Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[loonytick]

Originally Posted by cepe

Equality rights in the Uk are enshrined in law. Have been for many years. The legislation is in place.

So she doesn't need to change anything about the law, only attitude. And that is with businesses, universities, political establishments, the press and the public.

So much of what constitutional royals do really falls into the category of highlighting the work done to help people take advantage of the rights and protections allowed to them under the law. Surely doing exactly that with a focus on women, even while using the label "feminist" is not really all that groundbreaking. I mean, some fuddy-duddy busybodies will always tut-tut, but there's not much that any royal woman can do about that shy of lock herself up in a room and polish tiaras all day.

[Rudolph]

We’ve seen so many times the ‘sisterhood’ only supports women with the ‘correct’ views of world. Deviate from from the hymn sheet and you’re out of luck

Of course feminism is political and I see nothing to be gained for Meghan to campaign as a feminist while she’s a royal.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by cepe

Equality rights in the Uk are enshrined in law. Have been for many years. The legislation is in place.



So she doesn't need to change anything about the law, only attitude. And that is with businesses, universities, political establishments, the press and the public.



Minefield - requires softly softly approach. Show by example.



And she definitely cannot condemn anything that happens in other countries directly. Again its soft, diplomatic approach.



She is more than capable of doing it - she just needs to understand what is required/how it is to be handled by the British Government. And stick with it.

Well put, Cepe.

I for one hope she continues to vocally identify herself as a feminist, and that Harry (and perhaps even other members of the BRF) follow suit. There is a conception of feminists as being “rabid”, “militant”, “man hating”, etc, and I think the best way to counter that is by people like Meghan (and Emma Watson, Justin Trudeau, etc) to vocally identify themselves as feminists. Doing so is a great way to help change people’s perception of what a feminist is - it’s easy to associate the word with negative connotations when no one wants to call themselves such, or when the only people who call themselves feminists are ones who are publicly disdained.

I also think that she can be involved with feminist issues that aren’t political. She can’t campaign for equal rights (be they in the UK or elsewhere in the world) as that’s political. But getting on board with issues like domestic or sexual abuse, or girls’ access to schools in the third world, or even something like getting involved with Women in STEM or the WISE campaign are ways that Meghan can continue to be involved in feminist issues without necessarily being political.

[Rudolph]

The fact of the matter is millions of women tune out at the mention of the word feminism. They’re plenty of the them in my family.

If Meghan wants to support women’s rights, that’s great. The rights of all women though, not just the ones who ‘identify’ as feminists.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

It’s not so much as conflicting with others or duplication. Two major issues here. One was that most of the charit8ies she was involved with were outside of UK. Two was that some of it can be seen as political even if it’s not for one side or other. For example, her specific role with UN Women is to encourage women’s political participation specifically.

Why would it be a political (dividing) issue from a British perspective if she is encouraging half of the population worldwide to become politically active if they desire to do so and want to contribute to make a change for the better? Would it be less divisive if she would encourage men to be politically active (still lots of groups among men are also underrepresented?

I personally don't see how encouraging political participation in general would be 'too political' as I would hope all parties would support this point of view.

That's not to say that this is a topic that she will focus on in her new role as this moght not be the most pressing issue in Britain compared to many other countries in the world but I hope and expect the two of them to keep an eye out for issues that are relevant within other realms of the Commonwealth as well - at least over time. For the first few years, the focus is most likely on getting to know and playing a role in the UK.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

The fact of the matter is millions of women tune out at the mention of the word feminism. They’re plenty of the them in my family.

If Meghan wants to support women’s rights, that’s great. The rights of all women though, not just the ones who ‘identify’ as feminists.

EXACTLY.



LaRae

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Why would it be a political (dividing) issue from a British perspective if she is encouraging half of the population worldwide to become politically active if they desire to do so and want to contribute to make a change for the better? Would it be less divisive if she would encourage men to be politically active (still lots of groups among men are also underrepresented?

I personally don't see how encouraging political participation in general would be 'too political' as I would hope all parties would support this point of view.

