James Doogue

Sky News commentator Daisy Cousens had some choice words to say a​bo​ut Meghan Markle's (it's all about her), interview with Serena Williams. Daisy said something I have thought for a long time. Most of us didn't even know or care who Meghan Markle was until she hooked up with Prince Harry.

Daisy points out Meghan’s worldwide fame is largely due to her marrying Prince Harry. Considering she speaks so highly of ambition in women, it’s extraordinary Meghan is apparently so willing to remind the world she got where she is by marrying up.​ https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/meghan-markles-grating-brand-of-girl-boss-feminism-is-tone-deaf-to-the-struggles-of-ordinary-women/news-story/799ce1d6aab19f81496ce71616af57bc

Markle likes to think of herself as a progressive feminist breaking glass ceilings. But there is nothing less progressive than achieving all your status and position simply by marrying into aristocracy. What has Markle achieved by herself except to create the same relationship for Harry, that she had with most of her family.

Every form of feminism considers the world primarily in terms of power structures, and the goal is always to subvert the patriarchy as the movement interprets it. Yet Markle is supporting the patriarchy by, as she does, insisting that people refer to her by the title she only has by dint of her marriage to Harry. You go girl! You married a famous, wealthy, rich guy! That's definitely smashing the patriarchy.

Markle proves that many women, despite their beliefs about gender and class equality, still want to be princesses. The notion of being saved from harsh reality by an exorbitantly wealthy man, and sheltered in a private estate or castle, while being admired for very traditional characteristics such as beauty, grace and elegance is clearly still intoxicating to many. These women dream of marriage as a ticket out of the ordinary lives. Given Markle was only ever an average actor with average looks by Hollywood standards, the casting couch would only get her so far.

What Markle did seems incompatible with any respectable form of feminism. Yes, the wedding was lovely, but it was not a triumph for equality. To marry into an ivory tower yet claim to represent equality is madness. To make such a marriage is to demonstrate and condone inequality in the most public and fundamental ​sense​.
​
S​u​r​ely Markle herself doesn't really think she's achieving anything to be admired by other women?

Tim adds:

She's much like Hillary Clinton, who married a man who would take her places and give her power. Markle would be unknown to the world by and large were it not for her marriage, and she consoles herself that she actually matters by playing the brave feminist, but in the end she hides behind her femininity. That is true of most feminists.

It was true of Hillary Clinton who often pretended to be the poor little girl, "don't yell at me!" after proclaiming herself tough as any man. When she ran for the U.S. Senate in New York she complained that her opponent stood at one point towering over her "in a threatening manner". Poor little defenseless girl! Meghan Markle has the same characteristics

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:49 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 4 kb.