Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[FashionMaven]

I’m glad Meghan made that comment. As a woman I already have a voice. I don’t need to find it and I’d wager no other women do either. It’s infantilizing to say we women need to find our voices. No. We have a voice. What we need is the surety that we won’t be penalized or marginalized for using it.

Meghan was spot on.

It was also important to say because it shifts the focus from something women have to do (“find their voice”) to what society needs to do in response when we women use our voices (“listen empathetically and take action”).

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by FashionMaven

I’m glad Meghan made that comment. As a woman I already have a voice. I don’t need to find it and I’d wager no other women do either. It’s infantilizing to say we women need to find our voices. No. We have a voice. What we need is the surety that we won’t be penalized or marginalized for using it.

Meghan was spot on.

It was also important to say because it shifts the focus from something women have to do (“find their voice”) to what society needs to do in response when we women use our voices (“listen empathetically and take action”).

I agree. As a young girl, I've always had strong opinions and wasn't afraid to voice it. I can't tell you how many times I've been told by various people, while I was growing up, that I had too many opinions or that I was too loud. And I've in the past tried to pull back some because multiple people have said that to me even though they can't tell me what is wrong with what I said. Society does treat women and men differently for saying or doing the same thing. Working in the financial industry, I've had the fortunate opportunities to sit down with some women and have a conversation about this. One of the women, whom I look up to a great deal, have been called pushy by others multiple times behind her back for simply going for what she wants. She's not aware of this, but I've actually been in conversations where this is talked about. Yet I don't hear the same comments about men. But seeing how she's apologetic about being who she is and is a successful businesswoman gives someone like me great hope for my future.

So with all the discussion about giving women a voice, I'm glad someone with Meghan's platform is talking about how we have a voice, now let's encourage it and nurture it and come together to listen and do something about it.

[Somebody]

It will be interesting to see how Meghan's interests will be incorporated but so far she hasn't shown that she is connecting her interests with other topics the foundation covers. The three royal patrons all talked about mental health and relste st least part of their work to this umbrella. It wouldn't have been that hard for Meghan to link her interest in advancing the issues of girls and women to this theme as well not to be restricted to only that but to show her interest and willingness to join the main work of the foundation next to expanding it to her own interest.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

It will be interesting to see how Meghan's interests will be incorporated but so far she hasn't shown that she is connecting her interests with other topics the foundation covers. The three royal patrons all talked about mental health and relste st least part of their work to this umbrella. It wouldn't have been that hard for Meghan to link her interest in advancing the issues of girls and women to this theme as well not to be restricted to only that but to show her interest and willingness to join the main work of the foundation next to expanding it to her own interest.

They've added interest over the years to it. I believe conservation is also an issue for the Foundation. It just happens that mental health was a subject that's not addressed publicly often and was seen by some as something royals shouldn't do because some prefer their royals distant and stoic.

[Ronnsha]

Originally Posted by Somebody

It will be interesting to see how Meghan's interests will be incorporated but so far she hasn't shown that she is connecting her interests with other topics the foundation covers. The three royal patrons all talked about mental health and relste st least part of their work to this umbrella. It wouldn't have been that hard for Meghan to link her interest in advancing the issues of girls and women to this theme as well not to be restricted to only that but to show her interest and willingness to join the main work of the foundation next to expanding it to her own interest.

I believe Meghan will be allowed to champion her own causes. The foundation expanded when Kate joined, so I don't see why it can't do the same with Meghan. Her causes are so important and timely. Harry seems extremely supportive of her eagerness to work.

[Somebody]

Of course it will be expanded as it should be! And it is clear that women rights and Commonwealth are her areas of interest. My only concern was that she didn't even attempt to link her interests to any work of the foundation so far - while she said to be impressed by the campaign, she is not impressed enough to contribute apparently.

I am aware that the foundation covers many topics and not all (but many) are related to mental health but all patrons do something in that area as they noticed that was a common underlying issue. So, it would have been nice had she mentioned some connection to the focus areas of the foundation so far.

An overview of the topics mentioned by the four of them:
William: United for Wildlife, male mental health (specifically suicide prevention among young men), work-related mental health and cyberbullying
Catherine: early intervention regarding mental health (for children and related to parenting)
Meghan: empowerment of women in the Commonwealth
Harry: youth violence, sports-related mental health (regarding bad coaching experiences), sustainable tourism

And William talked about expanding the role of the foundation on the global level.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Of course it will be expanded as it should be! And it is clear that women rights and Commonwealth are her areas of interest. My only concern was that she didn't even attempt to link her interests to any work of the foundation so far - while she said to be impressed by the campaign, she is not impressed enough to contribute apparently.

I am aware that the foundation covers many topics and not all (but many) are related to mental health but all patrons do something in that area as they noticed that was a common underlying issue. So, it would have been nice had she mentioned some connection to the focus areas of the foundation so far.

