So-called “game-changers” rarely change the game.
On September 20, actress-turned-advocate Emma Watson gave a speech about feminism at the United Nations. Having recently been named a United Nations Women's Goodwill Ambassador, Watson gave a speech introducing “HeForShe,” a UN campaign intending to call on men to advocate for gender equality.
The internet exploded. Online writers called the speech a “game-changer” and “an epic win for feminism.” Watson was said to have “given feminism new life.”
I’m sympathetic with Watson’s intentions, but I have serious misgivings.
First, I wonder about the reasons Watson may have been chosen for this job. One of the most poignant parts of her speech was her talking about being sexualized by the media at a very young age. That said, given the goals of HeForShe (to attract men to feminism), I feel that her huge male fan base and position as a sort of sex object was instrumental in her being chosen for this role, over someone potentially more qualified. This is not to suggest, of course, that Watson is not qualified above and beyond her sexuality—frankly, her sexuality shouldn’t be a factor. However, it does seem that her conventional (white) beauty and sexual desirability are part of the strategy. That’s ironic.
Second, I resent the implication that feminism has made men feel unwelcome by not addressing their interests, or that we need Emma Watson to “invite” men to be feminists. I worry about framing men’s participation in feminism as self-serving, e.g., it will free men from their gender roles, they can protect their mothers/sisters/daughters. Of course, we all stand to benefit from gender equality, but I question whether self-interest should be anyone’s foremost reason for identifying as a feminist.
And, third, I am uncomfortable with the very definition of feminism that Watson is using. While I love the idea of inspiring people around the world to think about these issues and ask tough questions, I worry that something is lost in oversimplification.
A close friend of mine once told me that he resists using the word “feminist” because “if feminism just refers to supporting gender equality, then of course I’m a feminist, but I don’t like to use that title because shouldn’t everyone be a feminist? It’s almost like asking, ‘Are you a feminist or not?’ makes it socially acceptable to not support basic human rights.”
At the time, I didn’t really have a good response for him, and I’m still not sure that I do.
Most people I associate with would agree that the sexes should be equal. If feminism were simply an ideology, we would stop there. You believe the sexes should be equal? Good, you’re a feminist! Welcome to the club.
But feminism is more than a belief system. It’s a movement. If we want to bring about widespread social change, our definition of feminism isn’t sufficient. Feminism requires asking questions, making behavior changes and engaging in the community. It is not an easy identity.
Instead of simply asking, “Do you believe in the equality of men and women?” we must follow that question with, “Great, so what are you doing about it?”
In this way, feminism is reframed not just as an ideology, but a social movement. Looked at this way, the definition of feminism provided by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in her TED talk “We Should All Be Feminists,” sampled in Beyoncé’s song “Flawless,” is insufficient. Adichie uses this definition—“feminist: A person who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.” If feminism were simply a belief system, it would be sufficient to stop there.
But we’re never going to change the world with our beliefs—we change the world with our actions. Accordingly I propose that we reframe this definition—“feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes, and actively tries to make that equality a reality.”
In saying this, I’m not trying to suggest that feminism must be some sort of exclusive club. All are welcome to ask these questions. But I also feel that feminism must be a claimed identity. Labeling people as “inadvertent feminists,” as Watson suggested we do, isn’t productive.
It’s all very well and good if every single person in the world—male and female—identifies as feminist, but it’s meaningless if we still can’t bring about widespread systemic change. I’m still waiting for plans or evidence that suggest that HeForShe will make those changes. Of course, public approval, of the sort I assume HeForShe is attempting to generate, is important for achieving this, but it’s just one piece of the puzzle. I see a lot of value in what Emma Watson and HeForShe are trying to do, but I think it’s important to think carefully before embracing this as any sort of “game-changer.”
Katie Becker is a Trinity sophomore. Her column runs every other Thursday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.