Sexist stereotypes fuelling Meghan ‘farce’
The latest fracas out of Buckingham Palace has been labelled a ‘‘farce’’, but the only thing farcical about Meghan and Harry’s move is the reaction it’s received. The intense and hardly justifiable scrutiny of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, has exposed a public and media which are riled at the thought of a woman being able to change, or do, anything.
It is undeniable that the commentary which questions Meghan’s motives and character is rooted in sexism.
The same journalists and commentators who criticised Meghan for making moves towards financial independence have praised other royals – including Kate – for doing the same thing.
Meghan faces an insurmountable challenge, as she and Harry look to set their own path.
Whatever she chooses to do will face a public backlash.
As a woman whose life is set firmly in the public sphere, she cannot win.
She, like other leading women including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, are ridiculed and undermined for taking steps which men would be praised for.
In the case of Meghan, the tabloid press, and much of the dysfunctional establishment she has married into, make her out to be a gold digger.
Let’s remember, she was worth millions before marrying Prince Harry.
A heavily reported, and hard-to-place quote from a ‘‘royal insider’’ said Harry and Meghan had ‘‘got everything they asked for’’, including resources and their wedding. ‘‘What more could they want,’’ asked the insider, continuing the welltrodden narrative of Meghan as a moneyhungry diva.
That story continued to play out this week, with the tabloids doing everything they could to feed the stereotype.
After the marriage of William and Kate Middleton, the Daily Mail reported Kensington Palace officials were taking a ‘‘sensible’’ step in ‘‘protecting the couple’s rights’’ by trademarking their brand.
When Harry and Meghan did the same thing, this is how the Mail responded last
Women can’t be trusted to lead if they don’t have children, but woe betide if they do have.
week: ‘‘The Sussexes want to stamp their name on dozens of products including T-shirts, hoodies, journals and gloves.’’
The couple’s critics will say men face just as much heat, but this is simply not true. Meghan’s absence from the palace meeting this week and the incessant focus on her family and motives have singled her out.
There are calls, now, for her and Harry to be stripped of their royal titles.
Let’s not forget, Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, retains his title, despite being forced to relinquish his royal duties. Why should Meghan and Harry lose their titles, when a prince can be accused of having sex with a coerced teenager?
Can someone please talk to the Queen about double standards?
Her son was friends with an accused sex trafficker, but she seems more frustrated with her grand-daughter-in-law who wants to stop bludging off the taxpayer.
The unfair and disproportionate outrage focused on Meghan should not surprise us. All women with any sort of public profile who dare to push the boat will face similar challenges.
Jacinda Ardern made history as the youngest woman to become a head of government when she was elected prime minister at age 37.
Even that was too radical for some. Mark Richardson asked Ardern if she would have a baby while in office, adding that he wanted to know if she had ‘‘our best interests at heart’’.
But the last woman to lead the country, Helen Clark, faced wildly inappropriate criticism and digs about not having any children.
What will please the critics? Women can’t be trusted to lead if they don’t have children, but woe betide if they do have.
They cannot win.
We’ll pat ourselves on the back for putting women in positions of power, but then make them meet unreachable expectations and work twice as hard while in office.
Ardern has been called a ‘‘part-time prime minister’’. Angry men, frustrated with her inclusion in magazines and books, say ‘‘people want a prime minister, not a fashion model’’.
To my knowledge, Ardern has never worked as a model – unlike former prime minister John Key, who took to the catwalk while in office.
Like Key, she has appeared on talk shows and made lighthearted appearances in the foreign press.
Key used to be praised for bolstering New Zealand’s image, so why is Ardern being called a ‘‘model’’ and made to seem ditsy rather than strategic?
Don’t get me wrong, there are valid reasons to criticise how Ardern uses her time.
Likewise, the bold move of Harry and Meghan raises legitimate points of concern for monarchists.
But if you’re going to criticise their actions, don’t rely on sexist stereotypes and coded insults to prove your point.