The Boy Pack Attack on Emma Watson And What Separates Real Feminism from Phony Feminism and The Real From The Pseudo-left

The online boy-hate-pack has taken off after Emma Watson because she noted that the late Alan Rickman supported womens' equality.  Given that she, unlike probably every one of the anonymous boys who are slamming her over Twitter knew Rickman doesn't matter, that she was honoring his memory by noting his support of justice doesn't matter.

Misogyny, racism, other forms of bigotry have flourished since the 1980s anti-"political correctness" campaign was mounted by the entertainment and "news" media, the reaction to the brief candle that influential feminism was before it was blown out with the equivalent of a fire extinguisher by the guys who ran the media.  The "more-speech" of the internet has been a boon for the expression of hate and bigotry, especially of misogyny and the promotion of a phony imitation of feminism which champions those most anti-women of industries, pornography and prostitution,  That phony feminism is, in the end, all to the benefit of men and to the detriment of women, also children and such men who are used by those industries.   All you have to do is look at those industries as they really are in their blatant expression to see that.

The use of women in porn and prostitution who express support for it even as they are working under the guys who run it, giving what they say about it under those conditions the deciding vote is about as stupid as the idea that slaves who could be gotten to say in full hearing of their enslavers they were happy under slavery a veto over abolition of slavery.  It's lucky for everyone that those 19th century abolitionists didn't fall for that or the women's suffrage movement to those who promoted the status quo of women.

What can be done about the boys who attack women like Emma Watson unless Twitter and similar venues of the spread of that most potent and dangerous of social diseases ban them, I don't know. If it were possible to ban them and other hate talkers, the defense of their right to hate isn't any proper concern for real liberalism.  If we left that to the pseudo-left it would help to highlight the important and basic difference between them and the real thing.  If Watson would support such a thing, I don't know.  Of course it won't happen because "social media" profits from carrying the hate, it's all about traffic volume to them.  The system of profits they operate in reward irresponsibility just as always has happened when the media can profit for delivering the most eyeballs and ears to advertisers.   In light of that, forcefully marking the distinction between them and the real left that supports real equality is probably the most important thing that can be done.  If the real thing will win out is far from guaranteed.  But just giving into the other side, as in "sex pos" "feminism" is even more of a guarantee of failure.

Update:  Well, obviously the reason you boys hate on her so much is that she played a smart girl in those Harry Potter movies.  You've got issues with smart girls, they make you feel puny and inadequate.  If you want me to go into detail, keep it up. Which is probably the only thing you can.

Update:  Oh, well, dearie, I read every one of the Harry Potter books out loud to my nieces, most of them at least three times.   I could probably tell you more about them than any of the Eschatots could. I've read the first four in both the original British and the American translations, I read the first one in German translation - the expressionist cover made Harry look like an angst ridden German intellectual -

The quality of the French translations differ, greatly from book to book. The First one is pretty bad, the third one is OK - for some reason Snape is renamed "Rogue".  

So, go on, quiz me, see if you can stump me.  Though on the books, not the movies.  I didn't care for what I saw of those.