Dissenting voices still reduce her to her reproductive organs
Hilary Mantel’s latest speech has raised a few eyebrows in the UK, mainly in response to her stinging comments on Kate Middleton. Mantel, an award-winning English writer, recently defended her speech by claiming that it is critical of the media’s objectification of the royal body. In other words, it is a feminist critique of the perceived value of a royal woman as a breeding ground for future royal heirs.
When I read her speech, I wasn’t appalled by her allegedly harsh remarks on Kate. Instead, I was taken aback by her overgeneralization of Kate’s lack of volition and the modern female gender role. I found her speech to be a grim indication of how we perpetuate rather than reduce gender stereotypes.
Mantel’s speech is infused with grating phrases like, “I saw Kate becoming a jointed doll on which certain rags are hung,” “a shopwindow mannequin, with no personality of her own,” and “designed by a committee and built by a craftsman.” While she may be condemning Kate’s public image as projected by the media, she also treats Kate as a nonhuman being, a marionette with zero ability to exercise her own will. Apparently, Kate’s much celebrated fashion style is not even her own invention, but that of the royal establishment.
Mantel goes on to suggest that Kate has been “chosen” for her role as a princess, completely disregarding that Kate and William chose to marry each other after several years of dating. Her feminist argument falls short because she presumes Kate to be a helpless woman who is incapable of asserting her agency even when it comes to styling her own outfits. This presumption bespeaks an oversimplified feminist ideology: women are always oppressed, so there is no way that Kate could have even chosen her blouse on her own.
Many argue that this is the crux of the issue with Kate: all she does is attend a few royal engagements, bedecked in designer outfits that every woman around the world immediately covets. But is Mantel really upset by Kate’s lack of identity outside of her fashion style (which, remember, is not even hers) or does her identity simply not fit what our society considers ideal?
The real issue is that Kate is not a career woman. Her role as a royal housewife and a mother-to-be conflicts with the modern conception of the female gender role, which values an independent, career-focused woman who can admirably balance both her work and home life.
One of Mantel’s statements, “the press will find . . . [Kate’s] only point and purpose being to give birth,” rightfully condemns the media’s reduction of Kate to a mere reproductive organ. Yet it also suggests that to only be a mother somehow belittles a woman’s identity
— that is to say, motherhood alone cannot satisfy the present model of an ideal woman.
Obviously, Mantel is not the only one thinking in faulty stereotypes. For many of us, it is often a matter of great surprise and embarrassment that housewives still exist. However, the role of a housewife or a mother is not necessarily antithetical to female empowerment.
The choice to be a housewife is an assertion of the many rights (i.e. self-determination) that feminists have fought for so long for.
Nowadays, women have countless lifestyle choices at their disposal. Our society’s model of an ideal woman, as indicated in Mantel’s speech, is therefore completely at odds with the present reality, which requires that we challenge current gender stereotypes rather than simply replace traditional ones with more modern constructs of who a woman should be.
Besides, establishing notions of womanhood is entirely against the spirit of what feminism is about. It’s about time that we embrace the true meaning of female empowerment and stop dictating how women should live their lives.
