back to article Emma Watson urges UN to back feminism – trolls threaten to leak her 'nude selfies'

At the weekend, actress Emma Watson gave a well-argued and reasoned speech to the UN calling for better relations between the sexes. And lo, internet trolls appear to have set up a website threatening to release nude photographs of the Harry Potter star. The site, www.emmayouarenext.com, features a 4chan logo, a badly …

  1. NoneSuch

    "The website, www.emmayouarenext.com, features a 4chan logo, a badly rendered snap of Watson apparently crying, and a countdown clock with about three and a half days left to run."

    I'm sure a few female FBI agents can be found to round up the organizers of this site before time runs out. Go get em.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Celebrities appear to be fair game to some, put yourself out there expect adulation, demand adulation them make a stupid comment and not expect fall out from it? Liike with Balotellis comment on Twitter about the MUFC score line, it's no surprise that he was then targeted for his comment. Expect the rough with the smooth.

      Now of course the comments made at him have been deemed racist, but if he had not been such an arse in the first place this would never have been issue. It's all down to actions and consequences.

      Celebs expect everyone to love them and when they don't they demand press censorship.

      While I don't condone what Emma Watson has been threatened with, it's downright wrong and probably a load of tosh anyway, it she did have pictures she would rather no one saw, then don't take them in the first place.

      Everyone knows privacy has gone down the toilet in this day and age, go topless expect someone to take a picture, get a blow job from a prostitute and get caught then expect the press. Don't go on a censorship crusade simply because you don't like the consequences of your actions.

      1. Triggerfish

        @ anon

        So you would have no trouble about a bunch of people now tracking you down, releasing your address, pics of your kids etc etc now, since you have put a comment on the public web?

      2. h4rm0ny

        >>"Celebs expect everyone to love them and when they don't they demand press censorship."

        The endless stupid rationale of the troll - you're allowed to treat those who have achieved some fame as less than other people, because your callous actions are balanced by the fact that other people like them. Because as we all know, Karma isn't just a spiritual belief, it's a recognized scientific principle and you are its divinely appointed agent.

        Or perhaps you're just rationalizing what you'd like to do anyway. I wonder which is most likely.

      3. IsJustabloke
        Facepalm

        RE Celebrities appear to be fair game to some, put yourself out there expect adulation

        Could you be anymore ignorant?

      4. Indolent Wretch

        Really?

        >> it she did have pictures she would rather no one saw, then don't take them in the first place.

        Or

        >> if she did have a phone she would rather no one stole, then she shouldn't have bought it

        Or

        >> if she did have a bank account she rather nobody stole from, then she shouldn't keep money in it

        Or

        >> If she has a vagina and she doesn't want to be raped, then she should stay behind locked doors

        I've seen plenty of MRAs using the argument "well she'll pose for a sexy magazine cover to increase her fame so what's wrong with this", over and over and over, in reference to celebrity after celebrity.

        Maybe people should realize this is not about privacy, that's a complete red herring.

        This is about CONSENT.

        This is almost only about CONSENT.

        Publishing stolen nude pictures of people is a sexual act.

        They have words for sexual actions that take place without consent.

        "sexual assault" and "rape" are ones that come to mind.

        Lecturing someone like Watson about how if she doesn't want X she shouldn't do Y is just another voice in the chorus of "well she was wearing a mini skirt was does she expect".

        It's wrong. Stop it.

        1. h4rm0ny
          Thumb Up

          @Indolent Wretch

          I think that may be the best comment on the topic here. Thank you.

    2. LaeMing Silver badge

      Why do they have to be female agents? I am pretty confident the majority of males in the world find this behaviour reprehensible too!

      1. Zoopy

        Showing nude pics of her is sleazy.

        But there are plenty of missing and exploited children who need to be looked for; women forced into sex trafficking; drug dealers peddling to kids; heck even drunk drivers who are still on the road.

        The FBI has no business pursuing silly crap like someone exposing Emma Watson's personal photos, when somewhere a child is working forced prostitution on American streets.

        1. Resound

          And presumably they shouldn't be working on any other crimes either? Just that one worst one. The whole "As long as there are starving disabled baby seals being trafficked for sex in Syria by paedophile dictators your problems are trival" schtick is the laziest rebuttal ever. I tend to assume anyone trotting it out has nothing more relevant to offer.

        2. h4rm0ny

          >>"The FBI has no business pursuing silly crap like someone exposing Emma Watson's personal photos,"

          I trust you'll remember that reasoning next time you want the police or courts to spare some times for crimes committed against you. They shouldn't pursue it because there are other crimes elsewhere in the world.

          Btw, high profile targetting like this sets an example to the whole society. One reason it was good to pursue all those expenses claims scandals with MPs wasn't because of the sums involved (as a percentage of the annual cost of Westminster it's next to nothing), but because it's important that justice is not only done, but seen to be done. When society is seen to tolerate such behaviour, you get more of it and if Emma Watson can't hope to get justice done for sexual harassment, what chance do the rest of us have?

          1. Tom 13

            Re: high profile targetting like this sets an example to the whole society.

            Yes it does. And for at least the last 50 years your side has used partisan reasons for ignoring certain high profile targets and but not others. You're chickens are coming home to roost.

        3. DF118

          @Zoopy

          The FBI has no business pursuing silly crap like someone exposing Emma Watson's personal photos, when somewhere a child is working forced prostitution on American streets.

          Ah, the fallacy of relative privation. Sorry, doesn't wash. The mere fact of the high profile nature of this case means it is equally if not more important to deal with than the examples you mention, pour encourager les autres.

          1. Danny 14 Silver badge

            Re: @anon

            @anon,

            What about if she had no naked selfies and someone has taken the time to do a decent photoshop job with a reasonable lookie likey? Is that ok to publish then? How about if someone decided to stalk you or your missus and do the same, is that ok then?

            Just because she is a celeb and has an opinion (and is willing to get off her butt and do something about it) doesn't mean you can go about threatening or extorting her. Im sure no actor/actress deserves this (even Adam Sandler).

            1. Tom 13

              Re: @anon

              UK might be different, but here in the States, SCOTUS says that's fair game:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

        4. Indolent Wretch

          You're right when a crime happens to you for instance, you should go to cops, they should rate it according to criteria, tell you exactly where you are in the queue and let you know that when no other crime in the country is worse than yours they'll get right on it. Until something worse comes up and then they'll stop.

