OPINION
October 24.2014
Emma Watson's UN speech effective,
BY CLARE
FORRISTER
Staff Writer
Emma Watson, though armed with high
aspirations and good intentions, fell short in
her speech on gender equality for the United
Nations.
"She missed some marks," said Zana Hicks,
junior and president of
Feminism Redefined and
Allied in Multicultural
Equality. "But now we
can teU her, 'Hey, you
missed some marl«.' It's
all about learning. Once
you're conscious of (what
is problematic), then you
can learn and grow and
become a better activist."
Watson's recent speech
at the U.N. headquarters
in New York laimdied the
HeForShe campaign.
Watson serves as the U.N. Women
Goodwill Ambassador for the organization.
U.N. Women and the campaign are the latest
effort to recruit men and boys for the cause of
gender equality.
In her speech, Watson spoke about the
importance of feminism, describing both her
ovm experience and that of others. She then
extended a formal invitation for men to join
the cause.
"How can we effect change in the world
when only half of it is invited or feel welcome
to participate in the conversation?" said
Watson.
That was when the trouble began.
Watson made it sound as though the
unnerving lack of men committing to the
movement was caused by feminists acting
welcoming. The problem was not that men
were not interested. It was the women's fault
they were not acting on their interest.
- Clearly, many feminists found issue with
this.
Watson also said men should be involved
because of gender inequality's hindrances to
men.
Sexism does hxirt men, but feminists should
not focus on men's problems more than those
of women.
"Appealing to men's need for feminism
undermines serious issues that women face,
but it is also not a point worth refuting," said
senior Noelle Lane in an email interview.
"Men need to be a part of feminism.
Diminishing anyone's importance in a social
U.N. Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson delivered a speech at the U.N. on Sept. 20,2014, as part of an event for the HeForShe campaign.
movement leads to paralysis and inaction."
Through her emphasis of sexism's negative
impacts on men, Watson avoided diminishing
men's importance, but inadvertently
diminished women's.
In a movement that seeks to highlight and
dismantle the systems that make women feel
worthless on a daily basis, the focus should
not be on men.
However, Watson's words may have been
effective in getting people who disregard
feminism to begin to understand the basic
reasons to fight for gender equality.
"I think it was a very astute decision to
not blame men," said Professor and Chair
of the Theatre Studies Department David
Hammond, "but instead to say, 'This is a
really bad circumstance for men. You ought
to support a change because you will be a
better man.'
(However), I think she did say, 'You're not
to blame because you have power, but it's
wrong that you do.'
I think that's the first step."
While Watson could have gone further,
perhaps her approach was wise.
She went easy on men despite their
privilege as the dominant gender because
then, men listened to her. In the same
diplomatic spirit, she told people that if they
do not like feminism, they can simply not use
the word.
"It is not the word that is important," said
Watson. "IT s the idea and the ambition behind
it, because not all women have received the
same rights I have. In fact, statistically, very
few have."
The fact that women have far fewer rights
than men is the basis for what many feminists
believe. It leads to more controversial or
complex ideas, such as intersectionalism, the
collaboration between different movemente
for social justice.
Watson avoided such topics in her speech,
sticking to setting people straight about
feminism.
"The definition of feminism has gotten out
of control," said first-year Liam Ehilin. "It's
associated with man-hating when it's just
meant to be equal rights. It's become a word
thaTs hated when it shouldn't be."
Though Watson's speech was not as
incendiary and game-changing as feminists
might have hoped for, people should
admowledge the ways Watson advanced the
cause while challenging herself to be more
progressive.
As it was, the speech was progressive
enough to scare those who hate feminism.
The hacking group SodalVevo reacted to the
speech with a hoax, threatening to release
nude photos of Watson.
This desperate and cruel attempt to control
the spread of Watson's message only proves
her point that sexism remains rampant and
will only subside when people work to
eliminate it.
The video of Watson's speech had millions
of views, and her visibility is better than ever.
Now she has people's attention and is in the
perfect position to go a few steps further
on her next platform, whether it's the U.N.
podium, an interview, or Twitter.
The issue has been broached, and it is
again the time for Watson, and anyone else
who cares about gender equality, to ask the
question Watson posed for those gathered at
the U.N.: "If not now, when? If not me, who?"