That's not to say that this is a topic that she will focus on in her new role as this moght not be the most pressing issue in Britain compared to many other countries in the world but I hope and expect the two of them to keep an eye out for issues that are relevant within other realms of the Commonwealth as well - at least over time. For the first few years, the focus is most likely on getting to know and playing a role in the UK.

Political issue doesn't mean divisive. You and I might not see it as political because it's bipartisan, but nevertheless, that's entering uncomfortable territory for a lot of people in terms of royals getting involved. I do think they are aware of the other realms of commonwealth as she specifically mentioned that as part of something she can get involved with in the engagement interview.

Originally Posted by Rudolph

We’ve seen so many times the ‘sisterhood’ only supports women with the ‘correct’ views of world. Deviate from from the hymn sheet and you’re out of luck

Of course feminism is political and I see nothing to be gained for Meghan to campaign as a feminist while she’s a royal.

And there is no indication of her being that type of feminist. She's been a feminist long before she met Prince Harry. There is a long history of her talking about her views as a feminist and campaigning on those issues, there is no reason to believe her view and attitude about it will change at this point.

Originally Posted by Rudolph

The fact of the matter is millions of women tune out at the mention of the word feminism. They’re plenty of the them in my family.

Honestly, there will always be people tuning out at an issue for various reasons. If they choose to, then that's their choice. I don't see how that has an effect on her advocacy work. Some will listen, some won't.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Political issue doesn't mean divisive. You and I might not see it as political because it's bipartisan, but nevertheless, that's entering uncomfortable territory for a lot of people in terms of royals getting involved.

I don't think it should be the first issue that she should dive into but down the line maybe... With almost any issue (mental health isn't without controversy either - and could be considered quite political; at least in the States) some people might have issues. Raising awareness most of the times will be uncomfortable for some, so I wouldn't like the BRF to exclude an important topic like this completely just because of that, but it wouldn't be smart to make that her main issue when she is just joining the firm.

I do think they are aware of the other realms of commonwealth as she specifically mentioned that as part of something she can get involved with in the engagement interview.

Indeed, that's why I said I expected them to take the Commonwealth seriously as that was specifically mentioned in the engagement interview; and the most pressing women's issues in Britain might differ from women's issues in other Commonwealth realms. So, lots of opportunities for Meghan within only the 'women's issues' theme and I'm sure that won't be her only focus.

[Dani257]

People have a strange idea of feminism. If she takes up the cause of domestic violence, that's feminism. Including making sure male victims have support. Right now, she might solely focus on issues in the UK. But, if she eventually re-branches out into supporting girls having access to sanitary products so they can get an education, that is also feminism. And neither of those things is political. Or requires you to agree with certain views beyond what I hope is the non controversial view that human beings should be helped and supported.

No, she doesn't necessarily need to use the word feminist or identify herself as one. But, if she's supporting causes that people agree are good and necessary, are they suddenly going to view those causes differently if she dares to use the word feminist in conjunction with them?

It would be a crying shame if people let the loudest voices twist something like feminism into something bad. We don't know if Meghan will ever use the word feminist again (I'm in the camp that she should). But, if she's allowed to, and she does, how about we look at what causes she's involved in and decide what that word means to her and who she's decided to support and figure out how she defines the word. Instead of jumping to conclusions that if she uses the word, we know everything about how she feels. Remember, feminists aren't a monolith. Just because the loudest and the biggest attention getters feel a certain way, doesn't mean we all approach it that way.

And my initial reason for hoping she uses the word again is that I think it's beyond silly not to (it's not inherently political, so there's really no constraint against it). But, now, I hope she does so that certain issues become associated with feminism. If you look up Prince Harry and feminism, there's a lot of articles about a speech he gave about how men need to also speak up for women. No, I don't think he used the F word, but make no mistake, it was a feminist speech. So maybe if people use the word when talking about domestic violence or education for girls or postpartum depression or anything like that, people would see that feminism isn't a bad thing. Just in how you use the term.

[Alliec76]

Originally Posted by Dani257

People have a strange idea of feminism. If she takes up the cause of domestic violence, that's feminism. Including making sure male victims have support. Right now, she might solely focus on issues in the UK. But, if she eventually re-branches out into supporting girls having access to sanitary products so they can get an education, that is also feminism. And neither of those things is political. Or requires you to agree with certain views beyond what I hope is the non controversial view that human beings should be helped and supported.