          That's such a brilliant idea I wonder why nobody else has every thought of it.

    3. Fibbles

      False Flag

      The website emmayouarenext.com was allegedly created by the viral advertising firm Rantic Marketing.

      http://imgur.com/NhFVA2X

      1. Daniel Johnson

        Re: False Flag

        Companies like this put up press releases on their own fake news sites, and then rely on "real" news outlets, such as Sky News (and The Register) to regurgitate it, without doing any fact checking.

        It's interesting to see the drop in traffic on the various gaming news sites such as Kotaku, since their behind-the-scenes collusion and contempt for their audience was exposed.

        Lately, the Register seems to have been running more and more of these "Social Justice" stories. Perhaps they've been inflitrated by a SJW, too?

      2. Curtis

        Re: False Flag

        the site that it now forwards to...

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Rantic Marketing

        Oh, that is scummy if I read that correctly.

        So, they post lots of fake threats pointing at a specific website, then delete the website and redirect it to a holding page full of ads while everybody's still reading about it?

        Cold corporate bloodsucking.

      4. Graham Dawson

        @Fibbles Re: False Flag

        And no correction from the Reg either despite the fact that the site is now forwarded to rantic media's own site.

        Come on Reg, I always thought the redtop image was a bit of clever satire.

  2. PCS

    Looking at the site the children have moved it forward. Now sitting at 41 minutes.

    Seriously, have they nothing better to do with their communal brain cell? Acting like pubescent twats doesn't do them any favours and pissing off a lot of people really isn't a Good Idea (tm)

    1. Vociferous

      "have they nothing better to do with their communal brain cell?"

      I take it you don't have much experience with Anonymous?

      This is what "for the lulz" always meant.

    2. Oninoshiko

      "Acting like pubescent twats..."

      How else do you expect pubescent twats to act?

      1. phuzz Silver badge
        Facepalm

        "How else do you expect pubescent twats to act?"

        The worst of it is, some of them are (allegedly) adults, who still act as if they were six years old. "urrgh, girls are horrid!"

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The /b/ tools cry about their right to free speech if any moderation is undertaken but when someone else exercises their right to free speech they believe that person deserves to be punished?

    1. Craigness

      She wasn't moderated, got worldwide media coverage and more than a million views on Youtube. But what she said was sexist, completely ignoring men's issues whilst claiming to be for equality. People need to expect some comeback for that, but not this.

      1. SuccessCase

        "But what she said was sexist, completely ignoring men's issues whilst claiming to be for equality."

        You clearly didn't read what she wrote. It think she completely breaks the mould and wrote the fairest, most well reasoned most even handed argument on sexism I have ever read. The girl is not a fool, and as one of our more intelligent and well mannered celebrities and we can be proud of her; this girl was picked out for fame from an age when she can hardly fairly be called a publicity seeker and unlike most child stars has not gone off the rails or become a giant egotist. After the Harry Potter films, instead of pursuing nothing but acting and modelling contracts, she completed her studies. This girl has her head screwed on right and gives me more than a little hope it isn't all downhill when it comes to the next generation.

        Like the next man I get annoyed by unreasonable feminist argument. On occasion very annoyed. Ironically the comment reaction to Emma Watsons piece yesterday in the Telegraph (read what she said and then read the comments) is actually leading me, reluctantly, to conclude feminists have a point about misogyny. Read what Emma Watson wrote and you will see it's hardly right to even call her a feminist. She accepts the word only insofar as it can be made a subset of being a meritocrat even handed and fair minded and non of us should have a problem with any of that - and she speaks up strongly for men's issues (being denied access to children etc). It's clear there are many men who wade in with abuse before they have read a single word someone has written. I find it all rather depressing.

        1. Tom 13

          Even if what you say is true

          Read what Emma Watson wrote and you will see it's hardly right to even call her a feminist. She accepts the word only insofar as it can be made a subset of being a meritocrat even handed and fair minded and non of us should have a problem with any of that - and she speaks up strongly for men's issues (being denied access to children etc)

          it is undone by her use of the term "feminist/feminism". If what she seeks is a meritocracy, let her say so clearly. Confusing a meritocracy with feminism is not helpful because feminism as practiced is quite the opposite of a meritocracy. One does not try conflate the Jewish Defense league with Neo Nazis. Similar tactics should not be used elsewhere simply because the other is not Neo Nazi.

      2. Indolent Wretch

        Yes but what she said was well thought out, clearly meant a great deal to her, based at least in part on personal experience, it struck a chord with a lot of people, it was gentle and simple, it hurt nobody and was intended to bring attention to a part of our society that desperately needs improvement, a result for which she knew her fame would help.

        Whereas what you said shows you to be a complete dickwad.

  4. Wyrdness

    I can only imagine that these trolls are blessed with the similar good looks and intelligence as other, recently convicted, internet trolls such as John Nimmo and Isabella Sorley.

    http://www.itv.com/news/topic/caroline-criado-perez/

    1. nsld
      Mushroom

      Equality in action

      "I can only imagine that these trolls are blessed with the similar good looks and intelligence as other, recently convicted, internet trolls such as John Nimmo and Isabella Sorley.

      http://www.itv.com/news/topic/caroline-criado-perez/

      "

      Always nice to see equality in action with 50% of the people convicted of sending malicious communications to the feminist campaigner being women.

      In fact this goes to the heart of the demands for equality when you have an equal gender distribution in the dock.

    2. dan1980

      I fail to see how commenting derisively on these people's looks helps. Some others feel the need to label all hackers/crackers as socially-inept teenagers lurking in their parents' basements and, again, that achieves nothing.

      The fact is that the people who break into systems come in all sorts. Of course, the vast majority have an IT background but there are unemployed parents, school-aged kids, college students, well-paid professionals, and everything in between.

      We gain nothing from throwing around outdated stereotypes.

  5. Buzzword

    But will it make a difference?

    It was a great speech, full of well-intentioned ideals, but what practical difference will it make? For example she asks men to sign a pledge that they'll be nice to girls. But let's face it, the kind of men who aren't going to be nice to girls simply aren't going to sign it.

