"The more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop."
I think this demand of hers (that this view of feminism has to stop) is hollow and infantile, and I will explain why I think this using an analogous situation.
I'm an atheist, and I have been involved in atheist groups. Often times, one of the goals of atheist groups is to change peoples' negative opinion of atheists. Now, if I were concerned that the general public associated "atheism" with being mean and hateful, and I wanted that to change, I wouldn't get up on my soapbox and simply declare to the public, "You people need to stop viewing atheists as mean and hateful: that's not what atheism is about". The reason I wouldn't do this is because there are indeed atheists who are mean and hateful, so it's understandable that these atheists soil the name for the general public.
To counteract this view of atheists, I would (and have) organized an atheist charity event, or I'd host a polite inter-faith discussion to demonstrate that these topics can be calmly explored, or I'd just do what Hemant Mehta does and be "The Friendly Atheist", but I wouldn't just declare that everyone else needs to adjust their views: I would prove them wrong. In other words, I would show, not tell.
This is why I think Emma Watson's statement is hollow and infantile: it's a stand-alone demand that everyone else should stop thinking a certain way, rather than any kind of proof that their way of thinking is wrong. If Emma Watson wants to dissociate "feminism" from "man-hating", then she should do more than simply pay lip service to men's issues: she should actively advocate for battered men's shelters in the name of gender equality (I forget if Canada has one or zero men's shelters at this time), or she should join the fight for any number of legal provisions that would help men (legal paternal surrender, a gender-neutral "Violence Against Women Act", anti-circumcision laws, etc.), but she doesn't do these things. As such, she doesn't give us any reason to dissociate "feminism" from "man-hating", nor from "man-apathy". All she does is reinforce the view that feminists' brand of "equality" doesn't include men.
Indeed, even "The HeForShe Commitment" which Watson promotes follows the same suit: it claims that men's issues are also part of gender equality, but the commitment itself only addresses women and girls. Like Watson, the HeForShe commitment says one thing, but does another.
If Emma Watson were truly concerned for both men and women's issues, then her commitment to "a human rights issue" would say this instead:
No comments:
Post a Comment