Emma Watson gave a speech to the UN, beseeching men to get involved in the fight for gender equality, but despite a good effort to present equality as the case I’m afraid it ended up ringing false. While claiming it to be about equality and while claiming this included men, much of the speech, its setting, its context and the content of the HeForShe campaign make it clear it’s not about equality, but about feminism – and yes, these are two different things.

If the aim is to reach men and to fight for genuine gender equality then the contradictory messages on the campaign website need to be removed and the whole campaign needs a different name. HeForShe brings men on board to fight for women, but within its name says nothing of the inequalities men face and the campaign site says very little – if anything – about that either. It’s ironic that, perhaps, the Scottish Independence No campaign’s tagline ‘Better Together’ might have made a much better slogan for this campaign.

If we want to truly address gender inequality we do need everyone involved Miss Watson, yes, but we also need to address everything involved – including men’s issues such as, but not limited to, educational performance, medical spending, male genital mutilation and the erosion of male oriented work (and the identity that goes with it).

I already am an advocate for change Miss Watson, but as an egalitarian. I have chosen to align myself with moderate Men’s Human Rights and issues because they are overlooked, consistently in favour of women, but I am an egalitarian. You have a lot of work to do to convince me this campaign is any different and to elicit my support in any meaningful way.

Miss Watson, you say:

“I was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for U.N. Women six months ago and the more I’ve spoken about feminism, the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.”

Yes, it does. I know for a fact that for speaking out on men’s issues makes me a target of hate, accusations of misogyny and so on. For being an advocate of free expression, for being sex-positive, for challenging bad research and so forth I have been called various insulting things by self-proclaimed feminists up to and including spurious accusations of rape. If you want feminism to no longer be synonymous with man-hating you need to stop feminists hating men. It’s not like this is a fringe problem either, the hatred is palpable on popular websites and in newspaper columns. Lately it has been especially apparent in #gamergate with men bearing the brunt of insults for even trying to defend something they love, but it’s not just relatively ‘petty’ things like that.

You claim:

“For the record, feminism, by definition, is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes. I started questioning gender-based assumptions a long time ago.”

But you also say:

“They may not know it, but they are the inadvertent feminists who are changing the world today. We need more of those and if you still hate the word, it is not the word that is important. It’s the idea and the ambition behind it. Because not all women have received the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been.”

Miss Watson, the idea and ambition behind the term has become one of misandrist hate. It has become a revolt against a patriarchy that doesn’t exist. It has become a culture of mocking, hatred and dismissal of men’s issues.

Words are important, but they’re important for the meaning they convey. You refer to the dictionary definition of feminism, but that is not reflected in the actions – the ideas and ambition – of modern feminism, which has become a censorious and socially violent movement that threatens basic civil liberties. Bring any of that up and it’s just ‘male tears’ and ‘what about the menz?!?’ but really, yes, what ABOUT the men?

You talk a good game, Miss Watson, when you bring up the issues that men have expressing their feelings, but there’s also an implicit judgement in that, that traditional male qualities, such as stoicism, are necessarily inferior and pathological and to be discouraged, rather than seeing that they too, can have value.

It doesn’t help your cause that when you speak on it, you perpetuate certain known falsehoods:

“I am from Britain and I think it is right that I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body, I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and the decisions that affect my life. I think it is right that socially, I am afforded the same respect as men. But sadly, I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to receive these rights. No country in the world can yet say that they have achieved gender equality.”

The European Union, Scandinavia, Australia, the USA, Canada, New Zealand. You’re right, there is no one country where all women can expect to receive these rights, there are many. There are still some bumps, for both genders, but by and large we have all these things you mention in the west. Indeed taken as a whole it’s arguable that women have more rights than men – especially in reproductive rights – and are becoming a privileged class.

“Men, I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue too. Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence, as a child, as much as my mother’s. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help, for fear it would make them less of a men—or less of a man. In fact, in the U.K., suicide is the biggest killer of men, between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either.”

And I’m afraid, Miss Watson, that despite your speech and despite these words within it, your campaign still doesn’t seem to address these issues. Thank you for bringing them up and I hope it does raise the profile of these issues, but your speech stands out in the campaign as being the only apparent mention of these problems and, again, even within this is the implicit assumption that ‘male’ traits are somehow inferior and without value.

“If you believe in equality, you might be one of those inadvertent feminists that I spoke of earlier and for this, I applaud you. We are struggling for a uniting word but the good news is that we have a uniting movement. It is called HeForShe. I am inviting you to step forward to be seen and to ask yourself, ‘If not me, who? If not now, when?’ Thank you very, very much.”

I believe, passionately, in equality Miss Watson. That devotion to equality and fairness is the very reason I am absolutely and unequivocally not a feminist. The uniting term that you are looking for is ‘egalitarian humanism’ or, if you prefer, simple ‘equality’, which you have already used. #HeForShe isn’t it, because implicit in that title is the idea that men necessarily hold the power and that they do not need help, despite your speech.

So I’m afraid, I’ll be declining your invitation. I suspect you mean the best and I think you’re sincere when you talk about the problems men face, but this campaign isn’t the one to change that and shift to true egalitarian campaigning.

Sincerely,

TDA