    It's analogous to the problem of reducing CO₂ emissions: one person acting alone will make virtually no difference to the global impact; and those who are emitting the most are the least likely to change their behaviour.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      Why do they always choose actors for this sort of campaign, their job is to stand up and tell made-up stories convincingly.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But will it make a difference?

        "Why do they always choose actors for this sort of campaign, their job is to stand up and tell made-up stories convincingly."

        Yes, that's why they're ideal for this sort of thing.

    2. TeaLeaf

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      The point is that if no one makes a move, then the retards think everyone agrees with them. Once people start standing up and saying 'this is wrong' then at least some of the retards will have enough sense to either to rethink their position or shut up to stop drawing attention to themselves as being society outcasts.

      1. Buzzword

        Re: But will it make a difference?

        @TeaLeaf,

        Thank you for addressing my concerns directly. I accept that her actions will indeed make a difference. Though for what it's worth, I suspect the nasty men will just ignore her precisely because she's a woman; the same message coming from a man might have a greater impact on its intended audience.

    3. h3

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      Saville would have probably signed it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But will it make a difference?

        @h3; "Saville [sic] would have probably signed it."

        Or maybe not; the guy cultivated quite a strange public persona (though perhaps the rationale for a lot of it is more obvious in hindsight).

        At an rate, the reason I replied was that I can easily see mention of Jimmy Savile in certain contexts becoming a Godwin for certain types of discussion- like this one- if it isn't already.

    4. JDX Gold badge

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      Well I for one don't think I'm sexist, but I'd never heard of HeForShe or really considered that most of the people standing up for women are... women. I don't really buy into feminism but that point, urging men to be equally invested in fighting for women, was worth hearing.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      It was a great speech, full of well-intentioned ideals, but what practical difference will it make? For example she asks men to sign a pledge that they'll be nice to girls. But let's face it, the kind of men who aren't going to be nice to girls simply aren't going to sign it.

      Part of this is leadership and commitment - someone speaking out where they could have easily stayed silent and enjoy their good life instead of setting themselves up as targets for the stupid, disenchanted and plain evil. If I were her parent I'd be seriously proud that she sees more than just her own life and is putting her profile behind something worthwhile, nerve racking as the first speech always is.

      I agree with her. I personally think the spectrum of equality is wider than just gender (race is another one) but it is an excellent place to start.

    6. John Sanders
      Meh

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      I suggest she goes on tour to middle east countries and tries her discourse there where it may make a difference.

      1. JDX Gold badge

        Re: I suggest she goes ... to middle east countries ... where it may make a difference.

        So you're claiming sexism no longer exists in the western world?

        Regardless, if she enthuses western MEN to then go and fight for women in those countries where only men have power, that could still have a large impact in the East.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      "...no difference to the global impact..."

      Impact on what globally? Her speech is one thing, the apparent outing of her pictures is another.

      This article is completely regressive, what the fuck happened?

      I hate to state the obvious here, but what does this article do for women when it so blindly targets men? No one knows the identity of these low moral trolls, yet the article associates what Emma said to these trolls, implying they are men. These trolls, regardless of sex, are mean people. After reading this article, apparently all mean people on the internet are sexists men. Go team!!

      This article...wow. What a bra burner!

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: But will it make a difference?

        @MyBackDoor: Where does the article "target men", blindly or otherwise? I see nothing in it that prejudges or assumes the sex of anyone involved, except Ms Watson. It doesn't even use any gender-specific pronouns or insults.

        And it in no way assumes or implies that "mean people" equates to "sexists [sic] men". It's your imagination that's interpolated that into the article. Which, I submit, says more about you than anyone else concerned.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: But will it make a difference?

          veti. WTF? The article is OPENED with the sexes. Did you really not read the first sentence? Won't even paste it, just scroll up and read the opening sentence.

          But veti, thank you for not reading the whole article! This helps.

          Let's assume that at least the opening sentence isn't there. Can you tell me how Emma's speech for feminism and these hate monger trolls wound up in the same article? Be careful, because if it is not implied that the trolls are male to make the correlation to feminism, then one way or another you will have to directly relate feminism to..........trolls. Good luck!

          Strangely enough I look forward to your answer (but read the whole article).

          1. Eguro
            WTF?

            Re: But will it make a difference?

            Well.. I'm not Veti, but the opening sentence of the article on my browser is:

            "At the weekend, actress Emma Watson gave a well-argued and reasoned speech to the UN calling for better relations between the sexes."

            The gender of one person is identified - Emma Watson.

            Did you see the word "sexes" and think; "Well that implies something, I guess"?

            The inclusion of 4chan trolls and taking that angle is probably in order for this article to actually be suitable for ElReg - aka; Emma Watson talking about feminism isn't tech news. Emma Watson being targetted by internet trolls because of her talking about feminism is.. sorta.

            There's no need for anyone here in the comments to explain why internet trolls relate to feminism, because if you read the article then it's nicely explained why it relates. Internet trolls are making a fuss over a feminist speech - tada, link established.

        2. P. Lee Silver badge

          Re: But will it make a difference?

          There is an unfortunate similarity of spelling between "feminist" (one who fights for women's rights, which may indeed by trampled upon) and "feminism" which is the philosophy of promoting women, presumably over non-women. The first is a practical response to a problem, the latter an ugly conflict generator, where success is often seen as making women as unpleasant as their male counterparts.

          Every opportunity in the media to push the truth of Darwinism is taken, indoctrinating the young with a worldview that extends like a ladder into Nietzschean philosophy. As long as we indoctrinate our young in Darwinism (survival of the strong by out-competing the weak), the weak (physically, financially) will suffer and we will encourage solidarity between those already in power as they fend off those who threaten their dominance. Place on people the expectation that they will act like animals and they will. Crying foul because biological darwinism and social darwinism are not the same thing (cells vs thoughts) is a non-starter if you are a materialist. In any case, it doesn't have to be logical, it just needs to be pervasive in people's thinking.

          Of course you don't have to go from Darwin to Nietzsche, but that is the logical progression - fight for survival -> fight for power to ensure your future survival. You don't need to read Nietzsche to make that connection. As long as people are seen as competition (as they are generally portrayed in the soaps and "reality tv" which try to saturate our living rooms) then we foster the opposite of the social good in the name of entertainment.

