junior history major
Emma Watson recently gave a speech to the United Nations regarding the need for feminism. She claimed that “gender equality is your issue, too,” referring to men. Her speech was remarkable in that she acknowledged men’s issues (unlike many feminists), specifically mentioning, for example, how society (at least in Britain) failed to value her father’s role in the family as much as her mother’s, or how men suffer higher suicide rates in her native country.
She defended her ideology of gender equality and claimed that the image of feminists as “man-haters” must be abolished. Needless to say, Watson received unanimous applause from the audience at the end of her speech.
While her reference to the injustices men face is commendable, Watson only mentioned the issues vaguely without even scratching the surface. As opposed to pointing out how feminist policies and gender roles (discussed below) have been detrimental to men’s well-being, she jumped to the defensive by boasting that feminism is “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.”
Let’s be clear about something, Ms. Watson: Anyone can quote the dictionary definition of a movement, but the actual practices of the movement can differ from the definition.
You referenced that men are more likely to commit suicide than women, but where is your critique of feminism’s outright refusal to help men in general? You have no right to complain of being called a man-hater when the movement you wish to represent has a track record of undermining men as a whole.
You claim that your solidarity movement is “for gender equality that brings together one-half of humanity in support of the other half of humanity, for the benefit of all.” May I ask why it cannot be about the two halves supporting each other?
To further illustrate my objections, let us consider the following: Men can be financially devastated by child support; men are victims of domestic violence as well; and men are still expected to be the breadwinners in an allegedly egalitarian society. These are the very tip of the iceberg of men’s issues, with many more that I won’t cover here.
Nowhere in her speech does Watson provide an actual solution or plan to help alleviate these problems, other than “recruiting” men to fight for her view of gender equality. Men need a movement that offers actual solutions to their problems, such as abolishing rape shield laws, raising awareness of male rape, finding a way to undo injustices in the family court system, putting an end to toxic masculinity and providing relief to male victims of human trafficking and domestic violence. The need for a movement is mostly met by men’s rights activists, but they hardly have the same influence as the feminists.
In an ideal situation, we would have a third option, a movement that focuses on both genders and acknowledges that gender roles, not men or women, are the problem.
I wonder, however, if such a thing will happen as long as Watson and her fellow feminists continue to focus on one gender while paying lip service to the needs of the other from time to time.
To conclude, I’d like to say that it’s refreshing for a feminist celebrity to admit that men’s issues exist, but it is frustrating when the issues are only scratched at. A YouTuber by the name of MensBusinessAsocEduc and TIME magazine’s Cathy Young provide a great response to Watson’s speech for those of you who are interested.
Gonzalo Molinolo is a junior history major. He can be reached at gmolinolodbk@gmail.com.
