself: if not me, who? If not now, when? You have the opportunity here. If you believe in equality, I implore you: we must strive for a united world but the good news is we have a platform. It is called he for she. I invite you to step forward, to be seen and I ask yourself: if not me, who? If not now, when? Thank you.

- Emma Watson, 2014
I used to think the idea of brokenness was defeatist or disrespectful. But as time goes by I see understanding it, understanding that everyone is dealing with something, is part of life and part of love. There's a lot of pretension, but there's even more hiding, even more fear, hurt, longing. It's part of how things are - and it's unpleasant at times, but there's a flipside to it - in that you always have something you can share, if not contribute. If you can interact with someone and see with empathy and understanding that they are of the same spirit you are, in spite of whatever their physical shell is or whatever social constructs they happen to be affiliated with, that's really the most powerful thing you can do. It doesn't cost anything. Not everyone is going to be able to understand the connection or that they can connect with you or deserve it or embrace it. But it's there.

That's what I believe in. There are basically unlimited justifications for hurt or withholding connection, plenty of negative history and sensitive topics; but it's about what you choose regardless of those "reason". Yet even beyond that, sometimes what needs to happen is letting go/separation, even if the other party has good intentions; sometimes that has to happen. Still, through it all, you can share, and you can bring benevolence, and you can at least make an effort to not contribute to desolation. What can you bring peace to, or heal, or share? That question will always be available for you to contribute an answer to, if you seek the opportunity. 

It's important to realize that in socionics, functions never operate in isolation; valued information elements are inherently linked to other valued or unvalued elements

Keep in mind Si valuing also means Ne valuing. Also means not valuing Ni & Se.

In one sense there are two clusters of Si valuing - alpha & delta. Alpha Si valuing is most opposed to gamma, delta most opposed to beta. Si valuing + Fe valuing has a certain softness about things, particularly information and disclosure. Juxtapose that to, say, gamma introtims who (may) almost take pride in not giving a damn about how they come across to people who "don't deserve respect", etc , particularly when they feel a certain mood.

Delta valuing Si comes across more as individuality, and yes, it's "generalized" as delta individualism vs beta collectivism, but I don't think those are useful terms for socionics.

I really, really, really discourage talk about "Si valuing" and just talking about what Si is. I think even for a layman, you have to talk about relationships, psychological lopsidedness, or at the very least preferences.

If you want to talk to laymen about generalized boxes that people fit into, then, ok. That's when the lines blur between socioncics, MBTI, or other typologies; if you are trying to convey some meaning or illustrate a distinction. Otherwise, unless the layperson wants to understand the theory, it's kind of arbitrary that you fuss about what XX valuing means.

Pedagogy: It's about how much depth of understanding/teaching is appropriate

The majority of the conversations I have with people outside of socionics/typology forums are much more practical and not very theory based - and that's ok. But I think it's very important to realize the amount of depth that can be had in a situation. If you are trying to reassure someone that it is ok to be how they are (say, this person is of one quadra and a lot of people are in another quadra and they don't understand why they feel out of place in), there can be some use to explaining how different people might operate or value things differently.

But where does the line cross from someone who just wants a "product" - such as, "tell me what to do to relate better to this person" or "should I distance myself from them?" - compared to someone who is trying to test out, value, or use the tool/theory on its own? It's not an easy thing to discern, and many times people get frustrated when answers or levels of depth change as they learn more or continue playing around with the theory.

There's a certain amount of inevitability around this, but when this is an important transition area for anyone working as a teacher or guide in various disciplines. 
I find it useful to explicitly or overtly state the nature of this transition when someone wants to start taking their understanding deeper; the flipside of course is that they will need to get to know you better and understand how you form and convey ideas, too. 

The process of discerning what someone is looking for and how much they actually want to learn / are willing to learn is definitely an art. 
“Emotions can get in the way of truth-seeking. People do not process information in a neutral way.”
― Cass R. Sunstein

For the longest time emotions were a truth-inhibiting problem that needed to be shut off; they "got in the way". But now I see it as an essential part of experiencing things. Emotions aren't ever wrong, but they have a healthy limit of dwelling on and acting from them. Emotions are a different wavelength of information, and that's ok. I think the distance between the reality of a situation, the interpretation of it, and the visceral, emotional impact - that covers a lot of area and part of authenticity and healthy relations (to self or others) is being aware of each of those arenas.

Just a passing thought on life's trials...

The most challenging parts of your life will likely not make any sense until you have passed through them. Clarity doesn't erase the difficulty of hardship, but there is some peculiar relationship between the nature of what you overcome and comprehension & selection of the path before you.



Donations Welcomed!

Thank you to all of my supporters for your generosity and your encouragement of an my quest to foster literacy and promotion of independent analysis, journalism & thought. You also help keep this site ad free - thank you!

By Paypal or Credit Card:

Twitter @JesParent

2014 © JPNOTES
Modified Planer theme by Way2themes