          It is all very well to insist that people do unto others as they would like done to them, but it helps if you have some philosophical justification which fits with their worldview. Self-regulation is better than imposed law. See how much better it was well after the abolition of slavery in the Northern US as compared to the South.

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: But will it make a difference?

            >>"and "feminism" which is the philosophy of promoting women, presumably over non-women"

            That is not what 'feminism' means. You've just made up your own definition for the sake of argument. Nor has what you just wrote ever been the popular definition of feminism. It is, however, a recurrent misrepresentation by those who have read little of the writings of popular feminists or feminist theory.

            Here's the opening definition from Wikipedia: "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women"

            Though I anticipate a No True Scots... ah, No True Feminist style of rebuttal that says there are some women who have this attitude and that they (despite being a small minority) are the real feminists and therefore you're correct. Presumably bolstered by some reasoning that the meaning of all words in the English language exactly adheres to your supposed etymological interpretation of them. Because as we all know, all words are exactly in line in meaning with a particular latin root of themselves.

            Read some actual feminist writing before pronouncing on what "feminism" actually is.

            1. Danny 14 Silver badge

              Re: But will it make a difference?

              Education is the first step. Then we educate our children who educate their children etc. I remember the 70s when it was fine to smoke, booze and leave the kids at the local labour club whilst bingo was on. Most adults these days cringe when they see kids in pubs after certain hours - it isn't socially acceptable any more. My dad remembers times when women at work would be secretaries or receptionists - certainly not bosses or line managers, this has changed and again is socially unacceptable to think otherwise.

              The same can be said for sexism hopefully this will also become a thing of the past. In some respects even 4chan are accepting the backlash is wrong (or at least not lulworthy)

    8. Fluffy Bunny

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      ""It was a great speech, full of well-intentioned ideals, but what practical difference will it make?"

      Reminds me of that famous Gillard speech. Widely praised, but completely false from opening sentence to close.

      For example [Emma] asks men to sign a pledge that they'll be nice to girls. But let's face it, the kind of men who aren't going to be nice to girls simply aren't going to sign it."

      Actually, they will sign it and be nasty to girls anyway. These people, by and large, don't see anything wrong with what they do.

    9. Indolent Wretch

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      If it gets people talking about it, it will help.

      If it gets a bunch of men talking about, even if they thought like this anyway, it will help.

      If some people ask other people whether they have signed up and talk about the reasons why, it will help.

      If one person going down that sexist, MRA path to misogyny stops for 1 second, thinks hey I really admire that <male celebrity> why is he going on about how good that sexist bitch is... Maybe I'll just read what he says...

      If it makes a small difference and all it took was a speech, then surely that's a good thing.

      Just because one person acting alone can't make a difference it doesn't mean they shouldn't act.

      Especially so when it's one person calling for OTHERS to act.

    10. Tom 13

      Re: But will it make a difference?

      No, the kind of men who aren't going to be nice to girls will sign it, smile about it, and then treat them like crap anyway. You won't find them because in public they say all the right things to keep people like you happy. You in turn will laud them, and even if their sins are exposed say it was only about sex because their political positions were more important even when someone can document that it went beyond sex with mutual consent (e.g. Clinton, Lewinsky, Tripp).

  6. JP19

    The trolls' actions merely prove Watson's point.

    Hardly, the religious loons in some of these united nations who keep their women in meat lockers would like to see her flogged or beheaded. I hope they are supposed to be the target of this campaign.

    The flowery drivel in her speech was more likely to make westerners barf than have any effect on those that regard women as possessions.

    1. JEDIDIAH
      Devil

      Re: The trolls' actions merely prove Watson's point.

      This is the Internet. Trolls are a part of the landscape. It doesn't matter who you are or what you are talking about. This particular set of trolls trolling a particular person DEMONSTRATES NOTHING about your pet agenda.

      If you troll people, they will respond. Your idea of trolling might not be the same as theirs.

      It can be needlepoint. It doesn't have to be anything remotely controversial.

      1. JP19

        Re: The trolls' actions merely prove Watson's point.

        "DEMONSTRATES NOTHING about your pet agenda"

        My post title is a quote from the article so not my agenda - sorry about the lack of quotation marks.

      2. John Sanders
        Trollface

        Re: The trolls' actions merely prove Watson's point.

        TROLL ALL THE THINGS!!!!

        [url]https://imgflip.com/i/ce9kd[/url]

        ((How do you insert a url?))

        1. ratfox Silver badge

          @John

          ((How do you insert a url?))

          With old-fashioned HTML code, like this:

          < a href="http://google.com">link</ a>

          (This one is not made into a link because the tags contain spaces)

          Italics and bold are also possible. You might have to have a silver badge though. Not sure if bronze is enough.

          1. AbelSoul

            Re: @John

            You might have to have a silver badge though. Not sure if bronze is enough.

            It is.

    2. Tapeador

      Re: The trolls' actions merely prove Watson's point.

      That depends on how you think moral revolutions happen: whether via the propagation of norms, or what. I think the people of whom you speak imagine that what they do is morally acceptable - and that others think so too. If they believe others do not think it acceptable, then it seems to me less likely such activity can thrive.

    3. JP19

      Re: The trolls' actions merely prove Watson's point.

      So many downvotes and so much angst about Emma's tits being put on the internet. I'm sure this woman www.liveleak.com/view?i=176_1364022789 would be proud of you.

      If only the people with the stones had defined her by what she was instead of what she was not and had not miss-perceived the spectrum of her gender.

      p.s. The vid is NSFW - Not Suitable For the World.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rude

    As someone who frequents sites like 4chan on occasion, I just want to put it out there that many of the boards other than /b/ have some good intellectual conversation and advice on anything you ask. It's not full of muppets who make news stories like this. My two cents.

    1. Craigness

      Re: Rude

      8chan is the future now that 4chan has gone SJW.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Rude

        Funny you should mention 8chan, because this whole Emma Watson selfie "threat" has been allegedly engineered by 8chan to attract disaffected 4chan users.

        Anonymous, because, well, Anonymous.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Rude

      How the hell do you frequent a site on occasion?

  8. The Axe

    No ugly feminists

    So why do women flaunt their beauty to get good acting jobs or use their feminine charms to get promotion, yet when men react to such actions they claim that men are misogynists.

