Is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex really a feminist?

[polkadotdalmation]

I'm asking here because this is the feminist section and it's nothing to do with her title or husbands royalty.
She accepted a feminism award from a feminist icon (Gloria steinberg) for her feminist work.

I'm not interested in her stand against racism or any of her other projects, and don't want to muddy the waters with these questions.

So is she a feminist icon?

Opposite of “policing”. Policing absolutely implies there is a right way to look. Unfortunately this seems to mean young and attractive.

We should be creating an environment where women feel worthwhile regardless of shape, size or looks.

Yes, in an ideal world @Marchintospring but if Meghan or Kate "let themselves go", so to speak, the media would be relentless. Remember the Duchess of Pork jibes that poor Fergie got? I think you'd have to be very very strong to stand up against that.

I doubt it! OP doesn't seem to do much except constantly snipe about Harry and Meghan. I do wonder about people like that and am reminded of that sad story about the woman whose obsession with the McCanns ended up destroying her.

Yes and feminism is aiming for an ideal world.
In my lifetime we have gone from women being able to go topless to get a tan to it being unacceptable and sexual. From women having pubic hair to zero hair being shown as the norm on a TV show. The sexualisation of woman's bodies is getting worse not better.

Cheers for the heads up @BeckyWithTheAverageHair.

Given that every woman had hairy legs why do you NEVER see a woman with hairy legs?

For me, all my leg hair dropped out after menopause. Hurrah!

She is doing her best to be feminist in a patriarchal society, like the rest of us. We all sometimes get it wrong because we are all influenced by the world around us. I think she is probably trying her best to be a good person

What I tried to say only better

yes absolutely this! I consider myself a feminist but I am not here as an example of a perfect feminist woman and neither is she!

No. She married into an archaic and sexist institution whereby she’d have been happy to follow a man about for her entire life.

Erm except she did the exact opposite and he followed her

Yes, out of the archaic institution and the country!

Having said that, she didn't make him, he was just ready to go, and it happened.

I agree with your post Marchintospring, about the sexualisation of womens bodies.

I was only a child during the height of the second wave feminism but god I loved those womens libbers who were loud and fierce about everything, including the rights over their own bodies. I’ve romanticised it I know, but in an era of backlash against just about any social progress made by women thats not hard to do.

Amen to that.

She has two young children.

She could live anywhere in the world, but lives in a place where both her children are legally able to marry.

She has a huge platform and if I was in her position I'd be trying to change those rules / law.

She could live anywhere in the world, but lives in a place where both her children are legally able to marry.

What does this mean?
And why are you worried about (currently still) children getting married?
That’s not what feminism is about.
It’s about dissolving the idea and expectations that people have to get married.

^That’s not what feminism is about.
It’s about dissolving the idea and expectations that people have to get married.^

That's not a definition I've read before. Standard definition is the equality of the sexes, nothing about dissolving marriage.

I'm concerned about child marriage everywhere. We all should be.

When I said her children could legally marry I mean now, today. There is no minimum age for marriage in California.

If feminists are not concerned by child marriage they should be.

Ah, okey.
I’m of the ’fuck the patriarchy’ feminist.
😂

@sashh
I didn’t realise you were talking about literal child marriage.

This is what I found re marriage & consent in California.

State laws regulating age limits for marriage are generally similar, although California is one of just a few states lacking a minimum age for marriage. However, minors (under the age of 18) must obtain both parental consent and a court order before they may legally tie the knot. Although couples seldom get married before they reach the age of majority, it is made available primarily to allow pregnant minors to marry.

In addition to obtaining parental consent in order to get married, anyone who is under 18 must also see a pre-marriage counselor, appear before a judge, produce copies of your birth certificate, and even have a parent accompany you when you apply for your marriage license. Requirements for parental consent (and the presence of a parent when obtaining a license) may be waived if the parent has abandoned the family, is out of the country, or no longer living.

From findlaw.com

And?

Parents who have their child's best interests in mind are not going to give permission but some parents are abusers.

Even parents who do want the best for their child might think marriage is a good idea, maybe they are religious and pregnancy means a shotgun wedding even if that is to an abuser / rapist?

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/05/09/bill-asks-how-many-children-marry-in-california/

If this was happening where you lived would you be happy about it? Wouldn't you campaign to stop it? Or at the very least raise awareness?

yes you are absolutely right about needing an a legal age for marriage, but it’s not exactly free of restrictions. Which is what I meant to point out but forgot to add accompanying text. Anyone under 18 has to go before a judge apparently. And see a pre- marriage counsellor. I agree the parental consent is no guarantee of good.

I will watch the video.

I might have campaigned for a legal age if I lived there. I campaigned for the prevention of locking up children in prison from a young age. And the release of refugees from offshore detention. Now I simply write letter to Ministers of Parliament, sign petitions and donate, as I’m physically disabled and no longer able to be as active physically.

But I’m not going to dictate that Meghan Markle should choose this to campaign about. She is involved with various charities, I’ve read. But dictating to another woman what charities or campaigns she should involve herself in is not, imo, a feminist action.

No one is dictating anything. By accepting the award she is saying she’s a feminist. We are discussing g if that’s valid. Bit like Beckham supporting gay rights and then taking hospitality from Qatar where being gay is punishable by death.