Debatte um UN-Auftritt tobt weiter: "Emma Watson und die Kammer feministischer Rätsel"
In der Debatte um Emma Watsons Auftritt vor den Vereinten Nationen gibt es immer noch neue Wortmeldungen. Ich will nicht länger ejder von ihnen einen eigenen Genderama-Beitrag widmen, sondern einige davon zusammenfassen.
Im "Federalist" zeigt sich Heather Wilhelm befremdet darüber, wie Watson in ihrer Rede Trivialitäten mit Greueltaten vermengt:
I mean, who likes violence or discrimination against women? But wait: a bunch of UN members apparently do. Iran seems to like it, as a nation that regularly stones rape victims. Sudan regularly enforces the practices of child marriage and ritual female genital mutilation. China’s official state policies encourage countless sex-selective, anti-female abortions every year. I could go on and on. The plight of many women worldwide is really quite unbelievable and sad, and it makes me feel lucky to be an American.
(...) Here is what Emma Watson, Hollywood actress, actually complained about before a body of 192 member states, some which have more terrifying dictatorships than others: 1. She was called "bossy" as a child; 2. She was sexualized by the media as a young movie star; 3. Many of her girlfriends quit their sports teams because they didn’t want to grow muscles; 4. Many of her teenage male friends, being teenage males, were unable to express their feelings. Remember how Beyonce had that "FEMINIST" sign behind her at the MTV Video Music Awards? At times, I’m sorry to say, Watson kind of needed a giant "FIRST-WORLD PROBLEMS" sign behind her at this UN speech.
Für die News-Website zerlegt John Hayward Emma Watsons Rhetorik. Sie habe zwar die Frage gestellt, warum das Wort "Feminismus" einen so negativen Beiklang erhalten habe, diese Frage in ihrer Rede aber nie beantwortet:
She went through a litany of equality goals that she thought feminism should be associated with, but she didn’t offer any theories as to why many women – some of them quite prominent, and outspoken in their support for equality between the sexes – reject the label of "feminist." She didn’t offer an explanation for why "fighting for women’s rights" would become "synonymous with man-hating." That’s the worst cliffhanger since "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I," Emma!
Some coverage of the speech assumed Watson was firing a shot across the bow of hard-core power feminists and extremists, warning them away from rhetoric that could be interpreted as "man-hating." The stated goal of the initiative she represents is to bring men around the world on board with the quest for women’s equality. Denouncing rhetoric that would be off-putting to men, and refocusing feminism on the simple goals most people of both sexes support, would seem like smart strategy. This impression is reinforced by Watson’s obvious appeal to young men – they picked her because they’re trying to bring guys on board and prove this isn’t all about misanthropic fire-breathing feminism, right?
But in the context of her full speech, I think she’s saying something very nearly the opposite. She seems to believe those who dismiss feminism as man-hating are WRONG, so self-evidently wrong that she doesn’t bother conjuring up any good reasons they might feel that way.
Wir haben also nun die Situation, dass selbst englische Muttersprachler, die Emma Watsons komplette Rede analysiert haben, sich unsicher sind, ob sie mit ihrer Äußerung, Feminismus stehe inzwischen für Männerhass, den Feminismus oder dessen Wahrnehmung kritisiert habe. Einer meiner Leser fragte, um diesen Punkt zu erklären, den feminismuskritischen Blogger "Fidelbogen" nach seiner Meinung. Dessen Einschätzung nach hat Watson bewusst eine zweideutige Formulierung gewählt:
She is using double talk. She means that feminism needs to clean up its public image, and not appear so man-hating. So, the man-hating core of feminism must be more effectively hidden.