    Also, why do most feminists seem to be ugly? Is it because they are upset that they can't use their beauty or feminine charms and so are actually fighting against their fellow female than attacking men.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No ugly feminists

      Careful, that kind of talk will get you labelled as the very kind of closed minded male these folks are against

      Its interesting that the real feminist campaigners of the earlier years like the 50s/60s&70s mostly have nothing to do with the current ideal of feminism, which appears to be simply about beating men over the head till they submit to women & nothing to do with equality/fairness

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No ugly feminists

        Really?

        I'd say that it was more the case that earlier feminists felt they had to behave like men (and even give themselves male noms de plume, e.g. George Eliot) in order to be taken seriously, but they've now reached the stage of realising that some things men do really do need to be stopped or brought under control, such as most domestic violence, wars, patriarchal religion and large scale economic gambling, and they are now daring to say so.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No ugly feminists

          "[...] but they've now reached the stage of realising that some things men do really do need to be stopped or brought under control, such as most domestic violence, wars, patriarchal religion [...]"

          The Christian churches in many countries tend to have congregations that are predominantly women. There are many women in prominent positions who vehemently oppose any attempts to change their Church's dogma to promote the principles of equality. Even those that are enshrined in their countries' civil laws.

        2. Craigness

          Re: No ugly feminists

          Credit default swaps were created by a woman (Blythe Masters), Hillary Clinton is in favour of bombing everything, and DV is NOT mostly men. However, feminists definitely are interested in only the male side of it, which is why the female half is ignored, or even considered empowering. Did you know the highest incidence of DV is in lesbian relationships? It's lowest among gay men.

          The Brontes didn't need noms de plume, nor did Beatrix Potter. One paranoid authoress is not evidence of a conspiracy.

          1. veti Silver badge

            Re: No ugly feminists

            The Brontes did use noms de plume. Anne Bronte published as 'Acton Bell', Charlotte as 'Currer Bell', Emily as 'Ellis Bell'. Beatrix Potter was some generations later, and even then her attempts to publish about scientific subjects were rejected - the only things she was able to get into print were nursery-level children's stories.

          2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

            Re: No ugly feminists

            "Did you know the highest incidence of DV is in lesbian relationships?"

            Wow, seriously I didn't know that! So, the lesbians are the heaviest users of Digital Video? Who would have thought that - learn something new every day...

          3. Indolent Wretch

            Re: No ugly feminists

            >> The Brontes didn't need noms de plume

            HA HA HA HA HA

            I live and learn.

    2. MyffyW Silver badge

      Re: No ugly feminists

      Feminism is not about berating men for their failings. It's not about stoking up a war between the sexes. It's not a cover because I don't happen to look like Kylie. It's not even about burning ones foundation garments.

      Feminism is about equality, that's it. So simple, yet so very revolutionary.

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Feminism is about equality, that's it.

        Typical fucking SJW bullshit!

        I myself prefer social injustice! (As long as I'm not subjected it, obv....)

    3. h4rm0ny

      Re: No ugly feminists

      >>"So why do women flaunt their beauty"

      Quite right - women are to blame for men finding them attractive and must take responsibility for it. More veils are needed so that women can be more modest, clearly.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No ugly feminists

        Quite right - women are to blame for men finding them attractive and must take responsibility for it. More veils are needed so that women can be more modest, clearly.

        Women must take responsibility for their clothing choices just like men have too & yet it seems that when a woman wears a top that shows off a lot of cleavage or a skirt that is far too short in places where its clearly inappropiate, such as say an office (after all its an office, not a dating arena) nothing gets said to them.

        Should a man try to wear 3/4 length trousers or shorts in scorching heat they are taken aside and told to go home & change into full length trousers

        Equality & fairness eh?? Looks like it

    4. Indolent Wretch

      Re: No ugly feminists

      Seriously. That's what you've got.

      Start with a word designed to suggest negativity. "FLAUNT"

      Because the 9 year old Emma Thompson FLAUNTED her beauty to get her acting gig.

      I think you'll find. That if you look really carefully. And rank things according to what you think is fapworthy once the curtains get drawn. That most people are ugly.

      If there is a hint of truth to what you've said, think about it, a world in which men judge and treat women based on their looks, and the group that end up trying to fight that aren't as good looking as the group that accept it. Is that really too hard for you to work out?

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: No ugly feminists

        >>"If there is a hint of truth to what you've said, think about it, a world in which men judge and treat women based on their looks, and the group that end up trying to fight that aren't as good looking as the group that accept it. Is that really too hard for you to work out?"

        Possibly, but the real reason for the "ugly feminist" attack is pretty much always just an attempt to dismiss feminist arguments on the supposition that their only motivation is that of a bitter loser vengeful because a man doesn't want her. It's a peculiarly sexist attack which supposes a woman's beliefs are determined by male desire. And like all ad hominems, is a way of avoiding an argument in favour or discrediting its proponent.

  9. BillsBacker

    Not a liar..

    I for one would enjoy the pics, but I would look at them only if she were sending them to me (no chance of that), so I guess I'll just keep admiring her acting and social initiatives.

  10. bitten

    Nice?

    She earned fortune and fame representing a not so nice-friendly person, and now she proposes everyone should to be nice? Come on Hermione, cool down, you signed that 'be nice' paper, did you?

    1. Triggerfish

      Re: Nice?

      You do realise there's a difference between acting and real life.

      1. bitten

        Re: Nice?

        Oh mine, there is even a difference between what I say and what I do.

        As for Hermione, I mostly read her as Herman and Harry Potter was Harriette, just to check the equalities (it sometimes helps with some authors)

  11. skeptical i

    Why, oh why, in this the twenty-first century common era ...

    when we have put people in a space station (and brought them back -- alive), we're still hung up on pee-pees? Brown eyes, blue eyes; white skin, brown skin; left-handed, right-handed; vagina, penis -- honestly, who cares?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why, oh why, in this the twenty-first century common era ...

      LEFT HANDED?!

      Good God man, you're clearly insane. You'll be calling for Ginger Equality next!

      Left handed equality... Bah!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why, oh why, in this the twenty-first century common era ...

        Not really funny even as a joke

        Left handed & Ginger people seem to be the only folks without any protection, make no mistake its just as bad as racism based on skin colour!

        1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Why, oh why, in this the twenty-first century common era ...