No, she doesn't necessarily need to use the word feminist or identify herself as one. But, if she's supporting causes that people agree are good and necessary, are they suddenly going to view those causes differently if she dares to use the word feminist in conjunction with them?

It would be a crying shame if people let the loudest voices twist something like feminism into something bad. We don't know if Meghan will ever use the word feminist again (I'm in the camp that she should). But, if she's allowed to, and she does, how about we look at what causes she's involved in and decide what that word means to her and who she's decided to support and figure out how she defines the word. Instead of jumping to conclusions that if she uses the word, we know everything about how she feels. Remember, feminists aren't a monolith. Just because the loudest and the biggest attention getters feel a certain way, doesn't mean we all approach it that way.

And my initial reason for hoping she uses the word again is that I think it's beyond silly not to (it's not inherently political, so there's really no constraint against it). But, now, I hope she does so that certain issues become associated with feminism. If you look up Prince Harry and feminism, there's a lot of articles about a speech he gave about how men need to also speak up for women. No, I don't think he used the F word, but make no mistake, it was a feminist speech. So maybe if people use the word when talking about domestic violence or education for girls or postpartum depression or anything like that, people would see that feminism isn't a bad thing. Just in how you use the term.

All good points. Look Meghan has already said she's a feminist, repeatedly. And through her work and actions we've seen how she views feminism. She seems view it as very inclusive. I too hope she's not scared off from using the word in the future, but if for some reason she doesn't, I think it will be ok, because we already know. Unless she's about to come out and denounce everything she's ever said or did pre-Harry, her views are out there.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

The fact of the matter is millions of women tune out at the mention of the word feminism. They’re plenty of the them in my family.

If Meghan wants to support women’s rights, that’s great. The rights of all women though, not just the ones who ‘identify’ as feminists.

I admit I'm one of them, I'm not a feminist I consider myself a humanist. Meghan should steer clear of the political mindfield that is that term.

[Dani257]

It's not political.

But, on to other things, there's a tweet from Kensington Palace https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/...93736407814144

It says she and Harry are visiting @ReprezentRadio to see them working in creative training in radio for young people. She could get involved in causes that have to do with young people having access to the arts. Which could be a good thing (at least a personal thing) with her acting background.

[loonytick]

If she wanted to take up a cause that dovetails with Harry's work with veterans, she could get involved with groups that assist the spouses and families of deployed or returning soldiers. Goodness knows there are a lot of challenges for folks in that situation.

[Lady Gudgeon]

Originally Posted by Dani257

People have a strange idea of feminism. If she takes up the cause of domestic violence, that's feminism. Including making sure male victims have support. Right now, she might solely focus on issues in the UK. But, if she eventually re-branches out into supporting girls having access to sanitary products so they can get an education, that is also feminism. And neither of those things is political. Or requires you to agree with certain views beyond what I hope is the non controversial view that human beings should be helped and supported.

No, she doesn't necessarily need to use the word feminist or identify herself as one. But, if she's supporting causes that people agree are good and necessary, are they suddenly going to view those causes differently if she dares to use the word feminist in conjunction with them?

It would be a crying shame if people let the loudest voices twist something like feminism into something bad. We don't know if Meghan will ever use the word feminist again (I'm in the camp that she should). But, if she's allowed to, and she does, how about we look at what causes she's involved in and decide what that word means to her and who she's decided to support and figure out how she defines the word. Instead of jumping to conclusions that if she uses the word, we know everything about how she feels. Remember, feminists aren't a monolith. Just because the loudest and the biggest attention getters feel a certain way, doesn't mean we all approach it that way.

And my initial reason for hoping she uses the word again is that I think it's beyond silly not to (it's not inherently political, so there's really no constraint against it). But, now, I hope she does so that certain issues become associated with feminism. If you look up Prince Harry and feminism, there's a lot of articles about a speech he gave about how men need to also speak up for women. No, I don't think he used the F word, but make no mistake, it was a feminist speech. So maybe if people use the word when talking about domestic violence or education for girls or postpartum depression or anything like that, people would see that feminism isn't a bad thing. Just in how you use the term.

