The Critique Of Maria De Zayas And Emma Watson's Comparison

In their respective day, both Maria de Zayas and Emma Watson have been heralded as strong advocates for the promotion of gender equality. Seeing the rampant inequities present in 17th century Spain, the fiction of de Zayas sought to bring about greater justice for women. Similarly, Emma Watson has emerged in contemporary society as a champion of women’s rights and a proud self-proclaimed feminist. From de Zaya’ short story “Ravages of Vice” and Watson’s speech at the 2014 HeForShe Campaign, messages related to feminism, gender equality, and gender justice are presented in a manner that makes their audience re-conceptualize their preconceived notions about the role each gender plays in society. While de Zayas berates men for their treatment

De Zayas essentially calls out men for treating women poorly and speaking ill of them, stating that these actions represent man’s lack of courage, nobility, and chivalrous honor. Unlike in Watson’s speech then, the text presents a form of feminism that explicitly vilifies men, declaring men enemies of women who intentionally deceive women and keep them oppressed. To combat this, De Zayas calls on women to rise up and vanquish their oppressors. It should be noted though that de Zayas, like Watson, does acknowledge to some extent that both genders have a role to play in promoting gender equality, as a character in her text states, “I beg the ladies to mend their forward ways if they wish to be respected by men, and I beg the gentlemen to act like gentlemen by honoring women as is proper for them.” The utility from de Zayas’ argument results partially in how she emasculates men for how they treat women. By showing that degrading women does not actually showcase the superiority of man but results in a loss of manhood, de Zayas effectively points out the folly in the Spanish gender hierarchy. Furthermore, her strong call to action for women presents a resounding battle cry with significant momentum for a push for greater

For Watson, her invitation she sends out to men to lend their hand to the feminist movement might be seen as a desperate call for assistance. Perceived in such a manner, Watson’s vision could be interpreted as a lack of power for the feminist movement, showcasing how women continue to remain dependent on men to advance their own causes. While most feminist circles would not interpret her message in this manner, misogynist male groups would be prone to adopt this belief and refuse to offer assistance for the cause. The vision of de Zayas is also faced with limitations in its application. 17th century Spain was completely dominated by men, and so it would likely be an ineffective strategy to berate men in the hopes of bringing about change. While she does show how a lack of care for women is a strike against their manhood, unlike Watson, de Zayas does not present a specific solid grounding for how reaching out to assist women will benefit men in the long run. Hence, both authors present a vision that can be seen as taking a new approach to the feminist movement and attaining gender equality. While these tactics present opportunity for continued gains, they are beset by several limitations that reduce their overall long term effectiveness in the context in which they were