          Oh dear.

          I'm left-handed, and whilst it's true many things favour right-handed use, I've never once thought of myself as belonging to a persecuted minority!

          FFS That's what people mean when they say 'PC gone mad'... It's seems just about everyone is a victim these days!

          P.s. Any downvoters are intolerant handist scum, who should be jailed forthwith!

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Why, oh why, in this the twenty-first century common era ...

      Why, oh why,…

      Equating technological progress with civilisation is at best naive, at worst stupid: it has also given us atomic bombs, nerve gas and a heap of other things the world would definitely be much better without.

  12. Triggerfish

    The Irony

    The irony is most of these idiots are probably also squealing about infringements from getting spied on by the NSA and then think nothing about doing stuff like this and doxxing people.

  13. moiety

    I think 4chan would be daft to try it, even if the photos do exist and they do have them. Emma Watson's UN gig means that she'll have access to a lot of well connected and motivated lawyer mates.

    Secondly, Ms. Watson doesn't seem to me to be the type to hide, sobbing, behind a publicist if photos are published. It would definitely be lighting the blue touchpaper; and I don't think seven proxies would be enough, somehow.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Yeah, 'cuz 4chan's droids are so scared of lawyers...

      I'm willing to bet there's a substantial number of 4channers who firmly believe themselves to be so 'leet that no lawyer will ever be able to trace them, and have just the right amount of testosterone to convince themselves that they'd be striking a courageous blow for freedom by doing this.

      If they have the pics.

    2. LucreLout Silver badge

      "I think 4chan would be daft to try it, even if the photos do exist and they do have them. Emma Watson's UN gig means that she'll have access to a lot of well connected and motivated lawyer mates."

      Go ask the ladies on one of the TOR based "dark web" revenge image sites how well legal avenues are working out for them. Lawyers aren't nearly so powerful as they like to think they are. Fundamentally, if you are willing to ignore the legal systems of several jurisdictions, why would you care what a lawyer thinks?

      Please don't misunderstand my post as siding with those clowns. I don't, which is why I've not named any of the sites I was thinking of. They are, frankly, a disgrace. That said, I have a lot more sympathy with people whose spiteful exes are handing out candid photos like candy, than I do if some fame hungry starlet attracts the wrong kind of fame.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh come on, this is so fucking fake. The whole thing is being run by a "viral" "marketing" company. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/835/188/ddf.png

    1. Craigness

      Another false flag attack on #gamergate?

  15. petrosy

    ...ism

    Feminism is just like chauvinism ..... why should we tolerate either?

    Equality now there is something I can stand behind.

    1. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: ...ism

      And that is what feminism is about: Equality.

      Mind you it wont be long before some are calling out equality as a way of suppressing men...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: ...ism

        No that is what feminism SHOULD be about, unfortunately the 'leaders' of such groups push for equality through 'positive' discrimination same way the races do...

        I myself am not racist, and skin colour/religion/sex makes no difference to me when choosing an employee or in most other situations.. But I won't positively discriminate, I choose the best person for the job...

        male/female? don't care really...

        If it was me I'd make all male/female separated facilities illegal and enforce coed facilities...

        I find 'women only' facilities/events sexist as much as I would male only...

        really wonder what would happen if a local pool held a 'male only' swim session.... there would be uproar!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ...ism

          What a naive point of view.

          If something is out of balance you address it. In a society where discrimination happens you try and push back the other way. Hopefully, eventually, the need for positive discrimination goes away.

          How fucking tricky is that to understand?

        2. h4rm0ny

          Re: ...ism

          >>"really wonder what would happen if a local pool held a 'male only' swim session.... there would be uproar"

          I highly doubt that. It would probably just raise the odd eyebrow because some would assume it was a Gay event. Fact of the matter is that there is little demand for a "male only" swimming session because few men feel sufficiently uncomfortable being stared at by women that they'd require it. But for some women of muslim background, it's the only way they'll feel comfortable to swim. Most such women would probably be happy for there to be a male-only session because then people such as yourself would have less justification for criticising them for wanting a private female only session.

          TL;DR: There wouldn't be a big "uproar" and there's no devastating double-standard for you to exploit here. If you think otherwise, feel free to try and organize a men only session and see if the response is outrage or apathy.

        3. Indolent Wretch

          Re: ...ism

          >> unfortunately the 'leaders' of such groups push for equality through 'positive' discrimination same way the races do...

          Name 4

  16. Tom Maddox Silver badge
    FAIL

    Yay

    Came for the privileged white males complaining about how oppressive feminism is, leaving . . . unsurprised.

    1. Craigness

      Re: Yay

      If you never listen you'll never learn. #womenagainstfeminism

  17. Infernoz Bronze badge
    Facepalm

    "Positive" decrimination and feminist conditioned men are oppressing men.

    This nonsense ironically hurts women as badly as men, as documented in the book

    "The Myth of Male Power" by Dr Warren Farrell, so the trolls attack is half justified.

    Stupid Emma Watson is not helping because the solution is not more feminism and distractions like acceptance of a variance of attributes for males and females, rather it is to stop denying that men and women are different, so think and behave in the different ways, even if there is some overlap.

    Too many men have been at least partially conditioned by abuse of feminism by fanatic feminist women has made it socially and legally destructive.

    I'm pissed off hearing 'empowered' (spoilt) women saying the problem is 'immature' men when we should be trying to meet at the overlap, and accept and appreciate our complementary differences.

    Us men should stop suffering in silence, speak up and expect to be treated as equals; that include learning to spot and no longer accepting abusive manipulation by spoilt women, so that they grow up and become better people. This needs to get political too, to roll back the destructive excesses of feminism e.g. for unfair paternity and maintenance rulings.

    As for the UN; no frigging way do I have any respect or trust that gang of Socialist power usurpers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Positive" decrimination and feminist conditioned men are oppressing men.

      I see you have used the 'slaps forehead' icon.

      Could you just do that again please? A few more times?

      There we go - I think we got that last brain cell.

    2. h4rm0ny

      Re: "Positive" decrimination and feminist conditioned men are oppressing men.

      I don't believe you have read what Emma Watson wrote at all. You write multiple paragraphs about what's wrong with doctrines of women being superior, of 'denying that men and women are different', etc. And yet her speech is all about men and women being treated with equal courtesy and respect and coming together. Find anything in her speech which supports your rant, please! You've just used this as an opportunity for your own axe-grinding.