+ a million, Dani.

[Osipi]

I'm going to go off the grid here and not jump on the feminist bandwagon. One thing the monarchy does that makes it so unique is that it represents all the people. Not male people. Not female people. Not white people. Not black people or red, yellow and caramel people. Not old people or tall, short, fat and skinny people. All people.

Shouldn't this be the goal for everyone? Erase the divisions that separate groups of people. With Camilla supporting the cause of domestic violence, it could also include domestic violence against males. Bullying and addiction affects all people. Empowerment of females could be a part of empowering all youths.

I hope she does stick to causes that draws all people in to make a difference rather than see a focus on one segment of humanity. Sometimes, I feel that a focus on one segment of society tends to seem to denigrate another. An example of that would be the feminist movement we saw starting in the 60s and 70s with coining the popular term at the time "male chauvinist pig".

Just another way of looking at things.

[Somebody]

Harry focusing on military and veterans is clearly a very specific subdivision of society. I am afraid that it would be hard to focus on causes that draw in all people. However, I agree that it is important that the royal family (and especially the monarch) isn't focused on only one group within society at the cost of other groups. That's probably why children are an easy focus as most people (but still not everyone!) in society will have some relationship to children. Focusing on the elderly could be a topic that could use some attention as well and unite people of all walks of life (and it would be refreshing if that came from the younger generation - so far, I mainly associate the duchess of Gloucester with elderly-related topics).

[Dani257]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Harry focusing on military and veterans is clearly a very specific subdivision of society. I am afraid that it would be hard to focus on causes that draws in all people. However, I agree that it is important that the royal family (and especially the monarch) isn't focused on only one group within society at the cost of other groups. That's probably why children are an easy focus as most people (but still not everyone!) in society will have some relationship to children. Focusing on the elderly could be a topic that could use some attention as well and unite people of all walks of life (and it would be refreshing if that came from the younger generation - so far, I mainly associate the duchess of Gloucester with elder-related topics).

I was just in the middle of writing a post similar to this. But, lets say she does want to shine a light on postpartum depression. It's unique to women, but its not at the cost of others. And that's not saying if she champions that cause that she's not going to also support a charity fighting a disease that affects men and women.

I don't even know if postpartum disease is something she's even thought of. It's just the only thing aside from sanitary products that will fit this example.

But, it just seems to me if their job is to do good and support charities and causes, there's a lot of cosmetic restrictions on them (and are these actual restrictions are just what the posters feel they should be involved in?) that are stopping them from doing the job to their fullest potential.

[Osipi]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting causes that affect the well being of mother and child. Nor is it detrimental to focus on, lets say, spouses of active and veteran military personnel. Teenage well being and empowerment and physical and mental hygiene also is a good focus.

Just need to stay away from labels. Such as "feminist". Using labels to define oneself shows you're putting yourself into a specific group that alienates others. We see this no matter where we go. Everyone describes themselves as something. I most definitely would not see Meghan coming out and specifically stating that she's sponsoring "Girl Power". Addressing teenage pregnancy and education yes. Girl Power, no.

[Abbigail]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

We’ve seen so many times the ‘sisterhood’ only supports women with the ‘correct’ views of world. Deviate from from the hymn sheet and you’re out of luck

Of course feminism is political and I see nothing to be gained for Meghan to campaign as a feminist while she’s a royal.

Feminism is not inherently political and anyone who believes in such things as "correct views" is not really a feminist (although I think that's more a stereotype of feminism than anything else).

I really don't care if Meghan ever says the word "feminist" again. It would be nice if she did but I think it's more important that she be allowed to express herself through her work. If she desires and is given the opportunity to work on issues and with charities that center women and their wants/needs, then that's really all that matters.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

:applaudsforOsipi:
That's exactly how I feel. I don't know if there is anyone in the BRF that champions causes that aren't for the betterment of society as a whole or that have a history of denigrating another part of the population.
Post partumdepression could be Meghan's in with WKH's mental health crusade.