The Spice Girls, the queens of 2000s pop culture, have come forward in support of Prime Minister Theresa May as a woman in power, calling on other women to back her for ‘doing the best she can.’ So, what does this mean for unity among the genders?
Unless a woman is rigorously pursuing attempts at furthering gender equality within her country, the sticker of ‘Girl power’ should remain neutral to her. Yes, women do need to be empowered and encouraged to enter politics, and such achievements should be celebrated, as seen in the success in the U.S. midterm elections in terms of diversity, but just because you’re a woman doesn’t mean you’re a feminist. The truth is, to be a woman in power, feminism is not a requirement. Of course, there are many women who look to continue the fight from their position of power, whilst others often step on the backs of women below them to further their own career. Margaret Thatcher is a wonderful example of a woman icon famous for her achievements as a female, but not for women, notorious for her rejection of feminist ideals.
to be a woman in power, feminism is not a requirement
Female unity doesn’t stem from constant ‘Girl Power’ preaching at all women. It’s easy for women, as it is for men, to identify and empathize with their own gender, and that’s understandable. It’s almost the easy path on the long road to equality, yet it hardly does anything to combat it.
Additionally, the Spice Girls dropping their ‘Girl Power’ brand, opting for the more ‘egalitarian’ ‘People Power’ trademark is nothing more but another harmful stigmatisation of the nature and promise of feminism.
I’m going to be honest here, 3 years ago I would have agreed. “If we’re fighting for equal rights then why is the name tied to one specific gender, right?” Wrong. The idea of dropping the name ‘feminism’ is yet another example of the exertion of privilege often witnessed (and ignored) in mostly western, white and financially comfortable spheres. Sure, ‘egalitarianism’ offers the linguistic freedom to include men within the movement, and such an inclusion is necessary for a universal abolition of gender inequality. Men undergo unhealthy amounts of stigmatisation regarding the importance of ‘masculinity’ in the creation of a male identity. The term ‘egalitarianism’ yet again prevents men from accepting feminine ideals as part of their own, further perpetuating the toxic masculinity that flows through our society. After all, have women not accepted using masculinity as a method of gaining power?
have women not accepted using masculinity as a method of gaining power?
Furthermore, the notion of ‘egalitarianism’ allows us to forget the powerful women who fought so hard for women’s basic rights, such as that of voting, and those who fought against the stigmatised perceptions of societal gender roles, as done by the Red Stocking Movement in Denmark. We are also assuming that the foundations of inequality have ceased to exist. This is a harmful claim to make. We still need to draw our attention to the plight of women in countries that systematically block the woman from her potential at thriving in a leading role in society, and the women within our own society, especially carers and single mothers, who are consistently facing hardships due to government austerity cuts. Austerity cuts, which are coincidentally headed by the ‘feminist icon’ Theresa May, worsening many gender-related issues such as that of period poverty.
May is a woman in power whose ‘feminism’ holds a lot of controversy, and her recent funding cuts are affecting women across the country. Of course, it’s difficult to completely bash her for such cuts during a time of political instability, but surely a woman who wears a ‘This is What a Feminist Looks Like’ t-shirt wouldn’t advocate against abortion rights?
