I often find myself in heated debates with friends, both male and female, surrounding the issue of feminism. Confusion, doubt and anger surround this one word, yet many fail to look past the word to observe the real world issues we are facing. Emma Watson delivered a speech to the U.N. which many are claiming brings a fresh new perspective to the concept of feminism.
I think many people see Watson’s views on feminism are groundbreaking to the fact that she mentions inequalities for both genders. However, isn’t this what feminism has always been about? As defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, feminism is “the theory of political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” This simple definition sounds quite similar to the in-depth arguments Watson explains in her speech.
Although my peers and older living generations distort the word “feminist” into an evil concept which empowers women to assert power over a submissive class of men, “feminist” simply means an advocate for the equality of both sexes. Watson formally invites the males of the world to join in this campaign, which is quite kind of her, yet in my opinion completely unnecessary. Was there a formal invitation given to white people to join in on the issue of civil rights? Did I miss my invitation to advocate or care about gay marriage? Why should half of the world’s population believe they need to be formally invited to educate themselves about an issue that involves every person in our social structure?
I believe the reason many focus on female inequality when speaking about feminism is because discussions surround the issues women are faced with, as opposed to those faced by males. There is simply more concrete evidence of inequality toward women than there is for male inequality. Watson hit the surface in her speech about the social hardships experienced by men. The work of a father does not hold the same value as the work of a mother in child-rearing. Males struggle to openly express emotions without facing ridicule. These social hardships must be addressed and changed, and I think it is incredible that Watson mentions them.
Issues facing women effect men. We’ve made great strides in efforts to decrease the gender pay gap, but until it is closed entirely I don’t think we should assume the job is done. Additionally, there is a huge inequity between the wages of women with children and women without. This economic disadvantage of women with children is what Ann Crittenden calls “the Mommy Tax” and is prevalent in the working world today.
The implications of the Mommy Tax are visible in our day to day lives. A professor once told me that when she was searching for jobs she made sure not to mention she had children, whereas her husband with the same qualifications and applying for the same job positions would always mention their children. Males are still seen as providers for a family and therefore having children would make her husband more eligible for a job; yet, women are still viewed as primary caregivers. Under this view, my professor would have less time to devote to her job if she had kids. Women are expected to work just as much as their male partners outside of the home, but they are still expected to work more inside the home. This inequality affects men and women alike. Both men and women should be able to work as much as they choose inside and outside the home without societal influences or pressures.
I agree with Watson when she stated: “I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me.” I am a feminist because I don’t think my gender should change my career opportunities, nor how I am permitted to express my emotions. I hope that Watson’s HeForShe campaign takes off and helps put an end to the social and economic inequalities facing men and women today.