He For She

"Did you think I wouldn't recognize this compromise
Am I just too stupid to realize?
Stale incense, old sweat and lies, lies, lies"

Nine Inch Nails - Sin

The HeForShe U.N. campaign is sort of the icing on the cake eaten and had by Western feminists for the past few decades: a claim of victimization thundered across the world through the medium of a United Nations program against which no Western public figure (outside the zeitgeist sink-hole of Fox News) can speak for fear of ostracism. It's a claim of victimization backed by the mass-media power to crush any dissent. Beautiful, ain't it? Let's skip that part for now.

Skip also the sadistic obscenity of strutting, megaphones blaring, into some war-torn African hellhole where the male demographic drops by 20% as soon as boys are big enough to heft guns and browbeating those same boys because they're not doing enough for the women who will survive them by a lifetime.

Just check the slavishly pandering Wikipedia page on this little astroturf movement for the simple, shamelessly self-serving fanfare of the project leaders' quotes and blurbs.

“Initially we were asking the question, ‘Do men care about gender equality?’ and we found out that they do care,"

As per feminist core dogma, you started with the assumption that men are stupid and evil so you could claim justification in abusing them. I wonder why it's never asked why so many women support their own outwardly inferior status or why humans, male and female, never seem to care about equality of any sort.

You've found that men care? No shit. Cherchez la femme. You've discovered that most men will do anything for female approval. Eu-fucking-reka!

“The groundswell of response we have received in support for HeForShe tells us we are tapping into what the world wants: to be a part of change. Now we have to channel that energy into purposeful action. The pilot initiative provides that framework. Next we need all country leadership, as well as that of hundreds of universities and corporations"

The "groundswell" in question took the form of the 100,000 petition signatures "in just three days" so proudly trumpeted on the Wikipedia page. The same page admits that the further goal of increasing that number tenfold has not been met by its deadline of July of this year. No numeric value there. Actually they didn't even get halfway, despite being backed by the president of the United States, Chase and Hollywood. A year and four days after that "in just three days" that 100,000 has grown to 470,649, which to my not-so-humble opinion indicates that the initial "groundswell" was actually a well-orchestrated cloudburst, a top-down media circus. They're getting plenty of moneyed bigwigs, though.

This is what we really need to understand. Feminists are not underdogs, and have not been for several decades. As much as they present themselves as the plucky rebel alliance standing up against some sort of oppressive regime ("The Patriarchy" - always monolithic and capitalized) feminists are the establishment, regardless of whether men's asses are actually sitting in Congress seats. That second part of the statement? Governments, corporations and universities? That's feminism. Social control. Feminism is big money, a means to divide and conquer the lower classes and a means of saving face for robber barons and politicians by harnessing the perennial paranoia of every human tribal unit that its women are in danger. Let's not even get into the already hopelessly female-skewed demographics and politics of universities. Feminism's main role these days is providing sinecures for con-artists.

“Gender equality is not just a women’s issue; it’s a human rights issue that benefits everyone,”
 Damn straight. That's why you created a campaign to enlist men to serve women. To shove men to the front line. Isn't it funny how in thirty years "we can do it" has turned into "we can get boys to do it for us" and the precept of eliminating gender roles has morphed into a campaign to push men into the active role?

However, I have to close on this lovely piece, the true gem of the collection:
“Emma Watson [...] extended a ‘formal invitation’ to men to participate in the conversation about gender equality."
I love it. It carries the tyrannical false benevolence of an Old Testament commandment. She is inviting men to the conversation about equality. After fifty years of negotiating by themselves about what edicts to pass down to their male subjects, feminists are "inviting" half the population to a discussion whose bounds and roles they have already decided, much like you'd "invite" a dog into a pen. Feminism's most frequent flaw has been this exact lack of awareness and perspective, the monstrous conceit and presumption that equality is female home turf and the feminist-approved female viewpoint over-rides any other considerations. When have feminists ever showed the slightest hesitation to invite themselves to the male half of the discussion, to redefine men's roles and motivations to suit them? When you so jealously guard the power to decree to men whether they're allowed to open their mouths, does the word "equality" not dredge up just the slightest bit of bile?

Or maybe it's time to admit that the reason we (less a worrisome ~470,000 suckers) haven't been so eager to take the latest feminist bait is precisely that fundamentalist presumption of moral superiority, your ceaseless, baseless, rumbling declamation of our original sin as lowly males?