      As to "recognizing that men and women are different", you clearly haven't thought through what the meaning of "equal opportunity" actually is.

      Even if there are different tendencies between men and women (and the fact that gender ratios in science differ markedly between nations and cultures despite the same genetics indicates there's a long way to go before we've eliminated cultural bias), those tendencies were have to be staggeringly high to make it more efficient to discriminate on gender than individual assessment. Like on the order of 50% average difference in ability level.

      It takes only a basic grasp of statistics to realise that a slight difference in average ability in an area does not support discrimination on an individual level. That is why I know you are arguing from a political / personal viewpoint, rather than on a scientific basis. And that you suppose these "differences" are primarily inherent rather than cultural / sociological is shot down rather badly by the fact that, e.g., the sexes are far more equally represented in computer programming in say India, than they are in the USA. And many similar examples.

      1. Craigness

        Re: "Positive" decrimination and feminist conditioned men are oppressing men.

        @h4rm0ny why focus on areas where women are under-represented? Doing so will only lead to a sexist outcome, which is what we've got.

        Equality of opportunity is where there are no quotas for women MPs, CEOs etc but everyone is allowed to try. Unfortunately we do have those quotas, but we don't have anything for male teachers and social workers because such quotas would not benefit women. And there is nothing to get equal representation of women fixing power lines at night in December in a snowstorm because those quotas would not give women safe, well-paid, high-profile jobs. There is nothing to enforce equal disposable income between the sexes (where women spend more than men), or to correlate benefits paid to each sex (women get more) with taxes paid by each sex (men pay more). There is nothing done to address the difference in hours worked by each sex (because that would benefit men, who put in longer hours and miss out on family time) but there are efforts to fix the difference in pay which those shorter hours lead to (because that would benefit women, who work less than men). Nobody will address what you might call the obvious sexism in university admissions (more women than men) because "we" as a society only want equality when it puts women above men. If you want equality of opportunity you are an MRA, not a feminist. Try for yourself and see what responses you get when you talk to feminists about equality rather than special privileges for women!

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: "Positive" decrimination and feminist conditioned men are oppressing men.

          >>"If you want equality of opportunity you are an MRA, not a feminist. Try for yourself and see what responses you get when you talk to feminists about equality rather than special privileges for women!"

          I've been a feminist since I was at school - which is quite some time ago, and I'm fairly well-read in feminist theory. I've been an active feminist on many an occasion. What you say is not true. We, on the overwhelming whole, believe in equality, not female privilege. Nearly all popular feminist writers have this position and it matches the popular definitions of feminism (and I have linked to sources elsewhere showing this). I don't need to "talk to feminists", I am one and have been active in actions that can be legitimately called feminist (and those actions had plenty of men in them also). Quite simply, stop assuming authority and pronouncing on what feminism is. You wont find anything close to a majority of feminists agreeing with your description of us which, by definition, makes you wrong.

          1. Indolent Wretch

            Re: "Positive" decrimination and feminist conditioned men are oppressing men.

            It won't work.

            He's never looked.

            He probably never will look.

            He's never read a single thing actually written by a feminist that wasn't first misrepresented by another MRA posting in a board about "bitches and what we need to do to fix them".

  18. Daniel Johnson

    Probably a political campaign. It's hosted on the same server as a viral marketing comany called Rantic. Instead of pictures of the actress, visitors will probably be treated to a lecture about "the patriarchy" instead.

  19. Winkypop Silver badge
    Happy

    It's easy guys

    Just don't be a dick.

    1. MyffyW Silver badge

      Re: It's easy guys

      Well said @Winkypop

      Sometimes the simplest of phrases carry the greatest of meaning.

    2. Craigness

      Re: It's easy guys

      Feminism is easy: don't expect anything of women, make men a utility gender, ignore men's issues, use a sexually discriminatory term of abuse.

  20. Richard Scratcher

    Imagi Obscuro!

  21. smithy46

    Preserving modesty

    What I don't understand is why anyone would care about naked pictures of themselves being released. Sure a few people might get some jollies from them but other than that I don't really see what the harm is. I wasn't aware we still had such a backward culture that believes someone seeing you naked violates you in some way or shames you. It's your body. That's what it looks like it. Get over it.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: Preserving modesty

      Just because something doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it doesn't distress other people. And this is something that is shared by most of the human race. That you claim to be different to the majority of people (who would be distressed if private activity was shared and pawed over by the whole world), doesn't mean you should dismiss everyone else's feelings.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Preserving modesty

      I think that ANY release of photos that were not intended for public consumption is a violation, whether its clothed or not, makes no difference IMHO, it is the release itself that is the violation...

      The problem with modern society is that people hide their bodies.... if your from a society where people don't hide their bodies so much, then nude photos of celebs loose their shock appeal...

      Hell in the US of A there was a massive uproar over a nipple... in the UK we (i hope) would have just had a very big laugh...

      People might start saying 'think of the children' but if a child can't see a boobie without giggling then that is a bad sign...

      I have no problem with my children seeing nudity, I have more of a problem with them seeing too much violence.. and I have no worries about them seeing sexual content, my son sees a couple kiss on tv and he hides his eyes!

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Preserving modesty

      "I wasn't aware we still had such a backward culture that believes someone seeing you naked violates you in some way or shames you."

      It is interesting that any threat to blackmail someone with their naked pictures is actually using the weapon of our societies' attitudes. It is society who does the damage to the victim by making them feel it was wrong to ever want to see their own body from an independent perspective.

      Blackmail, or humiliation, only works if a society's mores encourage a particular censure of an individual.

      President Sukarno of Indonesia was set up by the KGB covertly filming him in a Russian hotel room with some women. He spiked their subsequent blackmail attempt by ordering several copies of the film for distribution in Indonesian cinemas. By Indonesian mores the images would show him as a man to be respected.

    4. This post has been deleted by its author

  22. Stretch

    This has been orchestrated by a sock puppeting advertising agency. Nothing to do with 4chan at all, just using their name.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Best thing to do with a photo leak threat is to release your own professional photos, much better than having crap selfie photos released...

    That is what I would do anyway... if anyone would want to see me naked that is...