I absolutely disagree that Meghan hasn't shown an interest in mental health or contribute. Meghan in the past has written extensively about her own struggles as a young girl and woman with knowing her worth and feeling that she's enough. And she's always encouraged women to know that they are enough just as they are. So is that topic female empowerment? Yes. Is that topic mental health related in that it addresses issues such as low self-esteem? Absolutely. Part of female empowerment is changing a mindset, which was also talked about yesterday in relation to the mental health issue they've taken on.

It just happens that her work in Rwanda and India and with UN is much more extensive and requires official affiliation with these organizations to do rather than something she can write about and publish on her own. And of course, we don't really think about things people do on their own as charitable work as much as the work they do with charitable organizations. However, to say she hasn't address issues related to mental health or shown any interest in it is inaccurate. Another example is her work with Dove's Self-Esteem Project. Just because she doesn't use the words mental health, doesn't mean she didn't address mental health related issues.

Again, there are other issues they work on as well. It just happens that this is a very new area to address publicly whereas there are other established charities and organizations for conservation.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Of course it will be expanded as it should be! And it is clear that women rights and Commonwealth are her areas of interest. My only concern was that she didn't even attempt to link her interests to any work of the foundation so far - while she said to be impressed by the campaign, she is not impressed enough to contribute apparently.

I am aware that the foundation covers many topics and not all (but many) are related to mental health but all patrons do something in that area as they noticed that was a common underlying issue. So, it would have been nice had she mentioned some connection to the focus areas of the foundation so far.

I don't see how one can even know because she made it pretty clear she couldn't get into it. She focused on a broad subject which we know just by her history is important to her. She praised the overall foundation but they all kind of stuck to their assigned topics of sorts. Once she is officially able to talk we can fully understand what she is or isn't doing.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I absolutely disagree that Meghan hasn't shown an interest in mental health or contribute. Meghan in the past has written extensively about her own struggles as a young girl and woman with knowing her worth and feeling that she's enough. And she's always encouraged women to know that they are enough just as they are. So is that topic female empowerment? Yes. Is that topic mental health related in that it addresses issues such as low self-esteem? Absolutely. Part of female empowerment is changing a mindset, which was also talked about yesterday in relation to the mental health issue they've taken on.

It just happens that her work in Rwanda and India and with UN is much more extensive and requires official affiliation with these organizations to do rather than something she can write about and publish on her own. And of course, we don't really think about things people do on their own as charitable work as much as the work they do with charitable organizations. However, to say she hasn't address issues related to mental health or shown any interest in it is inaccurate. Another example is her work with Dove's Self-Esteem Project. Just because she doesn't use the words mental health, doesn't mean she didn't address mental health related issues.

Again, there are other issues they work on as well. It just happens that this is a very new area to address publicly whereas there are other established charities and organizations for conservation.

Please cite what she said yesterday at the forum in which she explicitly made this link of her interests to mental health or other focus areas of the foundation as that was what we were talking about. I clearly see the links, so again my issue was that she didn't make that link explicit yesterday while it would have been very easy for her to do so.

Of course she is still exploring but she didn't shy away from making a statement telling people that she fundamentally disagrees with a specific expression, so had she been so inclined I am sure she could have found a way to make that connection but she didn't. Instead she presented herself as someone within who looks forward to using the vehicle of the royal foundation to further her own interests.

[Ronnsha]

Meghan comes into this marriage with a proven track record of knowledge of certain subjects. Harry will surely allow her to continue her important work. It will not only benefit those who are in need of help, it will also bolster the strength of the foundation.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Please cite what she said yesterday at the forum in which she explicitly made this link of her interests to mental health or other focus areas of the foundation as that was what we were talking about. I clearly see the links, so again my issue was that she didn't make that link explicit yesterday while it would have been very easy for her to do so.

Of course she is still exploring but she didn't shy away from making a statement telling people that she fundamentally disagrees with a specific expression, so had she been so inclined I am sure she could have found a way to make that connection but she didn't. Instead she presented herself as someone within who looks forward to using the vehicle of the royal foundation to further her own interests.

Actually, what she said was that she couldn't get into specifics of what she will take on. She answered a question about her interest in women's rights and her past work. She talked about the issue in what, three or four sentence at best? She made a very good point, but I highly doubt anyone can thoroughly address the entire issue in three or four sentences. You can only give an overview to the core of the issue, which she did. Now if she had to go on and list all the possible angle she can go about answering this issue, then perhaps she would need all 30 some minutes of it to herself in order to do so. She was asked about the global perspective about the Heads Together campaign specifically in a separate question, which she did offer. The other three took most of the question about working on the Heads Together campaign, and Meghan largely stayed back because she didn't work on it. They did.

[Spheno]

One more opinion about Meghan
RACHEL JOHNSON: Royal Fab Four? I fear Meghan's a bit out of tune | Daily Mail Online

[Terri Terri]

Yes...another column by a white woman who thinks that the black girl from America should have kept her mouth shut and just let the white folk speak!