Guilford should implement St* Mar/ s plan to fix wage gap
BY NICOLE
ZELNIKER
Senior Writer
Equality. Community. Integrity. Those are just some of the
Quaker vdues that Guilford lives by. Given those values, how
could we still have a gender wage gap?
This isn't purely a Guilford issue. Today, for every dollar a
man makes in the U.S., a woman makes 81 cents.
At Guilford, the problem persists
despite the administration making gender
equality a priority.
"ITs not because we haven't tried," said
Professor of History and \^ce President
for Academic Affairs and Academic Dean
Adrierme Israel. "I made gender equity my
priority as far as salaries were concerned."
At St. Mary's College in Maryland, the
hope is that a new plan can dose that gap,
a plan that Guilford should implement.
"We propose to institute a benchmark
salary for the lowest paid ... employees to
be set at $29,976," says the proposal. "Other
salaries would be subject to minimum and
maximum pay levels."
This way, the college can ensure equal payment for all
genders.
"Nobody wins unless everybody wins," said Professor and
Chair of the English Department at St Mary's Ben Click on the
St. Mary s Wages website. "ThaTs the St Mary's way, and this
propos^ embodies it"
As a college that values equality for all, one would be
shocked to find the proposal ill received at Guilford, but that
seems to be the case.
"They're going to have a riot on their hands if they (cut
pay)," said Ass^ate Professor of Accounting Garland
Granger. "Nobody can afford a cut in pay."
It hasn't always been this way.
"When I was hired by the college in 2007, the average
salary of women faculty was a little higher than the average
salary for male faculty," said Chair and Professor of Justice &
Policy Studies Sherry Giles. "The college had worked hard to
accomplish that. (Now,) the average salary for women faculty
currently is lower than the average salary for men. I don't know
how this change came about, but it is troubling."
Unless those making the most money agree, it is unlikely
that we will be able to implement St. Mar^s plan.
"The administration would not do that without bringing
it to the faculty for consensus," said Associate Professor of
Philosophy Lisa McLeod. "I don't think the higher-paid faculty
would consent to that."
But with the consensus process comes conversation.
"Once you reach people interpersonally, they can (change),"
said senior and community and justice studies major Noelle
Lane. "ITs important to sit down with individuals on a personal
level."
We also need to look at what each staff member does
individually.
"Just cutting men's pay and increasing women's (isn't
realistic)," said senior and women, gender and sexuality studies
major Hali Khols. "If we looked at everybody's resumes and
the responses they were getting m evaluations, we would
be able to discern a fab* way of pa)nnent."
Getting Guilfordians — whether students, faculty
or staff—involved is the first step.
"(We need to) make people aware that the gap
exists here," said Lane. "Everybody thinks that iTs
somewhere else. It needs to be addressed."
Through this, we could eliminate the
denial that permeates the administration.
"A lot of the adniirdstrators have been
dear that they are not choosing to pay
women less than men, but there are a
number of institutional factors that (are
pushing) us in that direction," said
McLeod.
In order to do this, we need to work
on one thing Guilford has struggled
with in the past.
"It would take a lot of transparency,"
said Khols. "With (that), I would hope
that we can reach a consensus."
There is also more that the
administration can do to prevent decreasing
men's salaries too much.
"The college can set aside funds to draw
on to increase the salaries of women whose
compensation level is below the average
for employees in the relevant category of
employment" said Giles.
At St Mary's the plan is already in motion
without any problems. Why would Guilford
have any?
"Senior administrators from other schools
will imdoubtedly ask our (administration) why they would
accept salaries below those of our peer institutions," said St
Mary's Assodate Professor of Mathematics Sandy Ganzell on
the St Mary's Wage Gap Website. 'T look forward to hearing
their answer 'Because iTs the St Mary's Way.'"
Like St Mary's, Guilford daims to value community above
salary. ITs time we put our talk into action and fix our gender
wage gap.
'Trying things out to overcome systems of oppression is
important," said Chair and Visiting Assistant Professor of
Peace & Conflict Studies Jeremy Rinker. "Whether or not it
would work at Guilford is unknown, but iTs something we
should certainly try."
The green shading
represents the
percentage of a dollar
earned per week for
men vs. women
(Source: U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2012)
o