  24. teebie

    Churnalism

    So there was never any evidence the site was set up in response to Emma watson's speech, and it turns out the site wasn't set up by the 4chan "community", but was part of a bizarre pro-censorship pseudo-feminist(*) campaign by Rantic. But The Register happily repeated their guff anyway.

    May I suggest hiring some less credulous writers?

    (*) If your feminist campaign's means are to lead people to believe that the result of giving a pro-feminist speech is a nude photo backlash then you aren't very good at promoting feminism.

    If your feminist campaign's means lead Emma Watson to believe that nude photos of her will be released as part of an agnry internet campaign of harassment then you don't seem to be particularly keen on treating women well.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Churnalism

      In what bizarre reality do you equate the clear wrong of publishing stolen intimate pictures of people without their consent with "pro-censorship"?

      1. teebie

        Re: Churnalism

        The emmayouarenext site redirects to a site calling for 4chan to be shut down, i.e. censored.

        I'll admit it is a pretty bizarre reality, but it's the reality we live in.

  25. Crisp Silver badge

    Why can't we all just get along?

    See title.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The problem with this story is that it turns out that the threats were fake created by a rather bizarre feminist pro censorship group.

    The second problem is a genral context and environment where it is taken as a 'fact' that women on the internet receive a disproportionate amount of abuse when the only study done on the subject is that the opposite is true with women treated better and abused less than men. http://demos.co.uk/press_releases/demosmalecelebritiesreceivemoreabuseontwitterthanwomen

    Along similar lines the story of threats against Anita Sarkeesian is looking shaky to say the least.

    It matters when journalists propgate false and misleading views of the world because actions are taken based on false information real problems are ignored or solutions implemented that do not address the nature of the problem. Stories that confirm our assumptions and prejudices need just as much checking, perhaps more than those that do not.

  27. John Deeb

    rotten tomatoes

    Emma: "Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. .... start defining ourselves by what we are — we can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It's about freedom."

    But this implies they also should be free, men and women, to be very insensitive and defining themselves as a troll, by haunting celebrities on soapboxes? Her rhetoric goes nowhere. Since the dawn of time the person on the stage has been subject to praise and rotten tomatoes in all shapes and forms. The whole world wide web is a stage nowadays and we are merely surfers, icons, avatars and tweets. This whole thing seems up-side-down logic: the limelight is so harsh, please dim the audience!? Keanu Reeves has more right to complain with the female stalkers in his house lately.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    www.emmayouarenext.com currently goes to a page saying "shut down 4chan"

    The page was created by some organisation called rantic, which pretended to be 4chan trolls. They seem to want 4chan to be closed.

    All very strange and very pointless.

  29. Connor

    Men!

    Why is it always men in the firing line? Of the people that I know that looked at the pictures, at least half were women. When the Tulisa sex tape came out, it was only women that had seen it from amongst my peers, they were all laughing and joking about it. I don't like this attitude; it is women taking the photos (or posing for them), storing the photos on their phones, insouciantly storing them on various online services and yet it is the purely the fault of men for viewing them. Apparently men need re-education for having the desiring to view pictures of women, however the women drooling over half naked pictures of Alexandar Skarsgaard and demanding more are merely exhibiting a natural inclination and need no re-education.

  30. AsherGoldbergstein

    Do your research before parroting what every other site is reporting Ian, it only makes the site look bad. Your job is to report the news, not produce an opinion piece of you foaming at the mouth.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    so..

    how much does this manufactured fake attack do for generating sympathy and/or support for Ms. Watson and her causes?

    Methinks "marketing" in this case turned out to be very beneficial. It adds to credibility have some howling around when you're elling about wolves. And the sympathy of "poor girl under attack" makes deflection of criticism even easier.

  32. masculinitybelongstomen

    Mature masculinity belongs to men. Masculine women who reject femininity are immature.

    Feminism: cowards unable to fight their own battles, so obviously misguided in nature.

    Using their sex appeal to persuade the masses, selling it online to promote their name, playing the victim to fulfill the agenda.

    Lets continue to piss of the rest of the world and promote world war 3 all in the name of... women's rights?

    Sounds like a good agenda, get every man on earth to want to die for your cause, be left with 20% of a male population... EXACTLY WHAT feminism and feminists keeps saying they WANT PUBLICLY.

    How stupid are people? pretty freaking stupid. Baaaaad sheople. Baaaaad.

    1. Mooseman Bronze badge

      Re: Mature masculinity belongs to men. Masculine women who reject femininity are immature.

      Uh....feminists are openly campaigning for an 80% cull of the male population and are demanding WW3 to achieve this ?

      Whatever you are on...can I have some?

      I'm frankly astonished at the caveman attitudes displayed in this thread - feminism is about equality of treatment of both men and women, for example equal pay for doing the same job no matter if it's working in IT or engineering.

      I'm not in favour of positive discrimination or "quotas", I don't believe they do anyone any favours, but I am in favour of an equal opportunity for both sexes to do the job in question, whatever it may be.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Emma Watson nude photos? why take them if they are so embarressing

    There seems to be a thing at the moment with people taking photographs of themselves that they are embaressed about, so why do they take them?. I personally have never felt the need, nor can understand why anyone would but then again I would not like to be in TV or any other form of publicity

    From what I have seen of the various industries that make millions from pandering to the "public need to know" then the cost would be far to high. That so many "stars" have commit suicide or need to abuse drugs suggests that the environment in which they "work" is bad for you, unless of course you were already sick to begin with.

    So when one of these "stars" says anything then I am going to apply a fairly large mountain of salt, it doesnt matter if they are even close to the truth because the source is IMHO tainted and is alien to me.

    As to Miss Watson, I had to endure the Harry Potter films due to my children having read the books and it was very clear from first glance that this actor is tainted. The way she moves and her facial expressions speak of her inner hatred, you could already see the too often expressed snarl being etched into her face and this was in the very first film when she was school age. If she took embaressing photographs of herself are we suprised or even care? I don't, she is after all just being herself, if anyone is surpised by her actions then they really are immature.

    In the western world here has been an over swing on the sexual bias scales, it doesnt matter because the scales will never be balanced. As ever the same people who will use anything to gain power and publicity are trying to push it further but don't worry the harder they push the further it swings back on the next cycle.

    Nothing new or unexpect here

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019