A quick read of an edited TED Talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: We Should All Be Feminists (2012).
I'd say everything in here was your basic intro to feminism 101 (which is needed and still very much over the top for a good chunk of the global population... as she illustrates), save for a paragraph where she made the currently controversial claim that women are human females.
The big picture painted here is that everyone benefits from gender equality and everyone suffers from gender inequality. As such, we should all be feminists.. because equality is good. The avenue for enacting this change is to raise our children differently. This is, I find, a rather fluffy and optimistic take on things that I've long since become disillusioned with.
She also opens with a joking-but-serious account of how she grew to call herself not simply a feminist, but a "Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men And Who Likes To Wear Lip Gloss And High Heels For Herself And Not For Men" based on the unsolicited feedback she was getting from others while simultaneously pointing out how odd it is that women are so concerned with being well-liked. While in the end she describes why she calls herself a feminist, full stop, I think she stops short on the idea of women needing to be well-liked. Then again, TED Talks do have a time limit.
She describes the impact of a narrow view of masculinity on boys as one that gives them fragile egos since they are called out if they ever miss the mark. That impact carries over to girls who are then expected to go out of their way to cradle such fragile egos like raw eggs falling out of the sky. She says in the past, men were dominant because they were physically stronger and that was the most important factor but in the present things like intelligence, innovation, and creativity are the most important so things are allowed to change. She points out two prominent examples for which she was the most ready, willing, and able person for a task but was turned away specifically because she was female. I'd be interested to hear if she thinks women's freedoms and successes are contingent on the comforts of the modern developed world remaining in place. What does her take on dominance mean for less developed areas of the world? Should women there simply wait for their time to shine or should their strategy just be different? If so, what would those differences in strategy highlight about male dominance?
At one point, she says, “The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn’t have the weight of gender expectations.” However, not too long later she says, "I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my femininity. And I want to be respected in all my femaleness... I wear [pencil skirts, high heels, makeup, etc.] because I like them and because I feel good in them. The ‘male gaze’, as a shaper of my life’s choices, is largely incidental." To this, I'd be interested to hear why she is seemingly equating femininity (undefined but definition alluded to) with femaleness rather than as a product of a system she is setting out to criticize.
Ultimately, I'd say this essay has no teeth. But I also don't think it set out with that goal in mind. I'd be interested in hearing how her thoughts have evolved since this was published in 2012. Coincidentally, 2012 was the year I graduated high school. At that point in time, I think I would've agreed with most of what was said here.