Amazing! It is mostly women who are the hardest on other women! Sometimes women are their own worst enemy!

Meghan is too self-assured, self-confident, intelligent and too good a public speaker for a black woman and some people can't help but pull her down!

[ACO]

"If you look at the Royal Foundation, it divvies things up, so Harry is Armed Forces, Kate is young people and mental health, and William is across conservation. Meghan – mark my words – will be banging the drum for wimmin. We will have our first feminist-activist princess."

So triggered. It is amazing. Women hating on women. Sad state.

[Pranter]

I don't recall that reaction from Harry...I mean come on, Harry knows exactly what he has...they are all aware by this point of her views on probably a wide range of issues.

Folks just aren't used to hearing members of the BRF speak so openly about it...Charles has 'slipped up' over the years and done it and folks lose their mind for a bit then move on.

Pretty evident to me the BRF is making some changes. Even if they take a long time to implement.


LaRae

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by ACO

"If you look at the Royal Foundation, it divvies things up, so Harry is Armed Forces, Kate is young people and mental health, and William is across conservation. Meghan – mark my words – will be banging the drum for wimmin. We will have our first feminist-activist princess."

So triggered. It is amazing. Women hating on women. Sad state.

I think the article is silly over all ...however I don't think you can dismiss the fact that there are a lot of women out there who are very turned off by some of the women in the feminists movement. The ones that are not very pro-women themselves (unless you agree with their version of feminism).

I haven't seen any indication Meghan falls into that category...my guess is the author of the article is lumping Meghan in with the radical feminists.


LaRae

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by Terri Terri

Yes...another column by a white woman who thinks that the black girl from America should have kept her mouth shut and just let the white folk speak!

Amazing! It is mostly women who are the hardest on other women! Sometimes women are their own worst enemy!

Meghan is too self-assured, self-confident, intelligent and too good a public speaker for a black woman and some people can't help but pull her down!

Sorry but I think she brings up at least one good point and that is that Meghan shouldn't get too political especially about a flashpoint topic like feminism and womens rights which some on the far left have obscured with man hating.

Originally Posted by Pranter

I think the article is silly over all ...however I don't think you can dismiss the fact that there are a lot of women out there who are very turned off by some of the women in the feminists movement. The ones that are not very pro-women themselves (unless you agree with their version of feminism).

I haven't seen any indication Meghan falls into that category...my guess is the author of the article is lumping Meghan in with the radical feminists.


LaRae

There were hints that the author viewed Meghan in that way and I can't say I blame her because sometimes I get that vibe from her as well but I admit I might be wrong.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Pranter

I think the article is silly over all ...however I don't think you can dismiss the fact that there are a lot of women out there who are very turned off by some of the women in the feminists movement. The ones that are not very pro-women themselves (unless you agree with their version of feminism).

I haven't seen any indication Meghan falls into that category...my guess is the author of the article is lumping Meghan in with the radical feminists.


LaRae

Well this authors seems to be one of them. She is extremely condescending in her statement. "Wimmins" -- Girl, please. I don't care what people call themselves. You want to be a feminist? Fine. You don't? Great. That is your business but all this extra nonsense is just that. Nothing Meghan has said or done deserves her words which basically implies she needs to go in a corner somewhere and just smile. How women wish that upon other women is beyond me. And it is even more ridiculous coming from female writers who once upon a time had to fight for their own respect. Which is why I have none for them.

[soapstar]

Originally Posted by Terri Terri

Yes...another column by a white woman who thinks that the black girl from America should have kept her mouth shut and just let the white folk speak!

Amazing! It is mostly women who are the hardest on other women! Sometimes women are their own worst enemy!

Meghan is too self-assured, self-confident, intelligent and too good a public speaker for a black woman and some people can't help but pull her down!

I don't get this from the article at all. She applauded Meghan for speaking out about women's issues, but then says Meghan has to be careful because many prefer the royals wives to be silent and not get involved in political causes. And this part of the article sounds like a slam at Meghan's critics.

In theory, the Royal Wives don’t do politics: they accept posies from little girls, they produce heirs and spares, they don’t go around using their romantic entrees into the Firm as a platform to lobby for lasting and much needed change in the patriarchal power structures of society – in a country they haven’t even lived in for more than a few months.

It just isn’t done… or at least it hasn’t been done, yet

Sure the article was a little snarky, but I thought it had some interesting points and thought her hardest dig was at Kate (she calls her a Stepford wife).

[Terri Terri]

I respect your opinions but I stand by mine own impression of the article. This columist applauding Meghan and then turning around to pull her down is disingenuous.

She applauds her for speaking out on women's rights BUT........As Jon Snow says on GOT....everything before BUT is BS!!!!!!!

So Meghan talks too much and Kate is a stepford wife!!!! WOW! And all this from a woman!!!!!